Should more financial advisers be treated as fiduciaries? Even for one-time financial recommendations like a 401(k) rollover?
The Washington Post recently published an article looking at the battle over the needs of recent retirees on one side and what critics have called “lucrative broker commissions” on the other. At issue is an effort by the Biden administration to force brokers to act as fiduciaries, which means that they must place client needs above all else, including their own paychecks. The administration is especially concerned about what happens when millions of Americans retire or roll over their retirement savings in favor of tax-advantaged accounts such as IRAs. This is a huge market; the federal government estimates that these transactions are valued at more than $770 billion in 2022.
In many, if not most instances, these transfers from 401(k)s and similar products into IRAs is unremarkable. But the administration is looking closely at some transfers, in which investors’ retirement money is invested in instruments such as annuities. Annuity products, in which retirees give funds to an insurance company that provides them with a fixed, annual payout, not only often have costly restrictions – such as big penalties for early withdrawals and caps on returns – but also can be more lucrative products for insurance agents to sell compared to other investments. This – from the Biden administration’s perspective, and that of some consumer advocates – creates a conflict of interest that can lead to savers being steered toward investments that are not optimal for them.
As such, Biden’s Department of Labor extended fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to cover one-time recommendations issued to retirement investors. This puts a number of activities traditionally not covered by the fiduciary rule, including those rollovers noted above, under the rule. The policy was finalized in April and was set to take effect next month.
For their part, critics of the administration’s policy see the attempt to change regulations as a “costly, illegal federal mandate.” In an unsigned statement (ahem!) one of the organizations that sued to stop the Biden’s administration, the American Council of Life Insurers, warned that new fiduciary requirements could “deprive millions of consumers of access to much needed retirement financial guidance and protected lifetime income products.”
So far, the courts – and Congress – have agreed with the critics. Congress made initial moves toward invalidating the new rules in July, with a congressional committee passing a resolution to overturn the rule. Additionally, two federal judges have separately blocked the Biden administration from implementing the rule in September. And industry groups, sensing a major change to their business model, have geared up to persuade politicians that an expansion of the fiduciary rule “would be potentially devastating for the insurance industry,” according to one such group, the Federation of Americans for Consumer Choice.
Indeed, impact would be felt. Morningstar reported that investors in annuities could save more than $32 billion over the next ten years – with insurance agents enduring major restrictions in their commissions.
Could an extension of fiduciary responsibility become as significant a campaign topic as the debate over taxing tips? It’s hard to say. But I’ll be on the lookout to see whether or not the Trump or Harris campaigns decide there’s advantage to be had by backing fewer regulations – or retiree rights – when it comes to the role of fiduciary responsibility.
Interested in wealthtech? Check out our feature on the six key ways fintechs drive innovation in wealth management. And be sure to read our primer on wealthtech at FinovateFall next month, Client Centricity and the Rise of Alternative Assets.
Photo by Birmingham Museums Trust on Unsplash