1 / 23

The Merrill Rule: A Legal Perspective

The Merrill Rule: A Legal Perspective. Neal E. Sullivan Partner Bingham McCutchen LLP and David Bellaire General Counsel Financial Services Institute. Brief History of the Merrill Rule. Compensation limited to transaction-based commissions

lael
Download Presentation

The Merrill Rule: A Legal Perspective

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Merrill Rule: A Legal Perspective Neal E. Sullivan Partner Bingham McCutchen LLP and David Bellaire General Counsel Financial Services Institute

  2. Brief History of the Merrill Rule • Compensation limited to transaction-based commissions • Tully Report recommends fee based compensation as a best practice • Fee based brokerage accounts proliferate • Distinctions between broker-dealer and investment adviser activities continue to erode • Regulatory clarity sought by broker-dealers • SEC proposes rule to exempt broker-dealers in 1999 • Modified rule adopted in April 2005

  3. Brief History of the Merrill Rule A broker-dealer providing investment advice to customers is excluded from the definition of investment adviser regardless of the form of compensation received as long as: (i) the advice is non-discretionary, (ii) the advice is solely incidental to the brokerage services, and (iii) the broker-dealer discloses to its customers that their accounts are brokerage accounts – not advisory accounts.

  4. Brief History of the Merrill Rule • Advice is not solely incidental to brokerage services if it includes: • Charging a separate fee or separately contracting for advisory services. • Provides advice as part of a financial plan and: • The individual holds himself out to the public as a financial planner or as providing financial planning services; • Delivers a financial plan to the customer; or • Represents to the customer that the advice is provided as part of a financial plan or in connection with financial planning services.

  5. Brief History of the Merrill Rule • “Financial planning” seeks to address a wide spectrum of a client’s long-term financial needs, and can include recommendations about insurance, savings, tax and estate planning, and investments • Financial planning is distinct from a financial tool that is used to provide guidance to a customer with respect to a particular transaction or an allocation of customer funds and securities based upon the long-term needs of a client

  6. Merrill Rule’s Impact on IBD Firms • Fee based brokerage accounts emerge in the IBD channel • For most IBDs, they remain a small portion of • Discretionary brokerage accounts no longer an option • Accounts are either converted to investment adviser relationships or non-discretionary brokerage • Drawing the line between financial planning and use of financial tools becomes a challenge with significant consequences • Suitability review and asset allocation development versus financial planning services

  7. Rule Vacated • Merrill Rule is vacated in its entirety • Opinion rests entirely upon statutory interpretation • Court rules that Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act was very specific as to who could be exempted from the definition of investment adviser • Section 202(a)(11)(C) provides the sole and exclusive exemption for broker-dealers • SEC’s power to exempt is thus limited by the Act • Merrill Rule goes beyond the SEC’s authority

  8. Rule Vacated • SEC announces that it will not appeal the Court’s decision • Requests a 120-day stay of the ruling so that firms and investors have adequate time to review their options • $300 billion in assets held in an estimated 1 million fee based brokerage client accounts

  9. Effect of Invalidation of the Rule • Loss of fee-based brokerage account option • Reduction in investor choice • Turmoil and uncertainty • Is financial planning investment advice? • Is the use of financial tools or analytics considered “investment advice”? • A race to achieve compliance by the October 1, 2007 deadline

  10. Legal & Business Alternatives • Broker-dealer firms with fee-based brokerage accounts were required to either: • Reprice fee-based brokerage accounts into commission-based structure so that registered representatives can continue to service them; • Transition fee-based brokerage accounts to advisory accounts serviced by an investment adviser representative of an affiliated investment adviser;

  11. Legal & Business Alternatives (Continued) • Broker-dealer firms with fee-based brokerage accounts were required to either: • Maintain the existing fee-based brokerage accounts, but strip the services to execution only; or • Convert fee-based brokerage accounts to 3rd party managed accounts.

  12. The Race to Compliance • Firms struggled with the tension between: • Meeting the deadline of October 1, 2007; and • Insuring suitable account type recommendations for individual clients. • Single solution for all fee-based brokerage accounts runs counter to regulatory guidance • For example, see NtM 03-68 noting that fee-based programs must be appropriate for a client based on their needs.

  13. Recent Developments – Principal Trading • Temporary Rule allowing investment advisers to engage in principal trading on non-discretionary advisory accounts provided that: • Proper disclosures are provided to clients concerning conflict of interest that may arise; • Customer consent is obtained prior to engaging in any principal transactions; and • Customers receive annual reports showing principal-trading activity in the account.

  14. Recent Developments – Guidance • SEC Proposed Interpretative Rule 202(a)(11)-1 reinstates guidance from the now-vacated rule, specifically: • Broker-dealers do not offer “solely incidental” investment advice if they exercise investment discretion or charge separate fees • Broker-dealers who charge different commission rates (full service v. discount) for clients are not receiving “special compensation” • A broker-dealer is an investment adviser solely with respect to accounts that receive advisory services.

  15. Recent Developments – RAND Study • SEC commissioned the RAND Corporation to conduct a study of broker-dealers and investment advisers from two perspectives: • Investment adviser’s and broker-dealers’ practices in marketing and providing financial services to individual investors; and • Evaluate investors’ understanding of the differences between investment advisers’ and broker-dealers’ financial products and services, duties, and obligations

  16. Recent Developments – RAND Study • Conclusions • Industry is “heterogeneous” with firms providing a wide range of services through a variety of relationships and entities; • Investors fail to distinguish between broker-dealers and investment advisers along the lines defined by federal regulations; • Disclosures provided to investors are ineffective; and • Investors express high levels of satisfaction with the services they receive from their own financial services provider.

  17. Recent Developments – RAND Study • Chairman Cox instructs SEC Divisions of Investment Management & Trading and Markets to develop a list of policy options flowing from the RAND Study’s conclusions • FPA calls for a roundtable of consumer and industry groups to discuss the RAND Study • The SEC makes no commitment to organize such a roundtable

  18. Recent Developments – RAND Study • Investment Adviser Association calls on SEC to improve investor education and repropose revisions to Form ADV Part II • SIFMA calls for creation of SRO for investment adviser only firms

  19. Long Term Impact • Regulatory review of the suitability of account options chosen during the race to compliance • Arbitration and litigation of cases concerning the suitability of account options chosen during the race to compliance • Guidance on financial planning reverts to Investment Adviser Release IA-1092

  20. Long Term Impact • Additional incentive for financial advisors to drop their securities licenses and exclusively offer investment advisory services • Opportunity to modernize the financial services industry’s regulatory scheme to promote transparency, but the timing may not be right • Commission – Short 2 Commissioners • Congress – Election year politics and Senate Banking Committee backlog

  21. Resources • Tully-Levitt report (1995) see at http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/bkrcomp.txt. • Original Proposed Rule - Certain Broker-Dealers Deemed Not To Be Investment Advisers, 64 Fed. Reg. 61,226 (Nov. 10, 1999). • Final Rule - Certain Broker-Dealers Deemed Not To Be Investment Advisers, 70 Fed. Reg. 20,424 (April 19, 2005). • Financial Planning Association v. SEC, 482 F.3d 481 (D.C. Circuit 2007).

  22. Resources • Investment Advisers Act Rel. No. 2652 (Sept. 24, 2007)(proposed rule reinstating interpretative positions). • NASD Notice to Members 03-68 (November 2003) (noting that fee-based programs must be appropriate based on the client’s needs). • RAND Report – “Technical Report: Investor and Industry Perspectives on Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers” (January 2008) see at http://sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-1_randiabdreport.pdf.

  23. Resources • Investment Advisers Act Rel. No. 1092 (October 8, 1987)(discussing applicability of Act to financial planners).

More Related