Close Close
Popular Financial Topics Discover relevant content from across the suite of ALM legal publications From the Industry More content from ThinkAdvisor and select sponsors Investment Advisor Issue Gallery Read digital editions of Investment Advisor Magazine Tax Facts Get clear, current, and reliable answers to pressing tax questions
Luminaries Awards
ThinkAdvisor

Technology > Investment Platforms > Turnkey Asset Management

EBSA Rules On Combining Plan Advice, Asset Management

X
Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A financial services company that structures the arrangement carefully can sell fee-based advice to members of a retirement plan while an outside firm is selling account management services to the same participants.

Ivan Strasfeld, director of the Office of Exemption Determinations at the Employee Benefits Security Administration, comes to that conclusion in EBSA Advisory Opinion 2007-01A, which deals with Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-14, a batch of guidance issued in 1984.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act normally prohibits firms that advise 401(k) plans and other “individual account” retirement plans from engaging in many different types of transactions with other financial services companies that want to do business with the same plans.

In some circumstances, PTE 84-14 permits financial services companies to get around the ERISA restrictions by bringing in outside “qualified professional asset managers.”

Melanie Franco Nussdorf, a lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson L.L.P., Washington, wrote to EBSA to ask about a situation in which Financial Services Firm A has Subsidiary B sell fee-based investment advice to participants in self-directed individual account plans.

The plan sponsor or an independent plan fiduciary adds to the number of investment options by picking a QPAM to provide a professional managed separate account option for the plan participants.

The QPAM then might engage in transactions with Firm A.

As long as Financial Services Firm A and Subsidiary B have nothing to do with hiring the outside asset manager, firing the manager or negotiating the manager’s contract, the transactions between the QPAM and Firm A would not violate the QPAM provision in PTE 84-14 simply because Subsidiary B sells fee-based advice to the retirement plan participants, Strasfeld writes in the advisory opinion.

But the arrangement could violate the rules described in PTE 84-14 if Subsidiary B advised plan members to advise in a QPAM-managed investment option and the QPAM “conferred a benefit” on either Firm A or Subsidiary B, Strasfeld writes.

A copy of the advisory opinion is on the Web at Document Link


NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.