SEC Chairman Pitches Proposed Alternative to Fiduciary Rule in Philadelphia
Clayton, who grew up in Pennsylvania, returned to his home state to talk about why the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's proposed Best Interest Rule is a viable option to protect investors.
May 02, 2018 at 06:42 PM
4 minute read
SEC Chairman Jay Clayton speaking at Temple University in Philadelphia, Wednesday, May 2, 2018. Photo credit: Dan Clark/ALM
On the heels of announcing the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's “Best Interest Rule,” SEC Chairman Jay Clayton came to Temple University on Wednesday to discuss the finer points of the plan, which is meant to give retail investors a better understanding of who is investing their money and how they are doing it.
“Markets can be intimidating and complex and, if you're not experienced or well informed, it is easy not to begin at all, or you may get burned by taking on more risk than you want. It is an investment professional's job to bridge this knowledge, information, and comfort gap,” Clayton told the audience at Temple.
The SEC commissioners voted 4-1 on April 18 in favor of the proposed Best Interest Rule to further regulate financial advisers. The proposed rule has been pitched as an alternative to the Fiduciary Rule, which was implemented by the U.S. Department of Labor in 2016, but struck down by a federal court earlier this year.
Under the proposed Best Interest Rule, a broker-dealer would be required to act in the best interest of a retail customer when making a recommendation of any securities transaction or investment strategy involving securities to a retail customer. The SEC has said the rule would require clear disclosures and address conflicts-of-interest issues.
The goal is to make sure that a broker-dealer does not put its financial interests ahead of the interests of the customer. The proposed rule, which is now subject to a 90-day period of public comments, also restricts certain broker-dealers and their financial employees from calling themselves “advisers” when communicating with retail investors.
In his talk at Temple, Clayton, who has headed the commission since May 2017, said one of the issues retail investors face is confusion over whether it is an investment adviser (IA) or a broker-dealer (BD) who is handling investments. He explained that IAs charge an ongoing management fee that is a percentage of the assets being managed, while a broker-dealer charges a customer per transaction.
To solve this problem, he said, professionals handling an investor's money must be clearer about their role.
“First, to improve investor understanding we are proposing a new disclosure mandate. BDs and IAs must disclose to investors the key aspects of their relationship in a form that is clear, short, and complete,” Clayton said.
He explained that some investors may have been fooled through “slick marketing campaigns” rather than honest discussions. Clayton also said that further transparency between investors and the financial professionals they are working with will eliminate “rotten fruit.”
“It will make it easier for us to identify and pursue the bad guys and, I hope, will make it easier for those who are behaving well to demonstrate that fact to us, other regulators, and, most importantly, their clients,” Clayton said.
He also addressed the importance of IAs and BDs disclosing to clients of any conflicts of interest they may have. As it stands now, he said, they are not required to give “conflict-free advice.”
“Many industry participants already make sure their clients understand these issues. However, the efforts of others fall far short. It is time for those others to come into line,” Clayton said.
The chairman also emphasized that he believed there are “too many cooks in the kitchen” and said he seeks harmonization among regulators.
One of those cooks, the DOL, instituted the Fiduciary Rule in 2016. But that rule was struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in March after a majority of the panel held that it “exploited an exemption provision into a comprehensive regulatory framework.”
During a question-and-answer session following the speech, Clayton told the crowd that the SEC did not adopt the DOL's rule because it did not take “as tailored an approach” as the SEC's rule does.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBen & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readBaltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
3 minute read5th Circuit Judge Jones Slams Proposal for Greater Amicus Brief Funding Disclosure
'Health Care Behemoth'?: DOJ Seeks Injunction Blocking $3.3B UnitedHealth Merger Proposal
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250