George Michael Gerstein discusses the status of the uniform fiduciary standard proposed regulations in New Jersey and Nevada in a new article.
@MarkSchoeff – As Massachusetts' uniform fiduciary proposal leaps closer to finalization, and NJ's substantially sim. proposal remains in wings, we face prospect of a new paradigm that other states follow. The potential implications are significant. More: https://t.co/XNUjjMN5IA
— Fiduciary Governance Group (@FidGovGroup) December 2, 2019
Over the past 2 years, the states have taken disparate approaches to filling what they perceive as a regulatory void when the DOL Fiduciary Rule was struck down by a federal court. At the outset, most states, with the exception of Nevada, took a disclosure-based approach (most notably, NY and NJ), and legislation was the preferred avenue. Now, the trend is toward heightening the standard of care (disclosure appears to be viewed skeptically) through regulation (executive/governor’s branch). Though it varies by state, there at times can be incongruity of approach taken within a state. For example, the New Jersey legislation favored disclosure, whereas Governor Murphy preferred a new standard of care. Though the New Jersey legislation is unlikely to be reintroduced next year, it highlights a risk for market participants when there is inconsistency intrastate and interstate. We are expecting to see draft bills over the coming months for the next session in a small handful of states, but will also keep a (very) close eye on if and when either or both of New Jersey and Massachusetts decide to move forward with their fiduciary duty regulations applicable to broker-dealers and investment advisers. Nevada is also likely to be moving forward with finalization on its proposed fiduciary implementing regulation.