Data & Research August 7, 2024

M&A Activity Among RIAs Remains Strong in Q2

2024 is on track to top last year for dealmaking as firms address succession planning and need for scale.

Reported by

Merger and acquisition activity among registered investment advisers went up slightly in the year’s second quarter, signaling a “stable, healthy M&A market,” according to consultancy DeVoe & Co. and Capital Group’s second quarter RIA M&A Deal Book report.

DeVoe and Capital Group reported 61 RIA transactions in Q2, making a total of 126 transactions in the first six months of 2024. The trend is toward a small increase in deals year-over-year as private equity funding and succession needs drive continued consolidation.

“Transaction activity continues to be driven by RIAs’ need to solve for succession, growth and scale,” the report’s authors wrote. “On the buyer side, established acquirers are being joined by new entrants, and both are typically backed by private equity. At the same time, the current high interest rate environment demands increased discipline from all participants.”

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

After a lackluster employment report released on August 2, many are forecasting an interest rate drop by the Federal Reserve in the near term. But with the presidential election looming in November, the report’s authors wrote that while 2025 is on track for steady M&A activity, “various market, economic or political developments” may change that trajectory.

The report’s authors also noted a trend toward new entrants being active, as opposed to the “usual suspects.” Such new firms that have been active in the first half of the year include Constellation Wealth Capital, Arax Investment Partners, Perigon Wealth Management and Miracle Mile Advisors.

Some of the deals so far in 2024 also involved firms building practices across wealth management and workplace retirement plan advisement. Wealth Enhancement Group recently told PLANADVISER it is nearing $5 billion in assets for qualified plan advisement, and Modern Wealth continues to add wealth shops after acquiring the $1.2 billion qualified plan advisory Beltz Ianni & Associates in March.

Top Acquirers with Three or More Transactions in First Half of 2024

Wealth Enhancement Group

7

Constellation Wealth Capital

6

MAI Capital Management

6

Allworth Financial

5

Arax Investment Partners

4

Kovitz Investment Group

4

Waverly Advisers LLC

4

Carson Wealth

3

The Colony Group

3

Diversity Wealth Management

3

Mercer Advisors

3

Modern Wealth Management

3

Stewart Partners

3

Source: DeVoe and Capital Group Deal Book, Q2 2024

RIA Buyers

RIAs themselves have expanded their market share of acquisitions through 2024, according to the report, with their slice of the pie growing to 35% of deals, an increase from 23% back in 2021.

That growth has come as consolidators of RIAs and other purchasers, such as broker/dealers, insurance companies and banks, have lost market share through the first half.

Consolidators are still the dominant driver of the market, with 44% of market share through the first half, but that is a slight decline from 47% for all of 2023. Meanwhile, “other” buyers have made up 21% of the market so far in 2024, as compared with 24% in the full year 2023.

Buyers Helping Buyers

DeVoe and Capital Group noted that private equity continues to have an outsized role in driving deals, with three-quarters of transactions involving firms backed by private equity. However, a trend toward sub-acquisitions—acquisitions by firms that were previously acquired—has started to pick up, according to the authors.

Sub-acquisition deals made up 23% of all deals through the first half of 2024, the highest percentage since 2018, according to the report.

Such deals have been driven by RIA buyers such as Focus Financial Partners, Wealth Partners Capital Group and Emigrant Partners, who provide their affiliates with “acquisition capital, M&A expertise and sometimes even sourcing candidates.”

The authors also noted a return in minority investments to support deal-making. That said, they warned firms considering such an investment to “read the fine print on every deal,” as a “regrettable transaction is one where the seller feels like they sold a minority stake but gave up majority control.”

The DeVoe RIA M&A Deal Book is focused on transactions of $100 million or more in assets, which helps to screen out SEC-registered hedge funds, independent broker/dealers, mutual fund companies and “other companies that aren’t operating as traditional RIA firms.” It also avoids advisers joining RIAs, unless “there are important developments.”

Compliance August 7, 2024

11th Circuit Appeals Court Rules With Home Depot on 401(k) Fee Suit

The court agreed with the district court decision that workers' "damages claims fail."

Reported by

The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of a district court in a 401(k) excessive fee lawsuit against The Home Depot Inc., ruling that the workers had the burden of showing how the company’s conduct caused them to suffer loss and affirming the original summary judgment in favor of Home Depot.  

However, federal court districts and appellate court circuits have issued differing decisions as to which party, the fiduciary or retirement plan participants, bear the burden of proving that losses are or are not the result of actions taken by plan fiduciaries. 

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

Circuit Split 

While the 10th and 11th Circuits have placed the burden of proof on participants, the 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th circuits—as well as the Department of Labor—have argued that once an ERISA plaintiff has proven a breach of fiduciary duty and a related loss to the plan, the burden shifts to the fiduciary. 

The so-called circuit split among the different courts of appeals means that federal law—in this case the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974—is applied differently in different parts of the country. The Supreme Court often agrees to hear cases involving circuit splits to ensure there is a single federal interpretation of the law. The Home Depot case has not been appealed to the Supreme Court at this time. 

Pizzaro v. Home Depot 

In Pizarro et al. v. The Home Depot Inc. et al, plaintiffs Jaime Pizarro and Craig Smith filed a class action complaint in April 2018, alleging that Home Depot offered imprudent investment options for their retirement plans and failed to monitor the investments’ performance, in violation of ERISA, during a class period beginning in April 2012. The plaintiffs specifically argued that the Home Depot plan had higher fees than similar plans, as some funds in the Home Depot investment menu charged fees as high as 0.5%, when similar funds charged as low as 0.07%.  

Financial Engines Advisors (now Edelman Financial Engines) served as an investment adviser to the plan for the beginning of the class period until June 30, 2017. The plan then switched to Alight Financial Advisors for advisory services. 

The plaintiffs accused Financial Engines of being a “robo adviser” offering “cookie cutter” plans and therefore having minimal operating costs. They also noted that small fee differences can add up to a lot over the course of a participant’s life.  

U.S. District Judge Steven D. Grimber, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, ruled in favor of Home Depot in September 2022, noting that during the period in question, the plan committees held individual committee meetings to discuss the plan and that the investment committee met quarterly to adopt and update an investment policy statement. 

11th Circuit Decision 

The appellate court explained in its opinion, published Friday, that the district court found an issue of material fact on the duty-of-prudence question for all but one of the plaintiffs’ claims. But on the second element, loss of causation, the answer was different—the court decided that the plaintiffs had not met their burden for any claims.  

Even if Home Depot did not appropriately monitor and evaluate the service providers’ fees and the plan’s investments, the district court concluded, the plaintiffs did not show that Home Depot’s investment choices were “objectively imprudent.” As a result, the district court argued that any losses to the plan were not caused by Home Depot’s failure to investigate. 

The plaintiffs, in their appeal, argued this approach is not correct and that the burden should be flipped, meaning ERISA fiduciaries are required to show that their plans’ losses were caused by something other than their own failure to investigate and evaluate the investments.  

“We cannot agree,” the appellate court opinion stated. “Our prior precedent forecloses adopting the burden-shifting framework, as do ordinary principles of civil liability. Nor does ERISA’s text help the plaintiffs—it offers no indication that Congress intended to require defendant fiduciaries to disprove loss causation.”  

The appellate court stated that the plaintiffs had the burden, but they did not sustain it. To prove that the losses were caused by a fiduciary breach, the court argued that plaintiffs must show that a hypothetical prudent fiduciary, armed with the information of a “proper evaluation,” would not have made the same choices, but the plaintiffs did not do this. 

“Home Depot’s investment decisions were objectively prudent, whether or not it used the right process to evaluate and monitor them,” the appellate court opinion stated. “We agree with the district court that the damages claims fail, and we affirm its well-reasoned order granting summary judgment to Home Depot.” 

The Home Depot 401(k) plan, called FutureBuilder, had about 230,000 participants and $9.1 billion in assets, as of year-end 2019. 

«