Financial Regulatory Forum

IA Brief: If your program is a “wrap”, be prepared

October 11, 2016
An investment adviser’s participation in a wrap fee program will not only increase its compliance and disclosure responsibilities but raise its regulatory profile with heightened focus on the programs. The focus was recently demonstrated with a Securities and Exchange Commission case in which two large firms settled complaints over wrap fee program compliance failures. Investment advisers are often creating or implementing new programs to meet their clients’ specific needs and ultimately improving their client experience. In recent years, the use of single fee programs or a more holistic approach to the advisory relationship has been embraced; however, programs that bundle particular services can often fall into the definition of a wrap fee program.


IMPACT ANALYSIS: DOL fiduciary rule may require multiple paths to compliance

June 27, 2016

Manisha Kimmel, Thomson Reuters

(NEW YORK) – What makes the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) “fiduciary rule” so transformational is that unlike most regulations which have a major cost and operational impact, the DOL rule package will also have a material impact on the front office. This impact will include financial adviser compensation and revenue associated with Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and other retirement accounts. (more…)

MetLife, AIG spinoffs of U.S. insurance units show “disruptive” fiduciary rules, not just capital needs

February 3, 2016

By Richard Satran, Regulatory Intelligence

(Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence) – The American insurance industry is being rapidly reshaped from a state-regulated backwater by what an industry group calls the “disruptive” impact of government regulation — and it is not just the often-cited capital demands placed on them by regulators who want bank-like systemic risk protection and activist investors who want quick returns on their investments.

SEC’s boardroom bombshell: directors can be costly

March 4, 2011

Traders work in the Goldman Sachs stall on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange July 16, 2010.  REUTERS/Brendan McDermidNEW YORK, March 4 (Westlaw Business) Being an insider with a fiduciary duty sure is risky, as heavyweight Rajat Gupta is now finding out amidst serious SEC charges. So is having board members, as Goldman Sachs and Procter and Gamble are now worrying. Of great concern to each are the reputational risks and attendant costs that this might impose on them. The potential risks could relate to a broad range of issues, ranging from inside information, to disclosure of SEC investigation and board member protection. Though this likelihood may seem remote, recent experiences from Bank of America to Goldman Sachs itself show them to be painfully possible.