SEC Extends Date to Comply with Pay-to-Play Rule

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released amendments to the pay-to-play rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

The rule’s purpose is to protect the beneficiaries of invested state and municipal assets, such as pension plans and their participants, by preventing advisers from using political contributions to influence the officials responsible for the hiring of investment advisers.

The date on which covered advisers must comply with the ban on payments to certain third-party solicitors was originally set for September 13, 2011, but will now be nine months following the compliance date for the SEC’s rule governing registration of municipal advisers under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

Under the Advisers Act, the pay-to-play rule—Rule 206(4)-5—bans certain advisers from third-party solicitation, by compensating any person who would solicit a government entity on behalf of the adviser for advisory services, unless the person is a direct associate of the adviser as an executive officer, general partner, managing member or employee; or the person is a registered investment adviser, registered broker/dealer or registered municipal adviser.

According to the SEC, pay-to-play practices could result in higher fees to advisers for potentially inferior advisory services provided to government entities because of an attempt to recoup political contributions by the adviser, or because contracts are not negotiated at arm’s length. Further, the SEC reasoned that pay-to-play practices could effectively block the most suitable adviser for a mandate from consideration if the most suitable adviser is a smaller adviser who either cannot afford to make, or refuses to make pay-to-play contributions.

The SEC’s final rule for the extension of the compliance date is at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2012/ia-3418.pdf.

PSNC 2012: Investment Advice

Retirement plan participants need investment advice, and from the right place, according to panelists at the 2012 PLANSPONSOR National Conference.

Dave Gray, vice president of client experience at Charles Schwab & Co. Inc., said during the panel discussion that it is important for plan participants to receive advice from a source outside of friends and family. “The question is how do we fill that need?” He asked.

“Advice comes in many different flavors,” said Mary Hollingsworth, director of product strategy at Wells Fargo Institutional Retirement and Trust. Because of this, plan sponsors may find it difficult to decide which avenue to take.  

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

Kevin Mahoney, vice president, premier retirement benefits adviser at Merrill Lynch, said it is important to consider the company’s demographics and what type of advice program the employees will actually use. He suggested a multi-tiered advice program with target-date funds (TDF), portfolio rebalancing tools and actual advice. The first step, however, is increasing plan participation rates, he added.

Gray, on the other hand, said he thinks a multi-tiered advice program can give participants too many options. “We put too much choice in front of participants and we wonder why they’re lost,” he said. “When you give too much choice, you create inertia, you create poor choice, you create buyer’s remorse.”

Jason Roberts, founder and chief executive officer of Pension Resource Institute, pointed out that the less choice the advice program offers, the less diligence a plan sponsor has. “The more simplified you can make it for yourself, I think the better,” he said.

Aside from choosing what kind of advice the plan should offer, the sponsor must also determine how the advice will be paid for - whether it is built into the plan cost or participants must pay for it themselves. Roberts thinks if participants are forced to pay for the advice, it will never receive more than 10% utilization.

At the end of the day, the most important thing is whether participants have saved enough for retirement, he concluded.

«