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
Businesspeople hands showing thumb up And thumb down

Regulation and Compliance > Federal Regulation > DOL

Debate: Should the DOL Revert to the 2016 Fiduciary Standard?

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

After the Department of Labor’s 2016 fiduciary rule and best interest contract exemption were vacated, the standard reverted back to the “old” five-part test that has historically been used to determine investment advice fiduciary status.

Now, it is widely expected that the DOL will release a newly revised fiduciary test before the end of the summer. Many expect that the Biden-era DOL will release a version of the fiduciary test that more closely resembles the Obama-era fiduciary test.

We asked two professors and authors of ALM’s Tax Facts with opposing political viewpoints to share their opinions about whether the DOL should revamp the investment advice fiduciary rule to adhere more closely to the 2016-era fiduciary standard.

Below is a summary of the debate that ensued between the two professors.

Their Votes:

thumbs up Bloink
Thumbs down Byrnes

Their Reasons:

Bloink: The 2016 fiduciary rule offered the types of strong protections against conflicted advice that Americans so desperately need. It created a clear-cut standard that advisors could follow to avoid liability, and we should revert to that standard.

Byrnes: The 2016 fiduciary standard should not be brought back to life. Studies conducted in the near-decade since the rule was first introduced have shown that the stringent rule resulted in more investment advice professionals being classified as fiduciaries — and that actually hurt lower- and middle-income Americans.

Rather than creating a regime where consumers benefited from stronger protections, the more stringent fiduciary standard resulted in a situation where these Americans were unable to access the investment advice they needed.

Bloink: In addition to the strong protection offered by the Obama-era rule, from a practical standpoint, most investment advisory firms had already taken significant steps to comply with the Obama-era rule — meaning that the cost of reimplementing the rule today would be much less significant than if the DOL were to unveil an entirely new rule.

Byrnes: With the threat of fiduciary liability logically comes the need for more costly protective measures on the part of advisory firms to avoid situations where they can be held liable for advice that in hindsight turns out to lose money.

Many of these firms did the cost benefit analysis and simply decided not to participate in the game when it came down to lower- and middle-income clients who don’t have the significant assets to make the added risk worth the costs.

Bloink: The old — and now new again — five-part standard for determining whether an advisor is an investment advice fiduciary leaves too much to interpretation, making it more difficult for advisors and clients alike.

Advisors are often unclear as to their duties under the five-part test, and clients don’t know whether they can trust their advisors to act in their best interests. That creates a system where investment advice is much less valuable simply because clients must guess about whether they can rely on the advice they’re receiving.

Byrnes: The bottom line is that the Obama-era law may have provided strong consumer protections, but it also limited access to investment advice for those who need the advice the most.

Today’s five-part test has provided clear advice for investment advice professionals for years, while also allowing clients access to the types of quality investment advice they need and deserve.

We gave the 2016 rule a shot, and we saw how it restricted access — so there’s no need to change the standard now and revert to a standard that we’ve proven is not as effective.

Images: Adobe Stock


  • Learn more with Tax Facts, the go-to resource that answers critical tax questions with the latest tax developments. Online subscribers get access to exclusive e-newsletters.
  • Discover more resources on finance and taxes on the NU Resource Center.
  • Follow Tax Facts on LinkedIn and join the conversation on financial planning and targeted tax topics.
  • Get 10% off any Tax Facts product just for being a ThinkAdvisor reader! Complete the free trial form or call 859-692-2205 to learn more or get started today.

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.