ERISA

State Farm and Edward Jones React to the Fiduciary Rule

September 28, 2016 by admin

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.

The DOL Rule and Why Brokers and Insurance Agents Should be Concerned

September 7, 2016 by admin

By Mack Bekeza

Are you currently a Registered Representative or an Insurance agent? If so, you will want to keep reading!

As you may know, the Department of Labor will have new regulations in effect on April 10, 2017, which will change how Brokers and Insurance agents conduct business with retirement investors.

For starters, when dealing with retirement investors, the broker or insurance agent cannot receive variable compensation. This means that someone receiving commissions, asset based fees, 12b-1 fees, etc. must create a uniform method of compensation.

Additionally, any investment recommendations must be in the retirement investor’s best interest, meaning that the agent or broker must have a thorough understanding of the client’s overall financial picture and cannot just rely on FINRA’s suitability standards.

Finally, if you still want to receive variable forms of compensation, you must be able to comply with something called the Best Interest Contract Exemption, aka the “BICE.” And, in order to truly comply, you have to be certain that recommending a product that will pay you variable compensation is in the retirement investor’s best interest.

The major caveat with complying with the BICE is that even though the client is fully aware of how you are compensated, if he or she believes the product is not their best interest, he or she can file a lawsuit against you. In other words, you can still sell commission based products, but don’t expect the BICE to bail you out if you are sued!

So, who is considered to be a retirement investor? To make this simple, do you sell or make investment recommendations for the following accounts?

ERISA governed Retirement Plans (with less than $50 million)
Non-ERISA Retirement Plans (e.g., Keogh, Solo Plans)
IRAs
Health Savings Accounts, Archer MSAs, and Coverdell ESAs

If you fall into one of these categories, you will want to seek advice on where to go from here! If you reside in the Greater Denver Area, Castle Rock Investment Company and The Law Offices of Ed Frado, LLC are hosting an event to educate Brokers and Insurance Agents on the details of the new DOL regulation on September 20th at Maggiano’s in the Denver Tech Center. If you would like to register, click here

We hope to see you at the event!

Fund Families sued by their own employees over their retirement plans??

August 24, 2016 by admin

By Mack Bekeza

Over the past two years, a number of investment firms have been sued by their employees over their 401(k) plans. That’s right! Investment firms have been sued over their own in-house retirement plans! Why? In most cases, these firms would only provide proprietary funds to their employees at a full or slightly reduced cost. In fact, here are just a few of the recent cases from the past two years:

1. Transamerica
2. Fidelity Investments
3. Ameriprise
4. New York Life
5. Great West (Empower)
6. MFS Investment Management
7. Waddell and Reed
8. Allianz Global Investors
9. MassMutual
10. Neuberger Berman
11. Putnam Investments
12. BB&T
13. Edward Jones
14. Morgan Stanley
15. American Century

Why do these investment firms offer their own funds to their employees without significantly lower fees? First, they do not want to convey to their employees that there are potentially superior investment opportunities outside of the company. For instance, Fidelity might not want to offer an outside fund that could be cheaper and possibly better performing than a comparable Fidelity fund. Additionally, since these plans tend to be very significant in size, reducing investment fees for their own employees could be problematic, since it could potentially increase fees for their retail investors to absorb the cost.

Is there a solution to this dilemma? Yes, there actually is! For the investment firms that are currently offering their proprietary funds to their employees without reduced expenses, these firms should consider offering outside funds to their employees. This could potentially result in lower expenses for the employees. Furthermore, this could remove the target off their backs from ERISA once the DOL regulation becomes effective in April of 2017. Of course, this is a lot easier said than done because it requires investment firms to expose their weak spots in their investment line ups, which could also potentially leak out to their retail investors. Also, a retirement plan was never meant to make the employer money, it is supposed to be a generous benefit for its employees.

With the new DOL regulation coming in April 2017, 2016 has proven that broker dealers and investment advisors are not the only target, but the fund families have also been dealing with quite the roller coaster themselves. And, as retirement investors, we should be glad that the investment business is starting to clean up its act for good and will in return make the industry more beneficial for everyone.

The People’s Best Interest…The Battle Continues

July 21, 2016 by admin

By Mack Bekeza

The official ruling for “fiduciaries,” meaning people who are legally bound in the best interest of retirement investors, will not take effect until April of 2017. However, the Department of Labor (“The DOL”) has been bombarded by lawsuits. This brings us to the recent filing from the National Association for Fixed Annuities (“NAFA”) in June 2016 with regards to how the ruling is defining a “fiduciary,” along with other material in the ruling.

Before we get into what exactly NAFA is complaining about, let’s review how the DOL defines a “fiduciary, which is:

“Any person who exercises any discretionary authority or control respecting the management or disposition of its assets or has any discretionary authority or responsibility in the administration of the plan” as well as “any person who renders investment advice for a fee”. [1]

So, what exactly is NAFA complaining about? According to them, “Congress intended ERISA fiduciary duties to apply only to those who participate in ongoing management of a plan or its assets.” As we mentioned in the previous paragraph, this is not the case. NAFA completely disregarded that fiduciaries are those who render investment advice for a fee. Put it this way, an annuity can play a large role in someone’s retirement, so how would selling annuities to people not be considered rendering investment advice?

Another claim made by NAFA was in regards to how the DOL is allegedly “exceeding its authority by imposing ERISA fiduciary obligation on parties to transactions involving IRAs.” Again, NAFA has it wrong. Although investment advisors to IRAs are considered fiduciaries, those individuals are not subject to the same scrutiny that an ERISA fiduciary would be.

This case is an excellent example of how people who work in the commission-based side of the financial services industry are trying to keep their industry alive. They realize that (as of late April 2017) their ways will no longer work for them in the marketplace, so they are desperate to fight this. Keeping things how they are now can lead to many retirement investors losing billions of their hard earned dollars from commissions and expensive products.

Attached is a link to the article that we used as a reference. And, for those who want to see the DOL’s official response to NAFA, click here! However, just a warning, the official response is about 105 pages long.

[1] As a note, Castle Rock Investment Company falls under the DOL’s definition of a fiduciary for both ERISA plans and IRAs.

Declaration of Independence

February 3, 2015 by admin

“Can you be more specific?”

Embarrassing, but true: the retirement industry is asking that of the US government.

The definition of a Fiduciary needs to be more specific because of cases where Plan Sponsors are legally charged unreasonable fees for a long time, but the Department of Labor’s interpretation is undesirable to Wall Street. Of course, Wall Street is on the receiving end of these unreasonable fees.

As an investment advisory firm who identifies in writing as a fiduciary to our clients, we uphold the interests of our client above those of any other interest, because we have no other interested parties. The unfortunate reason that other investment advisors will not agree to sign a fiduciary agreement with a client is because they are “promised” to a large company, who profits from a retirement plan through hidden fees.

While the Plan Sponsor is unaware of this other agreement, and often the Investment Advisor is not entirely upfront about this agreement with the Plan Sponsor’s representatives, it comes out in the end through hidden fees and a whole mess of ugly policies.

The sort of game run here should be illegal. Not because the Plan Sponsors are not careful, instead they often are smart and diligent, but because they are simply not protected by the law. Up to this point, the law is unclear. The Independent Advisor they supposedly hire is not, after all, independent according to a stricter definition now proposed by the Department of Labor, led by Phyllis Borzi.

Insist upon a clear definition of an independent advisor so that you know your advice comes for the interest of your retirement plan, and not for the interest of someone else’s quasi-legal activity. Sign the petition at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/414/401/760/tell-washington-to-stand-up-to-wall-street/

Michele L. Suriano, Accredited Investment Fiduciary™, is president of Castle Rock Investment Company, a woman-owned SEC registered investment advisory firm serving qualified retirement plans. www.CastleRockInvesting.com

Not that Complicated

February 2, 2015 by admin

FSI Chairman Adam Antoniades, from Think Advisor — FSI Chairman Adam Antoniades, from ThinkAdvisor

In any fight, there are two sides waving their arms around.

The Financial Services Institute, or FSI, states in response to a recent White House memo that changing the way the delicate fiduciary system is run will ruin everything. The Financial Services Institute, or FSI, is in opposition to redefining the Fiduciary Standard as it is proposed because of various reasons, some more partisan than others. In general, the FSI puts investor advisors first, and the DOL puts workers and clients first.

How could increased or maintained responsibility of advisors lead to greater abuse of power? Among the first things said by the FSI is the atypical “hrrumph, well people outside the industry just don’t understand the complexities of how we deal with these things.” When in reality, it’s not that complicated: you protect the interest of your clients retirement if you are forced to put their interests first under the law, so why not stop dancing around this and just execute the priority anyway?

Demand protection for your retirement you deserve. Sign the petition to here at SaveOurRetirement.org: http://saveourretirement.com/take-action.html

Risk Management: Employee Retirement Plans

January 23, 2015 by admin

Risk Management Castle Rock jumps through hoops to be among the best investment advisors. Not every investment advisor goes through the same rigorous training because these hoops are not legally required. We do not think that making best practices a legal requirement will diminish our status as one of the best firms around, but we do think that selecting an investment advisor should be less risky for Plan Sponsors.

You are supposed to be careful of sales pitches that avoid using the term “fiduciary” but stress “education” instead, because those are not interchangeable services. The difference between these services would be like exchanging accounting for bookkeeping services, or medicine with surgery, or heads with tails in a coin toss. Providing education does not negate a need for a fiduciary; rather, a fiduciary investment advisor should be around for cases where education does not meet the plan’s needs, and an expert opinion is necessary.

How confident are we that Castle Rock is the place to turn? We are the best retirement investment advisor around. You can check our About Us section to be sure, or better yet Contact Us.

Our qualifications exceed all of these expectations, but you may want to check to see if your own advisor is able to eliminate some of the risks to you as a plan sponsor[1]:

At least 50% of assets under management in qualified retirement plans (ours are 99%);
Has an Accredited Investment Fiduciary™ or similar designation;
SEC Registered Investment Advisor (RIA);
Make sure your advisor has been working in the industry for at least a decade;
Get a fee agreement that clearly states how the fees will be charged; and
Make sure that fiduciary status is in writing.

To show your support for conflict-free advice in all retirement plans, please sign the petition here at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/414/401/760/tell-washington-to-stand-up-to-wall-street/

What’s Going On?

January 22, 2015 by admin

A fiduciary duty, the obligation to uphold the clients’ interest above all else, is Phyllis Borzi’s long sought and tunneled for goal that we at Castle Rock uphold and agree whole-heartedly with. Together, our standards are the highest in the retirement industry. She says that, like in the movie Groundhog Day, bad policies keep being relived over and over. We want to stop the origin of the problem: the poor incentive structure.

Her aim is to make incentives to advisors as straightforward as possible in retirement plans so that the resulting fees will not surprise retirees and leave them with less than they planned.

When investment advisors do not sign up to be fiduciaries to the plans they advise, it leads to corruption and changes the fee structures of these plans so that the retirees no longer have the same security after 65 (typical retirement age). Liability to the Plan Sponsor also changes, and the integrity of the investment advisor themselves is challenged as well.

One example of how the Plan Sponsors are hung out to dry is the John Hancock case, where unreasonable fees were not seen as criminal because of this legal loophole.

Sign your support for reform here at SaveOurRetirement.com!

State Farm and Edward Jones React to the Fiduciary Rule

The DOL Rule and Why Brokers and Insurance Agents Should be Concerned

Fund Families sued by their own employees over their retirement plans??

The People’s Best Interest…The Battle Continues

Declaration of Independence

About Us

Sign up to hear about events:

From the Blog

State Farm and Edward Jones React to the Fiduciary Rule

ERISA

Footer

About Us

Sign up to hear about events:

From the Blog