There’s a distinction in the benefits industry between fee-based and commission-based benefit advisors, and the DoL’s proposed fiduciary rule favors fee-based brokers and likely would push some commission-based brokers out of the retirement market altogether, says JuIi McNeely, president of the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors.

McNeely testified during yesterday’s DoL fiduciary hearings that the proposed rule would have less impact on fee-based advisors and may even bring them new business as commission-based brokers drop out of the market.

“The fee-based advisors win with this proposal,” she said. “They win because they will continue to operate in the manner they always have.”

“The fee-based advisors really seem to be in favor of this proposal,” McNeely told EBA in an interview ahead of her testimony. “In my perspective, they have a chance of gaining something out of this proposal, because it’s likely that some commission-based advisors won’t continue in the retirement market.”

See also: SourceMedia’s complete coverage of the DoL’s fiduciary hearing

Fee-based advisors, she reiterated in her testimony, “will continue to operate in the same manner as usual. The extra burden is really on the commission-based advisors through the best interest contract exemption.”

Under the proposed regulation and the new Best Interest Contract Exemption (the BIC exemption) advisors would be able to receive commissions, revenue sharing, 12(b)1 fees and some other forms of “conflicted compensation” under stringent conditions. The BIC exemption requires a contract between the advisor, the financial institution and the client in which the financial institution and the advisor commit to a best interests standard requiring that the advisor act with the care, skill, prudence and diligence that a prudent person would exercise.

“Every one of my clients will have to sign a contract under the BIC. In my opinion it’s an unworkable solution and it’s going to be a costly and time-consuming solution. It’s never easy to get people to sign new paperwork, especially something as strongly named as a contract,” she said. “I believe I will have some clients that have no interest in signing it.”

Gregory McShea, general counsel for the advisory firm Janney Montgomery Scott LLC agreed, testifying during the same panel that the DoL’s proposed rule “eliminates investor choice and increases cost.”

“We offer our clients a choice of either working with advisor on a fee-based or commission-based model,” he said, adding that the two legal contracts provide different levels of service.

“As written, the proposal jeopardizes our ability to provide commission-based services to IRA clients when that might be the preferred model for them,” he said.

The other problematic piece about the BIC, she said, is the requirement these contracts be signed before advisors speak about any products.

“We can be educating the client up to a certain point, but as soon as we start speaking about a product, a contract needs to be signed. I think it would be better stated if it were to be signed at the time of sale, if in fact we do have to have a contract,” McNeely said.

The BIC also raises the potential for increased litigation, she testified.


McNeely also testified that the cost to comply with the proposed rule would be significant for advisors and cautioned that whenever costs are incurred “advisors have to pass them on to their clients in some way.”

“It’s also important to note that fee-based advisors work with a lot of wealthy individuals who usually have a high minimum account and most of those wealthy individuals can afford to pay those significant upfront fees, startup fees or planning fees. Smaller accounts of middle-America clients are not going to be able to do that,” she said.

“The bigger cost is the lost cost of advice,” McNeely said. “If somebody has a $5,000 balance in a 401(k) from a former employer and they don’t have somebody to talk to and get advice from, they likely will cash it out. That’s a huge cost with the penalties, the taxes, and now the person has no assets saved for retirement. There’s a significant cost for the loss of advice on those smaller accounts.”

Overall, the DoL’s proposed rule “will result in fewer employer plans, fewer participants in employer accounts and lower savings. I don’t think that’s what the Department of Labor has intended this rule to do. Their intention was to protect consumers, especially those middle-America consumers, and this will be counterproductive,” McNeely said.

Read more:

Register or login for access to this item and much more

All Financial Planning content is archived after seven days.

Community members receive:
  • All recent and archived articles
  • Conference offers and updates
  • A full menu of enewsletter options
  • Web seminars, white papers, ebooks

Don't have an account? Register for Free Unlimited Access