LG Energy Solution Shares Slide After Ford Cancels EV Battery Supply Deal 
MetaX IPO Soars as China’s AI Chip Stocks Ignite Investor Frenzy 
OpenAI Explores Massive Funding Round at $750 Billion Valuation 
Volaris and Viva Agree to Merge, Creating Mexico’s Largest Low-Cost Airline Group 
Instacart Stock Drops After FTC Probes AI-Based Price Discrimination Claims 
Elliott Management Takes $1 Billion Stake in Lululemon, Pushes for Leadership Change 
Amazon in Talks to Invest $10 Billion in OpenAI as AI Firm Eyes $1 Trillion IPO Valuation 
Harris Associates Open to Revised Paramount Skydance Bid for Warner Bros Discovery 
Treasury Wine Estates Shares Plunge on Earnings Warning Amid U.S. and China Weakness 
Micron Technology Forecasts Surge in Revenue and Earnings on AI-Driven Memory Demand 
Apple Opens iPhone to Alternative App Stores in Japan Under New Competition Law 
Robinhood Expands Sports Event Contracts With Player Performance Wagers 
Citi Appoints Ryan Ellis as Head of Markets Sales for Australia and New Zealand 
Blackstone Leads $400 Million Funding Round in Cyera at $9 Billion Valuation 
TikTok U.S. Deal Advances as ByteDance Signs Binding Joint Venture Agreement 
FedEx Beats Q2 Earnings Expectations, Raises Full-Year Outlook Despite Stock Dip 
ANZ New CEO Forgoes Bonus After Shareholders Reject Executive Pay Report 
Boston, Sept. 21, 2016 -- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(September 20, 2016) The Best Interest Contract Exemption forces advisers with IRAs or retirement plans to divest all unreasonable compensation. But what exactly is reasonable? A new paper from Dalbar, “Assessing Compensation Reasonableness”, examines this question and offers some surprising answers directly from the orders of the US Supreme Court.
In its 2010 decision (Jones v. Harris), the Court affirmed the 25 year old standard for reasonableness and discredited benchmarks that included anything that was not an “arm’s length” arrangement. The affirmed standard (derived from Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch) requires that the determination of what is excessive be based principally on the nature and quality of services, adviser performance, cost of providing services plus a profit and must recognize economies of scale that are passed on to investors.
Using this framework, Dalbar gives examples of how very normal situations can appear unreasonable but using the guidance from the Supreme Court, they prove to be quite reasonable. In the first example, an adviser receives 95 basis points on a $700,000 account or $6,550, which is far in excess of an average. It turns out that when all factors are considered a reasonable compensation would be $11,340. This difference illustrates the potential effect if advisers ignore the Supreme Court orders.
“Assessing Compensation Reasonableness” describes requirements for creating an “arm’s length benchmark” and the complexities of excluding special situations that artificially produce considerably lower compensation. The Supreme Court’s warning on use of adviser benchmarks is also covered.
A copy of the full report is available at: http://www.dalbar.com/assessingcompensationreasonableness.pdf.
Dalbar, Inc. is the financial community’s leading independent expert for evaluating, auditing and rating business practices, customer performance, product quality and service. Launched in 1976, Dalbar has earned the recognition for consistent and unbiased evaluations of investment companies, registered investment advisers, insurance companies, broker/dealers, retirement plan providers and financial professionals. Dalbar awards are recognized as marks of a superior standard of care in the financial community.
Contact: Cory Clark 617.723.6400 [email protected]
