Calling all Chief Compliance Officers (CCO):Don’t Miss the June 30th Deadline:

Financial Firms Must Complete Their PTE 2020-02 Retrospective Review Soon!

If your financial advisers rely on Prohibited Transaction Exemption (PTE) 2020-02, you’re likely aware of the obligations it brings—but one deadline looms larger than most: June 30th.

That’s the due date for your required annual retrospective review, and skipping it isn’t just an oversight—it is a HUGE compliance risk.

Let’s break down why this matters and how you can make it easier.

---

Why the Retrospective Review Matters

PTE 2020-02 allows financial professionals to receive compensation (such as advisory fees, commissions or 12b-1 fees) for rollover recommendations and other conflicted advice—as long as certain conditions are met.

One of those conditions is conducting an annual retrospective review of your firm's compliance with the exemption.

This review isn’t just a box to check!

It’s a safeguard designed to protect investors and demonstrates that your firm acted in your client’s best interest throughout the year. The DOL expects it to be thorough, objective, and well-documented.

If it’s not done—or done poorly—you’re exposing yourself to unnecessary risk, including regulatory scrutiny or loss of the exemption.

That’s right, the DOL can prevent you from doing any more rollovers for up to 10 years!

---

What the Review Should Include

Your retrospective review must:

• Review your current process, forms and documentation

• Assess how your firm complied with each condition of the exemption

• Be reasonably designed to detect and prevent violations by reviewing a sampling of last year’s Rollover Forms

• Be reviewed and certified in writing by a senior executive

• Be completed within six months of the end of your review period (typically June 30 if you operate on a calendar year)

---

Don’t Go It Alone: Help Is Available

If the idea of knowing all the rules and pulling this together sounds overwhelming—you're not alone.

Many advisers and compliance teams are still trying to make sense of the DOL’s evolving guidance.

That’s why we created the ERISA Best Practices CE Course, available now at ERISANerd.com.

This on-demand course is packed with:

✅ Plain-English explanations of PTE 2020-02 requirements

✅ Sample documents, including a retrospective review checklist and executive certification template

✅ Actionable best practices to stay on the right side of regulators

Whether you need a refresher or a full walkthrough, this course is your shortcut to confidence.

And since you have read this far, you are eligible for $100 off the course by using “IAR100”.

---

Final Word: Don’t Wait Until the Last Minute

Compliance isn’t optional—and neither is the June 30th deadline.

Make time in the next few weeks to finalize your firm’s retrospective review, certify it properly, and keep it in your compliance files.

Need help getting it right? Start the course now.

Let’s make sure your firm stays compliant, protected, and prepared.

There is going to be an increase in ERISA lawsuits.

Here’s why . . .

Recent Supreme Court ERISA Decisions: What Financial Advisers Need to Know

A U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision on ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) will reshape the litigation landscape for retirement plan fiduciaries, sponsors, and service providers. For financial advisers, understanding these changes is crucial for risk management and client guidance. The most significant and recent case is Cunningham v. Cornell University (April 17, 2025), which directly impacts how prohibited transaction claims are litigated under ERISA. Here’s a summary of the case, its background, the Supreme Court’s ruling, and practical implications for financial advisers.

---

Cunningham v. Cornell University: The Core Issue

The central question in Cunningham v. Cornell University was what plaintiffs must allege to bring a prohibited transaction claim under ERISA Section 406. Specifically, the case addressed whether plaintiffs must also plead that none of ERISA Section 408’s exemptions (which allow certain transactions if they meet specific criteria) apply to the transaction in question.

Background

• Plaintiffs were current and former employees of Cornell University participating in its defined contribution retirement plans.

• They alleged that Cornell’s plans paid excessive recordkeeping and investment management fees to service providers (TIAA and Fidelity), constituting prohibited transactions under ERISA.

• Lower courts dismissed the claims, holding that plaintiffs needed to allege that no Section 408 exemption applied (i.e., that the services were not necessary or the fees were unreasonable).

---

The Supreme Court’s Unanimous Ruling

On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the lower courts. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion, holding:

• Plaintiffs only need to allege the basic elements of a prohibited transaction under Section 406 to survive a motion to dismiss.

• They do not need to plead facts negating the applicability of Section 408 exemptions; these exemptions are “affirmative defenses” that defendants must prove.

• The Court emphasized that ERISA’s prohibited transaction rules must be enforced as written, and courts should not add extra hurdles for plaintiffs at the pleading stage.

Key Elements Plaintiffs Must Allege:

1. The plan engaged in a transaction,

2. Involving the furnishing of goods, services, or facilities,

3. With a “party in interest” (such as a service provider).

---

Implications for Financial Advisers and Fiduciaries

Lower Bar for Plaintiffs

• Plaintiffs can now bring prohibited transaction claims without having to anticipate and counter possible exemptions at the outset.

• This makes it easier for lawsuits to survive early dismissal and proceed to costly discovery, increasing litigation risk for plan sponsors and fiduciaries.

Increased Litigation Risk

• The decision resolves a split among federal appeals courts and is expected to lead to more ERISA lawsuits, especially those involving 401(k), 403(b), and ESOP plans.

• Plaintiffs’ attorneys are likely to be emboldened to file more claims, knowing the initial pleading standard is less demanding.

Defensive Strategies for Advisers

• Documentation: Maintain thorough records of all plan-related decisions, especially regarding service provider selection, fee benchmarking, and the necessity and reasonableness of services and investment advice.

• Process Review: Update fiduciary processes and governance structures to ensure compliance with ERISA’s duty of loyalty and prudence.

• Proactive Communication: Educate plan sponsors and committees about the increased risk and the importance of fiduciary best practices.

---

Conclusion: What Advisers Should Do Now

The Supreme Court’s recent ERISA decision in Cunningham v. Cornell University, significantly lower the bar for plaintiffs to bring prohibited transaction claims.

Financial advisers should:

• Review their firm’s fiduciary processes and documentation.

• Emphasize regular investment reviews and ongoing advice.

• Prepare for increased scrutiny and potential litigation over advice arrangements.

By proactively addressing these areas, advisers can better protect themselves from costly legal challenges which may be increasing in the coming years.

And if you are not 100% sure of your duties to your clients when operating as an ERISA Fiduciary, check out our ERISA Best Practices Course for financial advisers by CLICKING HERE.

What Financial Advisers Need to Know About the Biden Administration’s Retirement Security Rule (As of April 2025) and the ERISA Nerd’s “two cents”

The Biden Administration’s push to strengthen retirement protections for American workers has been met with both praise and pushback. At the center of this effort is the Retirement Security Rule, a regulation was created that aims to ensure that all financial “professionals” act in the best interests of retirement investors.

While it was finalized in 2024, and supposed to go into effect on 9/23/2024,  the rule's fate remains in limbo as we head into mid-2025—leaving financial professionals in a state of regulatory uncertainty.

---

Understanding the Retirement Security Rule: Where It Came From

This is not the first time the Department of Labor (DOL) has attempted to impose a stronger fiduciary standard on retirement advice. The Obama-era DOL issued a fiduciary rule in 2016, expanding the definition of who qualifies as a fiduciary under ERISA. That rule was struck down in 2018 by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the DOL overstepped its authority mainly because that rule would have allowed IRA holders to sue their adviser in court.

ERISA grants Title I participants (employer sponsored plans) direct access to courts.  Also, Title I is regulated by the DOL.  However, IRA holders fall under Title II of ERISA and do not have access to the court system.  Also, the IRS, not the DOL, regulates Titles II accounts.  So, the courts struck down the Obama rule for creating a new “right of action” (ability to go to court) for IRA holders.

Fast forward to the Biden Administration: In a renewed effort to curb conflicts of interest and protect everyday investors, the DOL released its revised Retirement Security Rule in late 2023 and finalized it in April 2024. The new version attempts to withstand legal scrutiny by refining how fiduciary status is applied to financial professionals who provide investment advice for retirement assets.  The new rule would not dramatically affect most RIAs and their investment advisers as they already have to comply with the ERISA rules when working with 401(k) participants.  However, it would dramatically effect insurance agents and brokers who would be brought under ERISA for the very first time.

The intent of the rule is clear: ensure that all advice regarding rollovers, IRA contributions, or any retirement-related transactions is in the best interest of the investor.

---

Key Provisions of the Rule

Here’s what the Retirement Security Rule proposes:

• Expanded Fiduciary Definition: Financial professionals who provide "recommendations" for retirement accounts—even on a one-time basis—could be treated as fiduciaries.

• Best Interest Standard: Advisers must prioritize the investor’s financial interests over their own compensation or incentives.

• Disclosure Requirements: Advisers must clearly disclose conflicts of interest and compensation arrangements.

• Recordkeeping & Compliance: Firms are expected to have internal policies and procedures that support adherence to the rule.

The DOL emphasized that the goal is not to limit product offerings but to ensure that recommendations are based on what's right for the investor—not what pays the adviser more.

---

Legal Challenges and Delays

Despite the revised approach, the new rule faced swift legal opposition. By the summer of 2024, multiple lawsuits had been filed by industry groups—arguing that the DOL was once again exceeding its statutory authority, just as it did in 2016.

Federal courts in Texas and Florida issued preliminary injunctions blocking enforcement of the rule, which was originally set to take effect on September 23, 2024.

In February 2025, the new “Trump DOL” requested a pause in ongoing appeals, stating that newly appointed officials wanted time to review the rule and its legal implications. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted this request, placing the case in abeyance (suspension) until June 16, 2025.

---

Where Things Stand Now (April 2025)

• The Rule Is Finalized—but Not Enforced.
  Technically, the rule was finalized in 2024. However, due to legal stays (pauses) and the DOL’s request for review, no enforcement action is currently underway.

• The Litigation Pause Runs Until June 16, 2025.
  At that point, the DOL will either proceed with the rule, modify it, or potentially withdraw it depending on internal review and legal strategy.

• Advisers Remain Under Existing Regulations.
  For now, the existing fiduciary obligations under ERISA and the Prohibited Transaction Exemption (PTE) 2020-02 remain the baseline standard—particularly for rollover advice if you are deemed an “ERISA Fiduciary”.  (Reread the 11/5/24 blog titled “Am I an ERISA Fiduciary” https://www.erisanerd.com/blogs/am-i-an-erisa-fiduciary).

---

What Financial Advisers Should Do Now

Even though the Retirement Security Rule isn’t being enforced today, advisers should not ignore its implications. In fact, the industry trend is clearly moving toward higher standards, more transparency, and greater scrutiny.

Here’s how to stay ahead:

1. Audit Your Advice Process

Even if you're not currently a fiduciary under ERISA for certain accounts, ask yourself:

• Are you making recommendations that could later be interpreted as fiduciary advice?

• Are your compensation structures clearly disclosed?

2. Stay Educated and Proactive

Regulatory shifts can come quickly once litigation is resolved. Make sure your compliance team and back office are ready for potential changes in documentation and client communications.  Be sure to subscribe to our blog for more information on this topic as it becomes available. 

3. Lean Into Best Interest Practices

Clients appreciate transparency. Use this moment to emphasize your commitment to acting in their best interest—even if you’re not currently required to under law. It builds trust and futureproofs your business.  Look into our ERISA Best Practices (CE) Course at https://www.erisanerd.com/erisa-best-practices-ce-course

---

Looking Ahead: Uncertainty

Most “experts” believe that the Trump Administration will not take any action and let the “Biden Rule” die on the vine.  This is what happened with the Obama era rules that were challenged in court when the Trump administration took over the DOL the first time.

However, I would like to play “devils advocate” for a second.  I think that Trump, if he is fully informed on what the rule is, may choose to fight for it.  He may want the courts to approve the Biden Administration’s changes.

Why?

Ego!

Most everyone has focused on the fact that the Biden Rule would expand ERISA Fiduciary status to EVERYONE who works with 401k participant or an IRA.  Currently only RIA/IARs are held to “ERISA Fiduciary” status if they don’t choose a “loophole” to avoid the status.

But one thing that has been overlooked is the fact that the Biden Administration is trying to get rid of many Prohibited Transaction Exemptions (PTEs).  They are looking to make PTE 2020-02, formally known as “Improving Investment Advice for Workers & Retirees” or informally as “The Rollover Rule”, the law of the land.

The Biden Administration is literally trying to make PTE 2020-02 the only exemption available for conflicted advice (unless you are an insurance broker, then you could use the new PTE 84-24). 

It was the Trump Administration’s DOL who wrote PTE 2020-02.  So, I am not yet ruling out that just due to ego alone, the Trump administration may fight to preserve the “Biden Rule”.

Only time will tell.

So for now, we speculate for another couple months.

All eyes are on June 16, 2025. 

Well maybe not “all eyes”, but for sure this ERISA nerd’s eyes are!

Ohio Division of Securities VS Pontera?

The future is unclear for “held-away” assets and Ohio Advisers

I am writing this blog under my ERISA Nerd “pen name”. 

However, in full disclosure, it should be noted that I am also the owner and co-founder of PlanConfidence Corporation.  Plan Confidence is an SEC Registered “Internet-Only” RIA that has co-advisory agreements with many RIA firms to provide the research, advice, delivery and documentation on “held-away” accounts.  And for the ERISA covered accounts, we guarantee ERISA compliance when working with these “special” assets.  We currently use, and many of our co-advisers use Pontera and Future Capital to place trades on “held-away” accounts using our proprietary “Trade Files”.

I state all this as I am going to try and write this as fair and balanced as I can, but I think you should know my bias as I write this so you can make your own informed conclusions.

Earlier last week, I had a few advisers registered in the state of Ohio forward me an “Investment Adviser Alert” put out by the Ohio Division of Securities (which I will refer to in the rest of this article as the “Division”). 

You can read the complete alert by CLICKING HERE.

It appears that Ohio is joining states like Washington and Missouri (and possibly soon Oregon) to classify use of Pontera to trade “held-away” accounts as an “unethical” business practice.

I am going to go through a few of the sections in the notice line by line and give my “two cents worth” from an adviser’s perspective. 

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURE: I am not a lawyer.  (I was going to be one, studied all of college to become one, took the LSATs, got accepted to 2 out of the 3 law schools I applied to, and at the last minute decided to go into the financial world after college and not the legal world). So, nothing in this blog should be construed as “legal advice” or a “legal interpretation.  It’s just the interpretation of someone who has been licensed since 1997 and has been an ERISA Nerd since 2008.

That being said, here is my overall interpretation before I go into specifics:

·       The Division never mentions Pontera by name.  So, I am only assuming when they reference “one of the unregistered third-party platforms” they are talking about Pontera (as Future Capital is registered with the SEC).

·       The Division never explicitly states that it is prohibiting any adviser from using the platform, but it is definitely implied!

·       The last paragraph is encouraging as it states the Division is open to learning more about Pontera and is currently engaged in doing so.

One of the biggest concerns I see is that the Division does not like that Pontera is “unregistered”. 

After going through the talking points that Fidelity laid out last September (SEE September 2024 blog Fidelity V Pontera) the Division then states:

“As an unregistered entity, there is no financial regulator reviewing the platform’s policies, procedures, or practices for compliance with federal and state data privacy, cybersecurity, or safeguarding laws.”

This is true. 

Pontera is not registered, so they do not have (to my knowledge) any “financial regulator” that is overseeing them. 

However, Pontera does have a “Commitment to Client Protection” on their website where they spell out all of the rigorous steps they are doing to ensure data protection.  So, it’s not that their data protection measures are not under scrutiny, they are just not under any “financial regulator’s” scrutiny.  Which means we are relying on Pontera to “self-correct” any issues that may be found versus being mandated by a regulator.

The easy solution to this would be if Pontera registered with the SEC. 

However, the increased regulation and fees would probably drive up the costs as Pontera gets bigger.  That is the opposite effect of what you would want a “tech” company to do.  Costs should become lower with more adoption and not more expensive.  So, I would not hold my breath in waiting for Pontera to register unless they are compelled to do so.

And even if they did register with SEC, I don’t think that would solve the issue for Ohio advisers, as the Division states in their notice:

“In Ohio, it is a breach of the investment adviser’s fiduciary duty to access a client's account by using the client's own unique identifying information, such as username and password . See Ohio Administrative Code 1301:6-3-44(E)(1)(f)(vii).”

One could argue here that an OH adviser would not be violating this provision with Pontera as “technically” the adviser only has access to Pontera’s dashboard.  They do not have access to the client’s account.  However, it’s the next sentence that is problematic for OH advisers.

The code also prohibits an investment adviser from “indirectly, or through or by any other person do[ing] any act or thing which it would be unlawful for such person to do directly under the provisions of Chapter 1707.”

It’s the “by any other person” in this sentence that is problematic.  Technically, Pontera does have access through their technology to the client’s account.  So, as I read this, even if Pontera was registered with the SEC, it wouldn’t matter, as the law would need to change the language about accessing a user’s account via their User Name and Password.

This would also call into question the use of Data Aggregating software, as that uses the clients User Name and Password for performance reporting.  My guess is that the Division is going to turn a “blind eye” to that technology, since the adviser does not have access to affect any changes to a client’s account, even though (technically) the aggregator does. That appears to be what Washington and Missouri are doing as well.

The section on “Inadvertent Custody” is a little confusing to me. 

It spends a lot of time discussing the adviser having custody if they can deduct their fees from the customer’s account.    Through Pontera, the adviser only has access to the Pontera dashboard.  This allows them to view the client’s current holdings, all available investment options and change the Future Contributions and Rebalance accounts.  There is no section for an adviser to deduct any fees from the client’s account (although advisers would love it if they could)! 

So, the Division seems a little off base as using this reasoning for denying their advisers use.  Unless they a referring to another “unregistered third party platform” that I have never heard of that has the ability to deduct fees.  Again, I am going on the assumption that phrase refers to Pontera, but I could be wrong!

“In addition, it appears that at least one third-party platform might add the investment adviser or investment adviser representative as a supplemental or authorized user on the customer’s custodial account to navigate account authentication procedures during log-in.”

I am not sure which platform they are referring to here? 

It appears to me that they are specifically not talking about Pontera, as the Division doesn’t use the term “unregistered third party”.  In this case, I would love to know which platform they are referring to as I would love to review it.  The only other platform that I know that has similar functionality to Pontera is Future Capital.  They are an SEC registered investment adviser (RIA), but I don’t think they add the adviser as a “supplemental user”.

However, I could be wrong about that. 

So, if anyone has any ideas on which firm they are referring to, please let me know in the comments section.

“The Division questions whether it is reasonable for an investment adviser to charge an AUM fee for “managing” an account that is held away where the adviser has no authority or control over the securities that are available in the plan and where the account is automatically rebalanced by the custodian based on the customer’s stated risk tolerance and investment strategy. Advisers should consider the adverse impact that an annual AUM fee has in eroding returns on held away assets to ensure the advisers, as fiduciaries, are acting in the best interests of their customers.”

This is the most concerning statement that I read from the Division!

One that would really upset me if I was an OH adviser!

Here it makes it seem like all an adviser is capable of is automatically rebalancing the account which could be easily handled by the custodian.  And if that is true, the physical act of rebalancing the account could be easily handled by the custodian.  This assumes the Division believes that a 401(k) investor should choose an asset allocation and then never, ever deviate from it for the rest of their life.

If the Division really believes that an adviser managing an account is not worth the fees paid, then shouldn’t they apply that same logic to all qualified and non-qualified accounts alike?   Shouldn’t the division only allow the OH registered advisers the ability to set an asset allocation one-time and then have the custodian periodically rebalance the account?

If I were an Ohio registered adviser, I would be steaming mad that the Division doesn’t value an adviser can provide to a retail client.  I would be flooding their office with the various studies showing from Russell Investments, Smart-Asset, Vanguard, Kitces.com, etc showing how much extra alpha an adviser can provide their clients.

The Division does not account for advisers that run tactical allocations or ones that may shift from Growth to Value or vice versa.  It does not account for the actual “advice” that an adviser is providing their clients, which can easily be overlaid the “held-away” accounts as well (in fact, that is exactly what our software does)!

And, in my professional opinion, the Division completely miss the point with the last sentence about an annual fee eroding the return on held-away accounts. 

The fees advisers bill clients when using Pontera are taken out of a different account or paid via credit/debit card.  Technically, there would not be any erosion of returns, since the fee is not taken from the account like a brokerage account or IRA.  So, their “held-away” accounts could perform better than the accounts managed by the adviser since the fees are not being taken from the account.

And the Division is correct that, “the adviser has no authority or control over the securities that are available in the plan”.  Because of this, it is actually harder for an adviser to compliantly work with “held-away” accounts.

Every single plan is different as the employer chooses the investment options for their employees to use. 

Many of those employees have financial advisers who they rely on for help in providing holistic advice.  This means that an adviser needs to get the complete fund lineup for each one of their clients.  They then need to review all the options, overlay their asset allocation models as closely as they can given the investment options the employer chose, put that advice in writing (store it for six years), and then either:

a)       Deliver it to their client so their client can login and place the trades

b)       Trade the account for their client

And the adviser needs to repeat this process over and over again for each client they have!

There is no “block trading and rebalancing” tools or mass execution of trades for “held away” accounts.  (At least not yet, we are working on this very problem at PlanConfidence right now).

So, I strongly and respectfully disagree with the Division on their point that an adviser may not be in compliance by charging an AUM fee on held-away accounts because it is much harder and time consuming to work with held-away accounts.

“The Division is engaging with one unregistered third-party digital platform to learn more about its services and ascertain its compliance with Ohio securities licensing laws and other regulations.”

This to me, this is one of the most encouraging statements of the notice. 

To me, it says that the Division is actively engaged with Pontera to learn more about their services and how they help advisers.  Whether the Division ever comes around to the viewpoint that clients do need help with their “held away” assets and Pontera allows OH advisers to do this compliantly is another issue. 

As Ohio Administrative Code 1301:6-3-44(E)(1)(f)(vii) would need to be re-written as it currently prohibits use of a User Name/Password. 

I am not sure if the code can be amended by the Division itself or if that would take an act from the OH legislature?

Maybe someone who does know can inform me in the comments.

Until then, SEC Registered advisers are going to have an unfair advantage over state registered advisers in Ohio, as SEC advisers are able to use Pontera for their “held-away” accounts.

Is the Biden DOL Rule dead under Trump?

The Biden Administration put forth changes to section 3(21)(a)(ii) of ERISA in April 2024. 

Section 3(21)(a)(ii) of ERISA defines how an adviser can become an ERISA Fiduciary by providing “non-discretionary” advice.

Since 1975 there has been a Five Part Test to determine if you were operating as an ERISA Fiduciary.

The Biden Administration looked to amend this with a three-part test. 

Under the 1975 law, and what is currently in place, you can become an ERISA Fiduciary if you can answer “yes” to all five of these parts.

1)        Provide investment advice for a fee

2)        On a regular basis

3)        Pursuant to a mutual understanding

4)        The advice is a primary basis for investment decisions

5)        The advice is individualized for the participant or plan

If you can answer “no” to any of those questions, then you are NOT an ERISA Fiduciary.

The Biden Administration wanted to cast a wider net to include almost anyone in the financial industry to become an ERISA Fiduciary. 

Specifically, they were looking to pull in insurance professionals under the definition of an ERISA Fiduciary. 

The Biden Administration also was looking to change the existing prohibited transaction exemptions (PTE) available to financial professionals and trying to make almost everyone use PTE 2020-02.  The Biden Administration liked PTE 2020-02 because it requires the financial adviser AND their financial firm to acknowledge they are ERISA Fiduciaries under 3(21)(a). 

One of the main reasons the Biden admin wanted more financial professionals to be become  ERISA Fiduciaries is that an ERISA Fiduciary can be sued in Federal Court.  This is a rarity in the financial world since almost all contracts have mandatory arbitration agreements which prevents your clients from accessing the court system.

The Biden changes to ERISA were scheduled to take go into effect on September 23, 2023. 

However, two Texas courts pushed “pause” on the rule as several lawsuits have been filed to challenge the rule. 

In September of last year, the Biden administration filed motions to overturn the “pause” and have the rules go into effect before the court has a chance to be settled.

Now, this is where things get a little complicated. 

The courts have not yet ruled on the Biden Administration’s motion to “unpause” the rule. 

So, the question remains, what will the Trump administration do with the current court proceedings.

Almost every article I have read and podcast I have heard discussing this matter have come to the same consensus . . .the Trump administration will just pull the justice department from defending the rule in court. 

Thereby granting an immediate victory to the Plaintiffs in the two Texas courts and effectively getting rid of the Biden Administration’s changes.

I have read the Biden Administration’s changes from cover to cover.  In fact, I have it all printed out and sitting on my desk in two three inch binders.  A full chapter of the ERISA Best Practices “ethics” CE Course I created was dedicated to the Biden changes.

If you’re a FINRA Rep or an Investment Adviser Representative (IAR) the Biden changes would have had a minimal effect on your practice.  You already have to abide by most of the rules as an ERISA Fiduciary and under the SEC’s REG BI rule.

However, if you were an insurance broker or captive agent, the Biden administration’s changes will have a severe impact on the way you do business!

So, one would have to wonder, what exactly will the Trump administration do?

Again, the consensus is that he will just let the rule die on the vine.

And I am 80% convinced that this is exactly what will happen. 

Mainly due to Trump’s hatred for the Biden Administration. 

However, 20% of me thinks that he may decide to fight it out in court and have try to have it implemented.

See, the Biden changes give massive protections to hard-working Americans against the insurance industry that they never had before.  Trump may want to make it seem that he is battling for the “little guy” be ensuring they will have the right to the court system when dealing with insurance agents.  This is a right that the IRA owners currently do not have when buying insurance products (annuities). 

Also, it was the Trump 1.0 Administration that literally created PTE 2020-02. 

The same exemption that the Biden administration wanted to make the law of the land. 

Trump’s ego may influence him to push for the courts to approve the Biden changes.

However, I am not sure that the DOL Rule is very high up on his agenda.

So, if I was a betting man (which I am not), I am 80% sure that he is going to let this die on the vine.

However, I am also 80% confident that within the next couple of years, he will create his own rule for the DOL that will be very similar to the Biden rule that will pull the insurance industry under the umbrella of requiring them to operate as ERISA Fiduciaries.

Only time will tell.