Key Takeaways
- • SEC confirms June 30, 2020 compliance deadline for Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI) and Form CRS will not be delayed, maintaining the hard deadline for broker-dealer implementation.
- • Non-dual registrant broker-dealers cannot use "adviser" or "advisor" titles without violating Reg BI's Disclosure Obligation, absent specific statutory exceptions (commodity trading advisors, municipal advisors, special entity advisors).
- • Four new SEC FAQs clarify title restrictions, addressing industry confusion that persisted since the original Reg BI Adopting Release on the presumed violation of using advisor terminology.
- • Dual registrants face stricter personnel rules: associated persons who are supervised only by the broker-dealer division—not registered as investment adviser representatives—are prohibited from using "adviser" or "advisor" in their name or title.
- • The guidance closes a compliance loophole by establishing clear thresholds for what constitutes a capacity disclosure violation under Reg BI, reducing ambiguity for firms operating across broker-dealer and advisory platforms.
Summary
The SEC reaffirmed on May 11, 2020, that the June 30, 2020 compliance deadline for Regulation Best Interest and Form CRS would proceed without extension, signaling the regulatory body's commitment to the established timeline. This announcement came as the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets released four new frequently asked questions designed to address persistent industry confusion regarding broker-dealers' use of "adviser" and "advisor" terminology.
The core compliance issue centers on the Disclosure Obligation under Reg BI, which requires broker-dealers to clearly communicate their capacity when making recommendations to retail customers. The original Reg BI Adopting Release had indicated that non-dual registrant broker-dealers using "adviser" or "advisor" in their names would be presumed to violate this requirement, but the industry sought additional clarification on edge cases and permissible usage.
The SEC's refined guidance establishes that non-dual registrant broker-dealers and their associated persons would "be presumed to violate" the Disclosure Obligation if they use "adviser" or "advisor" in their names or titles, with limited exceptions. Specifically, the SEC carved out protection for broker-dealers acting in federally defined roles that do not involve providing investment advisory services to retail customers—such as commodity trading advisors, municipal advisors, or advisors to special entities. These statutory designations fall outside the presumed violation framework.
For dual-registered firms (those operating as both broker-dealers and investment advisers), the SEC clarified that associated persons supervised solely under the broker-dealer registration cannot use "adviser" or "advisor" terminology, even if the firm itself maintains dual registration. This requirement prevents confusion about which entity or division is providing advice and ensures accurate capacity disclosure to retail clients.
The four-question FAQ framework addresses a gap in earlier regulatory communications that had left firms uncertain about compliance pathways. By establishing clear presumptions tied to dual-registration status and federal statutory roles, the SEC has narrowed the interpretive space and reduced the likelihood of good-faith compliance disagreements as the June 30 deadline approaches.
The core compliance issue centers on the Disclosure Obligation under Reg BI, which requires broker-dealers to clearly communicate their capacity when making recommendations to retail customers. The original Reg BI Adopting Release had indicated that non-dual registrant broker-dealers using "adviser" or "advisor" in their names would be presumed to violate this requirement, but the industry sought additional clarification on edge cases and permissible usage.
The SEC's refined guidance establishes that non-dual registrant broker-dealers and their associated persons would "be presumed to violate" the Disclosure Obligation if they use "adviser" or "advisor" in their names or titles, with limited exceptions. Specifically, the SEC carved out protection for broker-dealers acting in federally defined roles that do not involve providing investment advisory services to retail customers—such as commodity trading advisors, municipal advisors, or advisors to special entities. These statutory designations fall outside the presumed violation framework.
For dual-registered firms (those operating as both broker-dealers and investment advisers), the SEC clarified that associated persons supervised solely under the broker-dealer registration cannot use "adviser" or "advisor" terminology, even if the firm itself maintains dual registration. This requirement prevents confusion about which entity or division is providing advice and ensures accurate capacity disclosure to retail clients.
The four-question FAQ framework addresses a gap in earlier regulatory communications that had left firms uncertain about compliance pathways. By establishing clear presumptions tied to dual-registration status and federal statutory roles, the SEC has narrowed the interpretive space and reduced the likelihood of good-faith compliance disagreements as the June 30 deadline approaches.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.