Castle Rock Investment Company

Independent Guide, Trusted Partner.

401K

Will Trump Repeal the Fiduciary Rule?

by

By Mack Bekeza

For those who work for Broker-Dealers and Registered Investment Advisers, no one is certain whether Donald Trump or the Republican Party will attempt to eliminate the Fiduciary Rule or keep it intact. But before we get ahead of ourselves it is important to ask one question, will Donald Trump or the Republican Party be able to dismantle the Fiduciary Rule before it becomes enforceable on April 10th, 2017?

Although we cannot answer this question in confidence just yet, repealing this legislation will be quite a task for a few reasons:

  1. With the Fiduciary Rule being effective since April 2016, the rule cannot just simply be thrown out by an executive order. It is also worthy to note that the legislation took 6 years to be written, so the likelihood of the DOL eliminating it is extremely slim.
  2. Broker-Dealers, Insurance Firms, and Investment Advisers have already spent significant resources in designing compliance friendly products and re-inventing their business platforms. So, if the rule were to be thrown out, the government could have dozens of lawsuits on their hands, especially from those who were for the rule.
  3. Despite the Republican Party holding the majority in Congress, they still do not have enough seats to overthrow a filibuster from the Senate. In addition, repealing legislation can take months or even years, during which the rule could have been enforceable for a notable amount of time.
  4. With Donald Trump already planning to tackle dozens of issues in his first 100 days, repealing the Fiduciary Rule is more than likely not his top priority. The rule will also become enforceable by the 80th day of his presidency.

Although it appears that the Fiduciary Rule is here to stay, we will keep you updated if there is anything that will threaten the rule.

©2016 Castle Rock Investment Company. All rights reserved. Please share your insights and comments with us at Mack@castlerockinvesting.com

Morgan Stanley Sticking With Commissions

by

By Mack Bekeza

Morgan Stanley recently announced how it plans to comply with the impending Fiduciary Rule. As expected, Morgan Stanley did not follow the Merrill Lynch path. Instead, it plans to operate under a provision of the rule called “Best-Interest-Contract Exemption (“BICE”)”. In other words, Morgan Stanley’s strategy is to tackle the compliance requirements and have its clients sign additional disclosures.

Morgan Stanley has decided to take the BICE route because it believes that its “advisers can most effectively uphold a fiduciary standard of care and work in clients’ bests interests by continuing to offer choice.” Morgan Stanley further stated, “Delivering a retirement account platform based on fiduciary principles that provides the widest possible capabilities and preserves client choice is our vote of confidence in our advisers’ continuing commitment to placing client interests first.”

Essentially, Morgan Stanley believes that offering clients the choice between having a commission-based or fee-based retirement account is in the client’s best interest. This also assumes that Morgan Stanley advisers will not sell or recommend certain alternative investments that might not optimally meet a client’s liquidity and retirement needs.

In our opinion, Morgan Stanley may have chosen its business model to differentiate itself from Merrill Lynch. Many advisers only sell commission-based products and want to work for a large broker dealer. The rule points out that paying commissions may be in a client’s best interest (versus asset-based fees) if they have few transactions. However, the firm might still come under fire if its clients believe they are being misled. At the end of the day, it’s about putting the clients first.

If you would like to read further into the decision, check out Investment News’s post about Morgan Stanley’s decision.

©2016 Castle Rock Investment Company. All rights reserved. Please share your insights and comments with us at Mack@Castlerockinvesting.com

Getting the Facts Straight about Qualified Plan Loans

by

By Mack Bekeza

Are you considering making a large purchase but don’t have the money to do so? Are you in need of emergency cash? Typically, they are many options for people in that situation such as a home loan, a home equity line of credit, personal loans, etc. But what if you do not want to deal with a bank or have a poor credit score? Fortunately, there are a few options, with the most notable being the Qualified Plan Loan. That’s right, you could be able to take a loan from your employer’s retirement plan. In fact, over 75% of Qualified Retirement Plans allow participants to take loans from their accounts.
 
So now to the big question…is it worth taking a loan from your retirement plan? In short, no. However, it is still important to weigh the options of taking such a loan. Below are the major pros and cons of taking loans from your employer’s retirement plan.

Pros:
1. Qualified Plan loans offer a low interest rate, which is usually the prime rate plus 1%

2. You are not borrowing from a bank; you are just borrowing from yourself. In other words, the interest that you pay will actually go into your retirement account balance. (However, please note that all loan payments going back into the plan are in after-tax dollars).

3. The loan process is typically very easy and you can get the needed cash in a timely manner. On top of that, payments are simply deducted from your paycheck.

4. Loan minimums can be as low as $500-1,000 and people can borrow up to 50% or $50,000 of their vested balance, whichever is less.

Cons:
1. Payment options are not as flexible as other loans since the only two options are the minimum payments deducted from your paycheck or to pay the balance in full.

2. You have 90 days to start making payments back into the plan or else the loan will be considered taxable and will trigger a 10% tax penalty (for borrowers under 59 ½). Remember, if you are laid off, you may only have 90 days to pay the remaining balance in full or the loan will become a taxable event and will also trigger the 10% tax penalty (for borrowers under 59 ½)

3. People who borrow from their employer retirement plan may face loan fees, i.e. loan origination fees, loan maintenance fees, etc. And if the loan is particularly small (say $1,000 for an example) you could theoretically be paying 15% just in fees, which will not go back into your plan.

4. Finally, there are major opportunity costs associated with a Qualified Plan Loan. For example, if the borrowed funds in your account can potentially earn an average of 8% a year while your borrowed funds can only earn a theoretical 4.5% with the interest from the loan, you could theoretically be losing money (depending on market conditions).
 
In the end, a Qualified Plan Loan may not a great idea for those who have other means of getting an affordable loan and in most cases should only be used as a last resort.
 
So, how can someone get money for large purchases without going to a bank or borrowing from their retirement plan? For starters, people can make it a monthly habit to contribute to an emergency fund and/or a special purchase(s) fund so that they will not have to borrow money in the first place (please read our previous blogs on emergency funds and on general savings tips).
 
Overall, borrowing can be quite a hassle and could be costly in the long run no matter how you look at it. However, if you develop a plan for making a large purchase or plan ahead of an emergency, funding these events in our lives can be a much smoother and inexpensive process. If you currently do not have a plan, contact Castle Rock Investment Company to help you reach life’s major financial milestones, we will always work in your best interest!
 
©2016 Castle Rock Investment Company. All rights reserved. Please share your insights and comments with us at Mack@Castlerockinvesting.com

Major Move by Merrill Lynch to Comply with Fiduciary Rule

by

By Mack Bekeza

In order to comply with the upcoming Fiduciary Rule, Merrill Lynch decided to discontinue offering commission based IRA accounts to investors starting April 10th of 2017. Specifically, they want to remove a major conflict of interest between them and their clients by only offering fee-based advisory, robo-advisory, and self-directed services for IRA accounts. Merrill Lynch’s decision is expected to have a major ripple effect for not only their clients, but for their advisers and their respective competitors.

So, how does Merrill Lynch’s decision affect their advisers and their competitors?

  1. As of April 10th of 2017, the firm’s 14,000 plus advisers will no longer be able to open new commission based IRA accounts, which is a notable source of their compensation. On top of that, advisors will now have to further prove their value to their clients when their primary form of compensation will be under a fee based model.
  2. Since Merrill Lynch is one the first major wirehouse firms to make this move, it is expected that other wirehouse firms will also follow suit in order to remain competitive in the upcoming Fiduciary focused marketplace.
  3. Merrill Lynch as well as other wirehouse firms will more than likely face other regulatory issues such as having fee-based variable compensation, which will be prohibited under the Fiduciary Rule.
  4. This might lead to certain broker dealers to no longer service IRA accounts due to additional costs of complying.

Although we believe this is an excellent move by Merrill Lynch, we believe that wirehouse firms such as Merrill will still face regulatory issues as they may have to forgo recommending certain investments to clients as well as having to develop a truly uniform method of compensation from their IRA accounts.

©2016 Castle Rock Investment Company. All rights reserved. Please share your insights and comments with us at Mack@Castlerockinvesting.com

Water Cooler Wisdom: Third Quarter 2016

by

By Mack Bekeza

The Presidential Election and What to Know

Despite the pleasant performance in the stock market for 2016, investors are becoming more doubtful about the global economy as a whole in regards to how “pleasant” future growth will be. On top of that, The U.S is having one of the most interesting presidential elections in history. With both of the leading candidates making big promises to the public, how will these proposed actions affect the economy as a whole? But perhaps the biggest question and misconception that U.S investors have is “How does the President affect the economy?”

For our response, we want to point out 3 big myths about how the President affects the economy

            1. Capital Markets perform better when Republicans are in the White House:  

Although many consider the Republican party as the “pro-business” party, if you look at the returns of the Dow Jones Industrial Average since 1897, the markets do not give a hoot about who is president.

2. Major pieces of legislation get passed once the new President assumes office:

With the exceptions of the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank, The United States rarely makes major policy changes in one major swoop, rather in small increments.

3. The President has as much of an impact on the economy as consumers and businesses:

     Although the media places major scrutiny on the President over the U.S Economy, government spending only accounts for 17.7% of total GDP, while the remaining 82.4% comes from consumer spending, private investments, and foreign trade.

So… will this presidential election completely change the way we invest? More than likely no. However, it is important to note the U.S GDP is expected grow between 1.5 to 2% over the next decade. This is primarily due the recent and projected dismal growth in the U.S labor force along with over $30 trillion in private wealth being transferred to younger generations. In other words, it is more crucial to observe how Millennials begin to take charge of the U.S Economy rather than who becomes president.

Attached are slides that provide more detail regarding presidential elections and major leading economic indicators.

©2016 Castle Rock Investment Company. All rights reserved. Please share your insights and comments with us at Mack@CastleRockInvesting.com.

 

Who is Trying to Stop the Fiduciary Rule?

by

By Mack Bekeza

On September 21rst, US District Court Judge Daniel Crabtree over saw a preliminary injunction hearing involving Market Synergy Group (“Market Synergy”) and the Department of Labor (“The DOL”). Market Synergy is an independent marketing organization (“IMO”) that represents 20,000 independent insurance agents and claims that the new DOL fiduciary rule will create irreparable harm to these agents. Specifically, they believe that independent agents selling Fixed Indexed Annuities (“FIAs”) should not be required to comply with the new rule.

One of Market Synergy’s primary claims is that IMOs are not considered “Financial Institutions”, a requirement to be subject to the rule, and therefore are not required to comply. They also claim that the DOL lacks the authority to regulate FIAs.

In our opinion, even if Market Synergy and other IMOs are not considered “financial institutions”, they are still selling FIAs that are primarily purchased via individual retirement accounts and, therefore, should be subject to the new rule. On top of that, FIAs typically pay notable commissions to agents, regardless if they are independent or not. In other words, these agents still need to prove that selling a FIA is in the retirement investors’ best interest.

Secondly, although states technically regulate insurance products, Judge Crabtree pressed Market Synergy, asking, “Couldn’t the federal government step in to regulate fixed indexed annuities if the states were doing a bad job regulating fixed indexed annuities?” Market Synergy agreed that if the DOL found that the states’ regulations were “woefully inadequate”, federal agencies, such as the DOL, could further regulate such products. Market Synergy essentially shot itself in the foot by agreeing to that statement.

Although Judge Crabtree is skeptical about Market Synergy’s claims, he is also skeptical whether or not the DOL has a strong claim that IMOs and their independent agents are subject to the new fiduciary regulation. In other words, there is still a possibility that an injunction will be placed on the DOL which will allow these agents to sell high commission products to retirement investors.

What are your thoughts on the case?

© 2016 Castle Rock Investment Company. All rights reserved. Please share your insights with us at Mack@castlerockinvesting.com or via phone at 303-719-7523

State Farm and Edward Jones React to the Fiduciary Rule

by

By Mack Bekeza

With April 10th, 2017 quickly approaching, a large number of investment firms and insurance agencies are scrambling to comply with the DOL fiduciary regulation. However, some firms believe they have found a solution to the upcoming rule. Knowing that their representatives cannot put their clients’ interest first, State Farm and Edward Jones have announced plans to prevent their employees from selling mutual funds when the new fiduciary rule takes effect next April.

So how will they be able to do this without significantly reducing their revenue? State Farm plans to only sell and service their mutual funds, variable products, and tax-qualified bank deposit products by a self-directed call center, as opposed to having their agents sell the products directly. In other words, State Farm still wants their customers to purchase these products while being able to avoid liability if the product turns out not being in a customer’s best interest.

Edward Jones’s solution involves curtailing retirement savers’ access to mutual funds in commission based accounts and lowering their investment minimums. Basically, Edward Jones is planning to shift completely into the fee only side of compensation for retirement accounts and allow more investors to move their money to them.

Although it will be interesting to see how State Farm’s self-directed call center will play out, at least they have a strategy to deal with the upcoming rule. As for Edward Jones, going completely towards the fee-only side for retirement accounts is a good move as they are eliminating a major conflict of interest for recommending certain products.

Although there are a number of firms still trying to strategize to comply with the DOL rule, we are still waiting to hear plans of other advisers that sell investments that may not be in their clients’ best interest. However, we will attempt to keep you posted as more firms finalize their strategies.

© 2016 Castle Rock Investment Company. All rights reserved. Please share your insights with us at mack@castlerockinvesting.com or via phone at 303-719-7523