Displaying items by tag: SEC

There is a subtle distinction between fee-based and fee-only advisors. Fee-only advisors exclusively offer financial advice but don’t sell any products with commissions. Fee-based advisors also mainly offer financial advice, but they may also sell other non-investment products with commissions, like insurance. This means that they cannot market themselves as being ‘fee-only’. 

Many advisors are moving to these models due to their simplicity, while there has been an increase in regulations around the fiduciary standard. In fact, the industry as a whole is seeing fewer broker-dealer accounts and growth in investment-advisory accounts. As a result, many products can now be bought in investment-advisory accounts without a commission, such as annuities and alternative investments. 

An important consideration for an advisor going independent is responsibility for compliance. This requires registering with the state regulator or the SEC if there are more than $100 million in assets. It also means responding to regulatory inquiries, developing a compliance program, and having a system to ensure compliance. 

This additional burden highlights the challenge of running an independent shop. Another is that there is less time for clients, especially during the initial stages. Even afterwards, the additional responsibilities will lead to less time and energy for client service, prospecting, marketing, etc. By choosing a fee-only or fee-based model, advisors can have less of a regulatory burden.

Finsum: Many advisors are moving towards a fee-only or fee-based model. The biggest reason is that it simplifies and reduces the compliance demands for advisors.

According to Bloomberg senior ETF analyst Eric Balchunas, there is only a 25% chance that the SEC approves a spot ethereum ETF. He points to the lack of SEC engagement on the topic and the absence of any positive signs or chatter on the subject, which is a departure from the lead-up to bitcoin’s approval. Balchunas believes this lack of engagement is ‘tactical’ rather than ‘procrastination’. 

The crux of the issue is how ethereum should be classified. There are indications that the SEC is leaning towards treating it like a security based on subpoenas to crypto companies that have interacted with the Ethereum Foundation. 

However, there are some dissenting voices who are more optimistic about approval. Craig Salm, Grayscale’s Chief Legal Officer, says the SEC’s reticence is due to most issues already being cleared up during the bitcoin ETF approval process. He believes both ETFs are nearly identical, except for the underlying asset. He also pointed to the approval of an ethereum futures ETF and its classification as a commodity future as a favorable sign. 

Currently, several asset managers have filed for approval for an ethereum ETF, including Blackrock, VanEck, ARK 21Shares, Fidelity, Invesco Galaxy, Grayscale, Franklin Templeton, and Hashdex. The most immediate deadline is May 23 for VanEck.

Finsum: Over the next couple of months, the SEC will decide on an ethereum ETF. Reading the tea leaves, Bloomberg’s Eric Balchunas is not optimistic that it will be approved. 

On January 10, the SEC approved 11 spot bitcoin ETFs. Vanguard quickly made the decision to not offer a bitcoin ETF. The decision has been met with resistance from customers. Recently, CEO Tim Buckley provided more insight into this decision, given that this has been a constant source of inquiry.

Overall, the firm doesn’t believe that bitcoin is a suitable investment option for a retirement plan, given the asset’s volatility and speculative nature. Buckley also rejects the notion that bitcoin is a 'store of value’, pointing to its severe declines in the past and correlation with equities. For example, bitcoin dropped from $69,000 to $16,000 between 2021 and 2022, while the S&P 500 was down 21% during this period from peak to trough.

Buckley added that he doesn’t believe that Vanguard will offer a bitcoin ETF until something significantly shifts in the asset class. In contrast, Vanguard only invests in asset classes with underlying cash flow. With equities, this refers to the future earnings of a company. For bonds, it can be calculated through a bond’s coupon and principal. Since bitcoin has failed to function as an effective ‘store of value’ and generates no cash flow at the moment, it remains purely a speculative asset, which makes it inconsistent with Vanguard’s principles and ethos. 

Finsum: Vanguard is not offering a bitcoin ETF, unlike many of its major competitors. CEO Tim Buckley shared why bitcoin is more of a speculative asset and unfit for long-term investing. 

Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), spoke recently at the Investment Adviser Association Compliance Conference. In a Q&A session with reporters, he remarked that there were no current plans to modify or update Reg BI. Instead, the agency’s focus is on ‘examining for and enforcing against’ Reg BI.

In later remarks, he addressed its approach towards predictive data analytics. He believes this is a gray area, and the SEC wants to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest within newer technology that utilize behavioral prompts and nudges. Of course, this topic is even more germane given the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) powered applications. 

Gensler wants to ensure that there are no loopholes to bypass the fiduciary rule. Many in the industry contend that this rule is a backdoor expansion of Reg BI and that current regulations were sufficient. 

Previously, Gensler had spoken that the new technology enables practices to micro-target consumers with products and content. While this can help advisors grow their business, he believes this communications channel needs to be regulated as well to ensure that these business interests are not placed above the clients’. 

Finsum: At a recent conference, SEC Chair Gary Gensler pushed back that there was a backdoor expansion of Reg BI due to the predictive analytics rule. The rule mandates that predictive technology that communicates with clients must also follow the fiduciary rule.

FINRA and SEC regulators have increased enforcement and oversight of Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI). Recent focus has been on increasing compliance within the sales process. There have been several FINRA actions to punish firms for improper supervision to ensure the fiduciary standard is being followed.

The pace of these actions and enforcement has gradually picked up since the moratorium on enforcement ended. Further, regulators have also made public comments emphasizing the need for more aggressive action. 

In 2023, there were FINRA enforcements following only 8 in 2022. The agency has also started to impose personal fines for sales violations or requiring advisors to pay back a portion of losses. Prior, regulatory agencies would see compensation and damages from the firm rather than individuals. This change in strategy is a reflection that they are trying to deter violations of the fiduciary standard at the individual and firm level.

Looking ahead, comments from SEC and FINRA officials reveal that this is only the beginning. According to FINRA’s acting head of enforcement, Chris Kelly, ‘more and more’ cases involving all four pillars of Reg BI which includes disclosure, care, conflict of interest, and compliance are likely to be filed. 

Finsum: FINRA and SEC regulators are increasing Reg BI enforcement. They are targeting firms for improper sales supervision and punishing brokers for violations.