Report Reveals Progress on Recommendations to the SEC

The SEC is bumping up staff for investment adviser examinations, but actions on a fiduciary rule and TDF disclosures are still pending.

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) Officer of Investor Advocate report about objectives for Fiscal Year 2017 discussed Investor Advocate Committee (IAC) recommendations to the SEC and the SEC’s response to those recommendations.

In 2013, the IAC recommended that the SEC request legislation from Congress that would authorize the commission to impose user fees on SEC-registered investment advisers to provide a scalable source of funding for more frequent compliance examinations of advisers. The IAC asserted that the examination cycle for SEC-registered investment advisers was “simply inadequate to detect or credibly deter fraud.”                    

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

Though it has never made a statement requesting user fees, the SEC says it has made funding for increased coverage of investment adviser exams a top priority every year since FY 2015. Each year, the commission has requested funding to hire additional examiners in the SEC Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE): the FY 2015 Budget Request called for funding to support an increase of 316 OCIE examiner positions; the FY 2016 Budget Request, an increase of 225 OCIE examiners; and the FY 2017 Budget Request, an increase of 127 OCIE examiners.

In addition to adding new examiners when new resources become available, OCIE is in the process of converting some staff from its broker/dealer examination program to the investment adviser/investment company program, with the goal of increasing staff for the latter by roughly 20%.

NEXT: Broker/Dealer Fiduciary Rule

Also in 2013, the IAC adopted a set of recommendations encouraging the SEC to establish a fiduciary duty for broker/dealers when they provide personalized investment advice to retail investors.

The IAC suggested that to accomplish this objective, the SEC should narrow the exclusion for broker/dealers within the definition of an “investment adviser” under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. As an alternative, the committee recommended the adoption of a rule under Section 913 of the Dodd-Frank Act to require broker/dealers to act in the best interests of their retail customers when providing personalized investment advice, with sufficient flexibility to permit certain sale-related conflicts of interest that are fully disclosed and appropriately managed.

In addition, the IAC recommended the adoption of a uniform, plain English disclosure document to be provided to customers and potential customers of broker/dealers and investment advisers which would disclose information about the nature of services offered, fees and compensation, potential conflicts of interest, and the disciplinary record of the broker/dealer or investment adviser.

In March 2015, SEC Chair Mary Jo White announced her belief that broker/dealers and investment advisers should be subject to a uniform fiduciary standard of conduct when providing personalized securities advice to retail investors. In Congressional testimony, she stated that she would soon begin discussing the issue with fellow commissioners, and that she had asked SEC staff to develop rulemaking recommendations for commission consideration. Further SEC action is pending.

NEXT: TDF Disclosures

The IAC adopted recommendations for the SEC to revise its proposed rule regarding target-date retirement fund names and marketing.

The package of five IAC recommendations pertained to a 2010 SEC proposal that would, among other things, require marketing materials for target-date funds (TDFs) to include a table, chart, or graph depicting the fund’s asset allocation over time (i.e., an asset allocation glide path). As either a replacement for or supplement to the SEC’s proposed asset allocation glide path illustration, the IAC recommended that the commission develop a glide path illustration that would be based on a measure of fund risk. To promote comparability between funds, the IAC recommended the adoption of standard methodologies to be used in glide path illustrations.

In addition, the IAC urged the SEC to require clearer disclosure about the risk of loss, the cumulative impact of fees, and the assumptions used to design and manage the funds.

On April 3, 2014, the SEC reopened the comment period on the proposed rule in order to seek public comment on the IAC’s recommendations to adopt a risk-based glide path illustration and the methodology to be used for measuring risk. The comment period closed June 9, 2014, and a final rule has not yet been adopted.

The report on objectives is here.

Disney Sued over Undiversified Investment in Retirement Plan

A participant in Walt Disney Company's retirement plan is suing fiduciaries for not removing a fund that was overly concentrated in a pharmaceutical company's stock.

A participant in the Disney Savings and Investment Plan has sued plan fiduciaries regarding its offering of The Sequoia Fund as a plan investment option. 

According to the complaint, The Sequoia Fund is a high cost mutual fund run by adviser Ruane, Cunniff & Goldbarb and its portfolio managers, Robert D. Goldfarb and David M. Poppe. The lawsuit claims that, in violation of plan investment policies, the fund managers concentrated The Sequoia Fund’s assets in a single stock, Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 

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

The complaint notes that the plan provides that participants would have at least three investment funds from which to choose and that each investment fund would be diversified. In addition, it says Valeant had a “well-known reputation for misleading investors with faulty accounting and profit expectations and gouging consumers in the sale of pharmaceuticals.” 

In October 2015, the fund managers bought even more shares of Valeant, which the compliant says was despite warning signs and The Sequoia Fund’s already concentrated position. In May 2016, the fund finally sold half of its holdings in Valeant, but Valeant’s stock had already dropped by more than 88%. 

In addition, because of its concentration in Valeant and its fees, The Sequoia Fund underperformed its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index, by 6.14% in 2014, 8.68% in 2015, and 15.17% from January 1 to June 15, 2016. 

The participant filed the suit as a class action against the investment and administrative committee of the Walt Disney Company sponsored qualified benefit plan and key employees’ deferred compensation plan, as well as other fiduciaries, for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by failing to remove The Sequoia Fund from the plan investment menu options when it became apparent the fund was no longer a prudent investment. 

The complaint is here.

«

Continue Reading for Free
 

Register and get access to…
 

• Breaking benefits news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters

• Educational webcasts, white papers, and e-books from industry thought leaders

• Critical coverage of the property casualty insurance and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, PropertyCasualty360 and ThinkAdvisor

Already have an account? Sign in Now