SEC's Regulation Best Interest: A breakdown

An attorney takes a look at what is expected of advisors under the new SEC rule.

SEC headquarters in Washington. (Photo: AP)

On June 5, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted a rulemaking package that is applicable to investment advisers and broker-dealers. The package includes two final rules and two interpretations: Regulation Best Interest, Investment Adviser Standard of Conduct Interpretation, Form CRS — Relationship Summary, and the Solely Incidental Broker-Dealer Exclusion Interpretation. This is the first in a series of articles describing the SEC’s rulemaking package.

The Regulation Best Interest final rule (Reg BI) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 established a standard of conduct for broker-dealers and their registered representatives. Reg BI requires that broker-dealers act in their retail customers’ best interest when making investment or investment strategy recommendations.

Compliance with the new Reg BI will require the creation and updating of broker-dealer disclosures, as well as the development (or revision) of policies, procedures and systems. The SEC set an effective date for Reg BI that is 60 days after the rule is published in the Federal Register and a compliance transition period that ends June 30, 2020.

This transition period provides allows time for broker-dealers to make the required changes for Reg BI compliance.

The SEC clarified Reg BI’s scope by defining “retail customer” to mean “a natural person, or the legal representative of such natural person, who: receives a recommendation of any securities transaction or investment strategy involving securities from a broker, dealer, or a natural person who is an associated person of a broker or dealer, and who uses the recommendation primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.”

Determining whether a broker-dealer makes a “recommendation” will be based on how that term is currently interpreted under broker-dealer regulations.

The SEC explains, “the more individually tailored a communication to a specific customer or a targeted group of customers about a security or group of securities, the greater the likelihood that the communication may be viewed as a recommendation.”

While the SEC declined to define “recommendation” under the rule, it identified various types of communication that it does not generally consider to constitute a recommendation:

The SEC rule also clarified that the definition of a securities transaction or investment strategy should apply broadly and added “account recommendations” to the text of Reg BI. Further, the SEC described several types of recommendations that it considers to be covered by the rule and subject to regulations, including:

Reg BI also sets forth specific obligations that, if fulfilled, satisfy the rule. Specifically, broker-dealers are required to comply with the Disclosure Obligation, the Care Obligation, the Conflict of Interest Obligation, and the Compliance Obligation.

The SEC also deemed restricting broker-dealers from using the term “adviser” or “advisor” as part of a name or title unnecessary, believing that the Disclosure Obligation creates a presumption that the use of these terms in a name or title by a broker-dealer that is not also registered as an investment adviser or an associated person that is not also supervised by an investment adviser is a violation of the Disclosure Obligation. Thus, broker-dealers should review their names, titles and marketing practices to ensure that these terms are removed, if necessary.

Reg BI defines a “conflict of interest” as “an interest that might incline a broker, dealer or a natural person who is associated … to make a recommendation that is not disinterested.” Compensation practices associated with recommendations to retail customers and related conflicts of interest must be disclosed. The SEC further explains that the disclosure should summarize how the broker-dealer and its financial professionals are compensated for their recommendations and the conflicts of interest that such compensation creates.

The SEC added “cost” as a factor that broker-dealers must consider in connection with this obligation, but only to emphasize that it is one of many factors to consider when making a recommendation.


Beth Miller is an attorney with Spencer Fane LLP in the firm’s Overland Park, Kansas, office. Her practice focuses on helping clients by identifying practical solutions to a wide variety of legal matters in the areas of employer-sponsored retirement plans, executive compensation, fiduciary obligations, and advisory services. She can be reached at bmiller@spencerfane.com.