3 Big Gaps in the DOL's Case for Its New Fiduciary Regs

Commentary May 28, 2024 at 04:59 PM
Share & Print

What You Need To Know

  • ERISA requires the people serving retirement savers to be fiduciaries.
  • One problem: Giving everyone the best advice creates groupthink risk.
  • Another: Performance analyses fail to consider the advisor that is not there.
A person looking at question marks

Officials at the U.S. Labor Department don't seem to want to use their new retirement investment advice fiduciary definition to destroy the lives of commissioned agents who sell annuities and life insurance.

They say, over and over again, in the introduction to the Retirement Security Rule and in a separate, related set of guidelines for insurance agents, that insurance agents perform useful work, that commission-based compensation is fine, and that carefully structured training trips could be fine.

They emphasize that they simply want to respect the Employee Retirement Income Security Act requirement that retirement savers get investment advice that puts their interests first.

But, whatever one thinks about the value and workability of the new requirements, it looks as if the Labor Department had a hard time getting hard data to support its analysis.

One weird gap: The department had no firm asset figures for the variable annuities and fixed annuities held inside individual retirement accounts.

The Asset Number That Isn't There

The department relied partly on a Morningstar forecast that concluded reducing conflicts of interest could help retirement savers avoid about $32.5 billion in non-variable indexed annuity costs over 10 years. These cost savings are tied to the narrowing of the "spread," or difference between the issuers' assets and the assets in the savers' own accounts, that cover issuers' costs for administration, taxes, compliance, sales, distribution and marketing.

Morningstar assumed in its calculations that the new regulations could cut the cost spread to 1.25% from 2%.

The Morningstar analysts say — after performing calculations based on non-variable indexed annuity sales and applying the spread changes — that the new Labor Department approach could squeeze $3.25 billion in costs out of the non-variable indexed annuity market each year.

But the overall size of the non-variable annuity market is unclear, and the Labor Department did not respond to a request for comment.

Of course, the department's use of a numerator without a denominator is due at least partly to factors beyond its control. It relies on entities such as insurance, regulators, the Federal Reserve Board insurers, insurance groups and financial services data vendors for annuity market data. It doesn't have magical abilities to conjure all of the data it or an observer might want out of thin air.

But, no matter why the gap exists, it is a symptom of the fact that it's often hard for regulators to get basic information about what's happening in financial services markets today. Predicting how new laws or regulations will affect the markets is, clearly, much more difficult.

The Diversification That's Not There

Another gap in the Labor Department's analysis is a failure to figure out what requiring all retirement savers to get "the best" recommendations about rollovers might do to U.S. investment market stability.

Economists believe that one force that might help the stability of the financial system is investor diversity.

Most investors follow the crowd, but some do their own thing.

The eccentrics may make a fortune in strange times. They can then bail their friends out and provide the seed capital for the new companies that rise from the ruins of the old order.

But the current focus on encouraging retirement savers to use the lowest cost, highest-performing arrangements is already herding typical retirement savers into giant target-date funds run by a few giant asset managers, and, as Marc Rowan, the CEO of Apollo Global Management, noted in November 2023, about 28% of the S&P 500 index stocks' market value comes from the stocks of 10 companies.

Vanguard, which now manages such a high percentage of retirement savers' 401(k) plan account assets that it has become many publicly traded companies' top shareholder, warned the Financial Stability Oversight Council, an agency that's supposed to watch for risks that could crash the financial system, that regulatory requirements that promote "groupthink" could be an important source of systemic risk.

Vanguard was talking about rules for putting risky-looking nonbank financial services companies under federal oversight, not sales standards, but it seems as if the principle that excessive synchronization can be a threat is an important one to heed.

In the introduction to the final retirement investment advice fiduciary regulations, the Labor Department itself uses the term "systemic risk" just once, in a footnote connected with a discussion about conflict-of-interest disclosures, rather than a discussion about systemic risk.

So, one gap in the Labor Department's cost-benefit analysis is the lack of discussion about whether prompting retirement advisors to use similar software tools to get similar types of product rankings to move clients' assets into the same hot products could cause a crash that would wipe out the value of the assets.

The Advisor That's Not There

Something else that's missing from the cost-benefit analysis is a serious look at what happens when retirement savers get no retirement advice at all.

The problem is that comparing consumers who get one type of advice with consumers who get a different type of advice seems to be a lot more common than comparing consumers who get some kind of advice with consumers who get no advice at all.

The analysts refer, for example, to reports that rely on papers like one by John Chalmers and John Reuter, who found that retirement plan participants who simply invested in the default option and received no advice from live humans earned higher returns, after fees were deducted, than participants who worked with advisors.

But the participants in the default investment option were actually benefiting from the sophisticated investment advice that the sponsor used to select the default option.

And investment returns may not be the best measure of the value personalized advice can provide.

The best measures may be income at retirement, assets at retirement or other measures that involve factors other than investment returns.

Daniel Hoechle and other finance experts tried to gauge the effects of professional financial advice, while filtering out many possible confounding factors, by looking at a Swiss bank program that marketed free advice to all bank customers.

Hoechle and his colleagues found that the advised customers were much better off, because they saved more, were 10 times more likely to open tax-exempt retirement accounts during the month they were called, were more likely to invest in stocks and stock funds, and were more likely to hold on stocks during market downturns.

Corebridge Financial tried to conduct a similar study using data on the participants in the retirement plans it served and found that using professional advice appeared to correlate with a 32% increase in participant contributions, to $283, from $215.

Another team of researchers, led by Aman Sunder of the College for Financial Planning, found, in a study published in the Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance in April, that, during the Great Recession, consistently using professional advice during the Great Recession seemed to correlate with higher net worth, partly because people who consistently used financial professionals were more likely to buy houses at the right time.

Some researchers have suggested that financial advisors could hurt clients' net worth, due to fees, but Sunder's team said its results show that consistent use of advisors seems to help, "perhaps because advised households benefit from the increased trust and confidence derived from an advisory relationship."

"The findings suggest that consumers benefit most when they maintain a long-term relationship with a comprehensive financial adviser, perhaps because investment strategy, debt management, and financial plan implementation improve over time," according to Sunder's team.

The Labor Department analysts do not seem to have studies like Hoechle's or Sunder's in their footnotes.

Certainly, creating a cost-benefit analysis for a new regulation has more to do with clarifying thoughts today than with accurately predicting the future.

If George Washington had told Alexander Hamilton to create a cost-benefit analysis for proposals to spin the United States of America off from England, maybe he would have taken one look at the results and told his soldiers to go back to farming.

But the Labor Department has not shown that the benefits of the new regulations will justify all of the disruption. The most anyone can say with confidence about the regulations is that time will tell.

Credit: Shutterstock

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.

Related Stories

Resource Center