NO FEES UNTIL WE WIN
FREE CONSULTATION
A broker’s recommendation can affect your retirement, savings, and ability to meet everyday needs. When a recommendation appears driven by commissions, sales charges, or another financial incentive rather than your circumstances, the conduct deserves careful review.
A Regulation Best Interest violation occurs when a broker-dealer fails to act in a retail customer’s best interest at the time of a recommendation. Including by placing the firm’s financial interests ahead of the customer’s. The SEC also requires brokers to consider relevant risks, rewards, and costs and to provide required relationship disclosures.
Recognizing a possible violation requires more than showing that an investment lost money. The recommendation, the information available to the broker, the product’s costs and risks, and any conflicts of interest all matter. Understanding the rule’s purpose and the customers it protects is the first step toward evaluating what happened in your account.
Schedule a Free Consultation About Your Reg BI Claim
Regulation Best Interest, commonly called Reg BI, is a Securities and Exchange Commission rule that took effect in June 2020. It establishes a standard of conduct for broker-dealers when they make recommendations to retail customers. At the time of a recommendation. The broker-dealer must act in the customer’s best interest and may not place its own financial or other interests ahead of the customer’s interests. The SEC describes the rule’s requirements in its enforcement materials.
Reg BI applies to recommendations made to retail customers. These recommendations may involve securities transactions or investment strategies involving securities. The rule is intended to address the risks that arise when a broker’s compensation, sales incentives, or firm relationships could influence the advice given to an individual investor.
The rule does not require a broker-dealer to recommend the single theoretically best investment available. It does require the firm and its representatives to have a reasonable basis for believing that the recommendation is in the retail customer’s best interest. That analysis should account for relevant facts about the customer, the recommendation, and the transaction, including the recommendation’s costs, risks, and potential rewards.
Before Reg BI, broker-dealers generally operated under a suitability standard. Under that approach, a recommendation could be considered acceptable if it was suitable for the customer based on the customer’s circumstances. A suitable investment, however, could still generate greater compensation for the broker or firm than another reasonably available option.
| Standard | Applies To | Core Requirement | Key Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suitability (pre-2020) | Broker-dealers | Recommendation must be suitable for the customer’s profile | Could still favor broker compensation |
| Regulation Best Interest | Broker-dealers | Recommendation must be in the customer’s best interest | Requires cost, conflict, and disclosure analysis |
| Fiduciary Duty | Registered investment advisers | Must act in client’s interest at all times | Ongoing, continuous duty |
Reg BI goes further by requiring the broker-dealer to consider whether the recommendation is in the customer’s best interest, not merely whether it fits the customer’s profile. The rule also addresses conflicts and financial incentives. A recommendation may raise concerns when the broker’s compensation or other interests influence the recommendation, or when those interests are placed ahead of the retail customer’s interests.
A Regulation Best Interest violation is not automatically the same as a breach of fiduciary duty. Those are distinct legal and regulatory concepts, and the applicable standard depends on the facts, the financial professional’s role, and the relationship with the investor.
Regulation Best Interest is built around four related obligations. Together, they require a broker-dealer to give retail customers meaningful information, make recommendations with care, manage conflicts, and maintain systems designed to support compliance. A failure in any one of these areas may contribute to a Regulation Best Interest violation.
Before or when making a recommendation, a broker-dealer must provide written, full and fair disclosure of material facts about the relationship and the recommendation. This includes the scope of services, fees and costs, the broker’s capacity, and conflicts that could influence the recommendation. The SEC identifies relationship and service disclosures as part of the rule’s requirements.
Form CRS, the customer or client relationship summary, delivers the required relationship disclosure in a standardized format. It is intended to help retail investors understand what services a firm provides, how the firm is compensated, and what conflicts may exist. A disclosure is not meaningful if material information is omitted, obscured, or delivered in a way that prevents the investor from evaluating the recommendation. SEC enforcement materials address Reg BI and Form CRS disclosure failures.
The Care Obligation requires reasonable diligence, care, and skill. Before recommending an investment or strategy, the broker should understand its potential risks, rewards. And costs, then have a reasonable basis to believe it is in the retail customer’s best interest. This obligation concerns more than whether an investment might make money. Costs, liquidity, concentration, complexity, and the customer’s objectives and circumstances can all matter.
For example, the SEC found that representatives failed to adequately consider costs in certain mutual fund recommendations. Including whether a customer could remain within the same fund family without incurring a new sales charge. The SEC’s order explains the Care Obligation and the need to evaluate risks, rewards, and costs.
A broker-dealer must establish, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures designed to identify and mitigate conflicts of interest. Conflicts can arise from commissions, sales incentives, proprietary products, revenue-sharing arrangements, or other compensation practices. The central concern is whether the firm’s financial or other interests are placed ahead of the retail customer’s interests.
Disclosure alone may not resolve a conflict. The firm’s policies should address how the conflict will be reduced, managed, or eliminated in actual recommendations. SEC guidance and enforcement describe the relationship between Reg BI, conflicts, and broker-dealer policies.
The Compliance Obligation requires written policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with Reg BI. Those policies must be tailored to the firm’s activities and the products its representatives sell. They also must function in day-to-day operations, not simply exist in a manual.
Weak supervision, incompatible customer information systems, or a failure to enforce exception reporting can prevent a firm from identifying recommendations that do not meet its own standards. As a result, a compliance failure may be evidence of a broader institutional problem, even when the harm appears in an individual account.
A broker may violate Regulation Best Interest when recommending that a customer sell mutual fund shares held for less than a year and nearly immediately purchase Class A shares in a different fund family. The transaction can generate a new upfront sales charge without providing a corresponding benefit to the investor. The SEC found that at least 253 recommendations in one enforcement matter imposed approximately $230,000 in new upfront charges paid to the broker-dealer and its representatives. The order also noted that lower-cost alternatives within the same fund family were not adequately considered. The SEC’s enforcement order explains the mutual fund recommendations and sales charges.
This kind of activity may look like routine portfolio management on an account statement. But repeated switching can raise questions about whether the recommendation served the investor or primarily generated compensation. Investors reviewing frequent fund exchanges should compare the timing, costs, and stated reasons for each transaction.
Structured notes are complex products with features that can make their risks, costs, liquidity, and potential returns difficult to evaluate. A broker-dealer must understand the product and the customer’s circumstances before recommending it, then assess whether the recommendation is in the customer’s best interest. The SEC charged First Horizon after incompatible customer-information systems left the firm without accurate information needed to review structured note recommendations for compliance with its Reg BI policies and procedures. The SEC’s release describes the structured note compliance failures.
A recommendation may be concerning when the file does not show a meaningful analysis of cost, risk, investment objectives, time horizon, or liquidity needs. These issues can be especially serious for a customer who may need access to funds during retirement.
Reg BI compliance requires more than putting a policy manual on a shelf. Broker-dealers must establish, maintain, and enforce procedures that work in daily operations. In the First Horizon matter, representatives who joined through a merger lacked access to an exception-reporting site used to review structured note transactions flagged as noncompliant. That type of systems failure can prevent supervisors from identifying problematic recommendations and correcting them promptly.
Concentration can also support a Regulation Best Interest violation claim when a broker recommends that a near-retirement customer place an excessive share of liquid assets in one product. In the Emerson Equity matter discussed in enforcement reporting. Most customers were at or near retirement age and invested between 16% and 72% of their liquid net worth in L Bonds. Regulation Best Interest requirements for senior investors require careful attention to liquidity, risk tolerance, and the customer’s ability to withstand losses. Investors can also review investor protections under Regulation Best Interest when evaluating whether an unsuitable recommendation caused harm.
SEC enforcement actions show that a Regulation Best Interest violation can involve a repeated pattern of recommendations. A firm’s compliance systems, or the way a product is sold to retail customers. These cases do not decide whether a particular investor has a private claim, but they illustrate the conduct regulators consider serious.
DLA and mutual fund sales charges. The SEC found that DLA representatives made at least 253 recommendations for customers to sell Class A mutual fund shares held for less than one year. The customers then nearly simultaneously bought shares in a different fund family. The transactions imposed approximately $230,000 in new upfront sales charges paid to DLA and its representatives. The order also found failures to understand the risks, rewards, and costs of those recommendations. DLA agreed to a cease-and-desist order, a censure, and monetary relief, with a Fair Fund created to distribute relief to harmed investors. Read the SEC order involving DLA.
First Horizon and structured notes. First Horizon agreed to pay a $325,000 civil penalty after the SEC found that it failed to maintain and enforce procedures for reviewing certain structured note recommendations. Following a merger, incompatible customer-information systems meant the firm lacked accurate information needed for compliance reviews. Representatives also lacked access to an exception-reporting site used to identify transactions requiring attention. The case demonstrates that a merger or system problem does not eliminate a broker-dealer’s obligation to apply its Reg BI policies. See the SEC’s First Horizon announcement.
Emerson Equity and L Bonds. In a separate proceeding, the SEC alleged that Emerson Equity failed to meet its Care and Compliance Obligations when recommending L Bonds. Most of the customers were at or near retirement age, and they invested between 16% and 72% of their liquid net worth in the bonds. Concentrating that much available wealth in a high-risk product can raise serious questions about whether the recommendation reflected the customer’s circumstances, liquidity needs, and ability to bear risk. The reported Emerson Equity enforcement details.
TC Services and compliance failures. TC Services agreed to pay more than $2.2 million to settle Reg BI charges. Another broker-dealer proceeding resulted in a cease-and-desist order after the firm failed to maintain and enforce written policies and procedures. The SEC described transactions in which exception reports were not timely cleared or customer acknowledgments concerning replacement structured notes were not reviewed. Together, these outcomes show that enforcement can follow both recommendation-level misconduct and firmwide failures to supervise and document compliance.
Reviewing your account records can reveal patterns that deserve closer attention. A single fee or recommendation does not automatically establish a regulatory violation, but these warning signs can help you identify questions for a qualified securities attorney.
Check for frequent account switching. Compare your monthly statements, trade confirmations, and transaction history. Look for mutual funds that were sold and replaced within a short period, particularly when the replacement came from a different fund family. The SEC has described recommendations to sell Class A mutual fund shares held for less than a year as problematic when the transactions impose new upfront sales charges. This is especially true when the customer nearly simultaneously buys shares in another fund family. Repeated switching may indicate that costs and the customer’s interests were not adequately considered. Review the SEC’s description of these mutual fund transactions.
Ask whether a lower-cost share class was available. When a broker recommends a mutual fund, review the prospectus and transaction records for other share classes within the same fund family. The SEC found that failing to consider the availability of Class A shares that could be purchased without a new sales charge raised Care Obligation concerns. Compare the sales load, ongoing expenses, and other costs, and ask why the selected option was recommended. The cost comparison should be tied to the specific recommendation, not just the fund’s potential performance.
Look for products that do not fit your profile. Consider whether structured notes, L Bonds, or variable annuities match your age, liquidity needs, investment objectives, risk tolerance, and financial resources. A product may warrant scrutiny when its risks are difficult to explain. Its surrender period limits access to funds, or its concentration is out of proportion to your circumstances. Preserve the account profile and any risk questionnaire used when the recommendation was made.
Review Form CRS and other disclosures. Find the Form CRS, relationship summary, prospectus, and written communications you received before or during the recommendation. Check whether the documents clearly described the services, fees, compensation, and conflicts that could influence the broker. Reg BI includes disclosure duties, and the SEC has brought cases involving failures to deliver required Form CRS information. Missing or vague disclosures can be an important part of the record.
Trace charges and commissions back to each recommendation. Match sales charges, commissions, markups, and other compensation shown on statements with the investments purchased or exchanged. Ask whether the recommendation appears to have generated more compensation for the broker than a reasonably comparable alternative. The SEC reported approximately $230,000 in new upfront sales charges from a set of mutual fund recommendations, illustrating why transaction-level review matters. If the pattern suggests violations of Regulation Best Interest standards, gather the records and seek advice about your options.
If a broker recommended investments that seemed costly, repeatedly changed your holdings. Or did not explain important risks, preserve the evidence before memories and records become harder to locate. You do not need to determine on your own whether the conduct legally qualifies as a Regulation Best Interest violation. A careful review of the account history and recommendation process can help identify whether the broker placed financial interests ahead of your investment goals.
Start with monthly account statements, trade confirmations, transaction histories, and fee records. Look for frequent switching between similar investments, repeated purchases shortly after sales, or high sales charges that were not clearly explained. A pattern can be more informative than one isolated transaction. For example. The SEC has found that recommendations to sell mutual funds held for less than a year and nearly simultaneously buy funds in another family can impose new upfront sales charges. Raising questions under Reg BI.
Compare each recommendation with your stated objectives, time horizon, liquidity needs, and risk tolerance. Reg BI is intended to protect retail customers from recommendations that are unsuitable or unnecessarily costly in relation to their goals. The SEC describes the standard as requiring broker-dealers to act in the retail customer’s best interest without placing their own financial interests ahead of the customer’s interests. Read the SEC’s explanation of Reg BI.
Keep copies of Form CRS, account-opening documents, investment proposals, prospectuses, risk disclosures, fee schedules, emails, and letters from the broker or firm. Write down when recommendations were made and what the broker said about costs, risks, commissions, alternatives, and expected performance. Include notes about conversations with family members or others who were present. Do not alter original records, and keep a separate copy in a secure location.
The Frankowski Firm represents investors in FINRA arbitration involving broker misconduct and investment losses. FINRA arbitration is the primary venue for these disputes, not a court proceeding. Counsel can evaluate the recommendation history, disclosures, account records, and potential conflicts, then explain available options. In some SEC enforcement matters, a Fair Fund is established to distribute monetary relief to harmed investors to the extent feasible. But that process does not replace an individualized evaluation of potential claims.
The Frankowski Firm works on a contingency fee basis, so clients do not pay attorney fees unless the firm recovers losses. To discuss the records and circumstances involved, learn more about FINRA arbitration, or Contact us for a consultation.
Talk to a Securities Arbitration Attorney About Your Claim Today
A Regulation Best Interest violation occurs when a broker-dealer fails to meet the rule’s obligations while recommending an investment to a retail customer. Examples include putting the firm’s financial interests ahead of the customer’s, overlooking material costs or risks, or failing to disclose relevant conflicts. The SEC states that the recommendation must be in the retail customer’s best interest when it is made. SEC guidance
Frequent recommendations to switch investments, unexplained sales charges, products that do not fit your goals or risk tolerance. And missing information about compensation or conflicts are important warning signs. A broker may also violate the Care Obligation by failing to use reasonable diligence, care, and skill to understand an investment’s risks, rewards, and costs. SEC enforcement order
Preserve account statements, trade confirmations, prospectuses, emails, text messages, financial questionnaires, risk disclosures, and notes from conversations with the broker. Also record when recommendations were made, what you were told about costs and risks, and how the investment affected your account. Do not alter or discard original records, even if the documents seem incomplete.
Potential remedies depend on the facts, the investment, and the available evidence. Investors may pursue a claim through FINRA arbitration, and in some SEC enforcement matters a Fair Fund may distribute monetary relief to harmed investors when feasible. SEC Fair Fund information Because filing deadlines can apply, discuss the matter with a securities law firm promptly.
If you believe a broker recommendation did not reflect your interests, reviewing the circumstances with a securities law firm can help clarify your options. The Frankowski Firm can discuss your potential Regulation Best Interest violation claim and explain whether FINRA arbitration may be appropriate. Contact us to schedule a free consultation.