Financial Technology and the Fiduciary Rule

Whether the proposed U.S. Department of Labor so-called fiduciary rule becomes law this year remains to be seen. Many in the industry think its passage is nigh. Critics hope for a reprieve, asserting that costs are likely to outweigh benefits.

One oft-repeated concern is that small savers will be harmed if financial service companies decide to jettison accounts that fall below target asset levels. The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association ("SIFMA") explains "Because they cannot afford a fiduciary investment advisory fee, they will instead be forced to solely rely on a computer algorithm known as a 'robo-advisor.'"

Financial technology enthusiasts will counter that a more automated approach to retirement planning is a good thing for big and small savers alike. Certainly the topic merits review for at least two reasons.

  • The use of machines has exploded in recent years. In her November 9, 2015 speech about technology, innovation and competition, U.S. Securities and Exchange ("SEC") Commissioner Kara Stein foretells buoyant growth with an expected $2 trillion in assets under management by robotized advisors by 2020.
  • There are central questions about the fiduciary obligations of a company that concentrates on algorithmic advising and money management. Besides seeking to contain model risk, there is a need, at a minimum, for a vendor to regularly review client objectives and constraints. Click here to access a white paper on this topic by National Regulatory Services.

A few weeks ago, a handful of venture capitalists and prominent angels announced a $3.5 million capital round for a financial technology company called Captain401. Its stated goal is to help small businesses streamline the creation and administration of 401(k) plans that the founders argue would be too expensive to offer without automation. A cursory review of the company website makes it impossible to know much about its business model, technology safeguards or compliance infrastructure. Nevertheless, the funding of this and other "Fin Tech" organizations augurs favorably for added growth in this area.

As the global retirement marketplace adapts to regulatory and economic realities, it will be interesting to watch (or perhaps lead) what unfolds in terms of innovation, service provider competitiveness, cost tiers and other outcomes that impact savers and those who have already retired.

Fiduciary Standard Thrust and Parry Continues

In the aftermath of the recent U.S. Department of Labor hearings about the fiduciary standard, the debate continues with fervor. In the last few days, I have seen television ads that are subtle but seem to impugn attempts at getting a final rule in place. Elsewhere, estimates suggest that regulations could be costly. According to "SIFMA: DOL Fiduciary Rule To Cost Firms Over $5 Billion" (Wealth Management, July 20, 2015), the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association posits that broker-dealers will incur a large start-up outlay of about $5 billion and then ongoing costs thereafter in excess of $1 billion. Others counter that the benefits are considerable and worth the incremental expense.

Ongoing lively debates may not make a difference if Plan Sponsor's John Manganaro is correct. In "DOL Stands Firm on Fiduciary Rule Despite Negative Comments" (August 12, 2015), the point is made that Secretary Perez feels strongly that the U.S. Department of Labor (a) has been diligent in vetting critics' comments and (b) making modifications to hopefully ensure flexibility.

School is still out as to the "what, when and how." I predict that the aftermath may offer unexpected surprises. As with so many mandates, there are plenty of people who immediately look for the loopholes and act accordingly.