Category: Fiduciary Issues

Subscribe to Fiduciary Issues RSS Feed

Best Interest or Disinterest—How Should We Label the Duties of an Investment Adviser?

At lunch with my broker the other day (my tab naturally), I asked the waiter for a hamburger and soda, but my broker interjected and told him to bring me a kale salad, no dressing, and a carrot and beet smoothie. “I’m supposed to look after your best interest,” my broker said, “and you’re clearly … Continue Reading

The SEC’s Fiduciary Rule Proposal — Implications for Investment Advisers (Part 4)

Welcome back for Part 4, the final installment in our discussion of the SEC’s April 18, 2018 fiduciary rulemaking proposal (the “Proposal”). We will summarize the SEC’s proposed Regulation Best Interest (“Regulation BI”), which seeks to create a “best interest” fiduciary duty standard for broker‑dealer relationships with retail customers. We will then delve into some … Continue Reading

The SEC’s Fiduciary Rule Proposal — Implications for Investment Advisers (Part 3)

Welcome back for Part 3 of our discussion of the SEC’s April 18, 2018, fiduciary rulemaking proposal (the “Proposal”). Here, we dive into the SEC’s proposed Form CRS Relationship Summary and its proposed amendments to Form ADV. We also discuss the proposed rulemaking to restrict broker‑dealers’ use of the term “adviser” and variations thereof.… Continue Reading

The SEC’s Fiduciary Rule Proposal — Implications for Investment Advisers (Part 2)

This post continues our discussion of the SEC’s April 18, 2018, fiduciary rulemaking proposal (the “Proposal”). Here we address the Proposed Interpretation Regarding Standard of Conduct for Investment Advisers and Request for Comment on Enhancing Investment Adviser Regulation portion of the Proposal which would, in sum, (i) restate advisers’ fiduciary duties under the Advisers Act … Continue Reading

The SEC’s Fiduciary Rule Proposal – Implications for Investment Advisers (Part 1)

On April 18, 2018, the SEC held an open meeting where it approved the long‑awaited and much-discussed fiduciary rulemaking proposal package. The proposal primarily recommends disclosure- and principles and procedures-based rules, and has garnered three main criticisms: (1) it would establish a “best interest” standard without defining the term; (2) while intending to provide clarity, it … Continue Reading

Family Offices and the Madness of Crowdsales

Recently, I have had an opportunity to review many “tokens” that can be transferred over the Ethereum blockchain and used for various “smart contracts.” Depending on their facts and circumstances, certain kinds of tokens being sold in so-called “initial coin offerings” were the subject of a recent SEC Section 21(a) report. I have also seen correspondence … Continue Reading

“Odd Lots” and Valuation Déjà Vu–Part 1

The SEC’s recent settlement (the “Order”) with Pacific Investment Management Company (“PIMCO”) reflects a new twist on an old issue: buying securities at bargain prices and then marking them up when calculating NAVs. The SEC first addressed this issue in 1969 in the context of what we now refer to as “PIPEs.” The first part … Continue Reading

Should Failure to Plan Constitute Fraud?

I have spoken for years about the importance of contingency planning for money market funds. So I understand why business continuity and transition planning is a great idea for investment advisers. I’m troubled, however, by the SEC’s recent proposal to require advisers to maintain such plans. My troubles lie more with their means than with … Continue Reading

Will the Department of Labor (DOL) Add to the Fiduciary Murk?

A recent Majority Staff Report from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs raises some concerns. Some of my concerns relate to the state of our federal government. (Should congressional staff spend time composing philippics against an executive department? Does the prospect of exposure of inter-agency emails have a chilling effect on communications? Why … Continue Reading

Maybe a Lender Could be a Fiduciary

In an earlier post, I criticized the case of Lash v. Cheshire Count Savings for holding that a bank could be a fiduciary to its borrowers. One problem with the decision is a failure to cite, with one exception, any precedents that could not be distinguished from the facts of the case. The one exception, … Continue Reading

Encomium for Professor Frankel

I intend to share musings on fiduciary matters from time-to-time on our blog. Not regarding deep and complex matters such as the current DOL proposal or the SEC’s forthcoming uniform fiduciary standard. My fiduciary questions are more fundamental, and sometimes lead me to despair of formulating sensible views of such proposals. I suspect I am … Continue Reading
LexBlog