What This Article Is About

​

This article presents a neutral, analytical framework for evaluating the “solely incidental” component of the broker-dealer exclusion under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. It synthesizes existing federal securities law and SEC guidance for educational purposes and does not create new legal standards or constitute legal advice. Arbitrators must decide each case based on the evidence, arguments, and applicable law presented.

​

In its simplest terms, the “solely incidental” component of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 broker-dealer exclusion, found in Section 202(a)(11)(C),² ³ allows broker-dealers to provide investment advice without registering as advisers if the advice is provided in connection with, and is “reasonably related” to, their primary business of effecting securities transactions and no “special compensation” is received. 

​

This exclusion is crucial for broker-dealers who provide incidental advice, such as recommending a specific security during a trade, without triggering the strict fiduciary duties imposed on registered investment advisers.

 

Introduction
 

The relationship between a registered representative and a brokerage customer has never existed in a regulatory vacuum. Yet for arbitrators called upon to resolve investment disputes, the threshold question — whether a representative’s conduct gave rise to fiduciary obligations — remains among the most contested and analytically underserved questions in modern securities arbitration.

​

The difficulty is structural. Account agreements routinely designate relationships as “non-discretionary” and “commission-based” — language that appears, on its face, to foreclose fiduciary analysis. Meanwhile, the actual texture of the relationship — years of periodic reviews, customized guidance, and portfolio-level engagement — may tell an entirely different story. The underlying regulatory framework addresses this tension not by reference to labels, but by reference to conduct.

​

This article provides arbitrators with a practical, conduct-based analytical framework grounded in three sources of federal authority:

​

​

1. Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940,

2. The Supreme Court’s foundational holding in SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., and

3. The SEC’s 2019 Fiduciary Interpretation (Release IA-5248), read in conjunction with the contemporaneously issued Solely Incidental Interpretation (Release IA-5249).

​

The article proceeds as follows:

​

• Section I examines the statutory and regulatory foundation for conduct-based fiduciary obligations.

• Section II addresses the distinction between episodic brokerage and continuous advisory relationships.

• Section III provides a comparative framework for assessing representative conduct.

• Section IV applies the framework to a common fact pattern with balanced analysis of competing interpretations.

• Section V concludes with practical guidance for arbitrators. (Footnotes throughout provide citations to primary authority.)

​

Executive Summary

​

In modern financial disputes, the distinction between “brokerage” and “advisory” services often defies traditional labels. While account agreements may designate a relationship as “non-discretionary” or “commission-based,” the applicable regulatory framework calls for attention to whether the representative’s actual conduct diverged from those labels. Substance, not labels, determines the applicable obligations.

​

Two SEC releases from 2019 address these questions in separate lanes. The first, the Solely Incidental Interpretation (IA-5249), addresses the broker-dealer exclusion under the Advisers Act — whether advice stays “solely incidental” turns on a practical, facts-and-circumstances look at the firm’s business, its services, and its client relationships. The second, the Fiduciary Interpretation (IA-5248),⁴ operates in a separate domain: it spells out the higher standard of conduct that applies once someone is actually in an advisory relationship.

​

This article examines circumstances in which the scope and character of brokerage services may warrant analysis under the Advisers Act’s broker-dealer exclusion, separate from the recommendation-specific obligations of Regulation Best Interest. Recurring reviews, portfolio discussions, customer communications, or agreed account monitoring do not alone establish advisory status; their significance depends on the full facts and circumstances of the particular relationship.

​

For arbitrators, the critical inquiry is not merely which contract the client signed, but whether the totality of the representative’s conduct reflects services whose actual scope, purpose, and character — and their relationship to brokerage transactions — warrant analysis under the broker-dealer exclusion, regardless of the account’s title.

​

Section I - Conduct-Based Advisory Obligations

​

The Statutory Foundation

​

The Investment Advisers Act of 1940 provides the threshold test. Section 202(a)(11) defines an “investment adviser” as any person who, for compensation, engages in the business of advising others as to the value of securities or the advisability of investing in securities. These three elements determine status:⁵

​

1. Provides Advice on Securities — substantive guidance on securities decisions, not merely executing transactions.

2. For Compensation — receives economic benefit, including commissions, fees, or other remuneration.

3. Engages in the Business — advice is part of a regular pattern, not isolated or incidental. Section 202(a)(11)(C) excludes broker-dealers whose advice is “solely incidental” to brokerage and who receive no “special compensation” for advice. The analysis below helps evaluate whether conduct exceeds this exclusion. Critically, the broker-dealer exclusion requires satisfaction of both of its specific prongs; therefore, if the advice is not “solely incidental,” the exclusion is lost regardless of the compensation structure.

​

When a representative’s actual services meet these three criteria, industry standard-of-care analysis turns to the framework the SEC articulated under Section 206 of the Advisers Act.⁶ Industry standards regarding fiduciary conduct are grounded in the Supreme Court’s 1963 holding in SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc.,⁷ which established that Section 206 imposes on investment advisers “an affirmative duty of utmost good faith, and full and fair disclosure of all material facts.” Once the underlying services satisfy the Section 202(a)(11) threshold, the industry evaluates the professional relationship under that broader, advisory standard — though the ultimate finding on the facts belongs to the arbitrators.⁸

​

The 2019 SEC Interpretation reaffirmed a principles-based fiduciary duty with these two components:

​

1.  Duty of Care: Provide best-interest advice based on client objectives, circumstances, and risk tolerance. In ongoing relationships, this may include periodic strategy evaluations, monitoring portfolio allocation and concentration/leverage, and reassessing risks as conditions change.

2. Duty of Loyalty: Prioritize client interests, avoiding subordination to the adviser’s own interests.

​

The Critical Fiduciary Distinction (IA-5248)

​

The 2019 Interpretation provides essential guidance that updates and amplifies — and must be read against the backdrop of — Capital Gains for modern practice. Three principles are particularly relevant for arbitrators:

​

1. Fiduciary Duty May Not Be Waived. Unlike Regulation Best Interest, which applies to the specific circumstances of a recommendation, an adviser’s federal fiduciary duty “may not be waived, though it will apply in a manner that reflects the agreed-upon scope of the relationship.”

2. The Duty Attaches to the Entire Relationship. The SEC states that fiduciary duty “follows the contours of the relationship” and requires advice “in the best interest of the client, based on the client’s objectives.” It is important to note that this is relationship-wide and not transaction-specific.

3. Ongoing Advice Creates Ongoing Monitoring Duties. The SEC explicitly states that when an adviser has an ongoing relationship with periodic compensation, the duty to monitor will be extensive. Conversely, a one-time engagement may not trigger monitoring duties. The scope depends on the agreed relationship — whether established expressly through written agreement, implicitly through the parties’ course of conduct, or by the nature and regularity of services actually rendered. The presence of periodic reviews or discussions does not, by itself, establish a duty to monitor; such duties depend on the agreed scope of the relationship and the nature of the responsibilities actually assumed.

​

Understanding Regulation Best Interest⁹

​

Regulation Best Interest’s (“Reg BI”) “best interest” language creates significant confusion. The SEC was explicit in the adopting release (Release No. 34-86031):¹⁰ The SEC made clear that Regulation Best Interest was not intended to apply the Advisers Act fiduciary standard to broker-dealers. The table below clarifies the distinction:

​

[Editor’s note: In the PIABA Bar Journal this material appears as a 2-column table. It is presented here in list form for readability on mobile devices. The text is unchanged.]

​

What Reg BI Requires: “[A] broker-dealer must act in the retail customer’s best interest and cannot place its own interests ahead of the customer’s interests.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 33,320.

​

What Reg BI Does NOT Require: “Regulation Best Interest would not: (1) Extend beyond a particular recommendation or generally require a broker-dealer to have a continuous duty to a retail customer or impose a duty to monitor . . .” 84 Fed. Reg. at 33,334.

​​

What Reg BI Requires: “[A] broker-dealer must disclose, in writing, all material facts about the scope and terms of its relationship with the customer.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 33,321.

​

What Reg BI Does NOT Require: “[W]e are not referring to Regulation Best Interest as a ‘fiduciary’ standard, and we emphasize that Regulation Best Interest is separate from any common law analysis of whether a broker-dealer has fiduciary duties.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 33,333.

​

What Reg BI Requires: “[A] broker-dealer must exercise reasonable diligence, care, and skill when making a recommendation to a retail customer.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 33,321.

​

What Reg BI Does NOT Require: “[T]he provision of recommendations in a broker-dealer relationship is generally transactional and episodic, and therefore the final rule requires that broker-dealers act in the best interest of their retail customers at the time a recommendation is made.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 33,331.

​

What Reg BI Requires: “[A] broker-dealer must establish, maintain, and enforce reasonably designed written policies and procedures addressing conflicts of interest associated with its recommendations to retail customers.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 33,321.

 

What Reg BI Does NOT Require: “Although we are not applying the existing fiduciary standard under the Advisers Act to broker-dealers, key elements of the standard of conduct that applies to broker-dealers under Regulation Best Interest will be substantially similar to key elements of the standard of conduct that applies to investment advisers pursuant to their fiduciary duty under the Advisers Act at the time that a recommendation is made.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 33,330.

​

Source: Reg BI Adopting Release, supra note 10.

​​

The Distinction

​

• Reg BI is transactional (recommendation-by-recommendation), while fiduciary duty is relational (the entire engagement, including portfolio-level oversight).

• These standards coexist and address different questions—Reg BI compliance speaks to the standard of conduct for covered recommendations, while the availability of the broker-dealer exclusion is a separate inquiry governed by Section 202(a)(11)(C) and the facts and circumstances of the relationship.

​

One provision of Regulation Best Interest warrants particular attention in the conduct-based analysis: the agreed-upon monitoring carve-out.

​

• Reg BI explicitly extends to “implicit hold recommendations resulting from agreed-upon account monitoring.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 33,320.

• Where the parties have agreed — expressly or through the course of their conduct — to ongoing account monitoring by the representative, the agreed monitoring generally involves an implicit recommendation to hold at the agreed monitoring times, subject to Reg BI’s best-interest standard; the scope and frequency of such monitoring must be disclosed.

• This provision is significant because agreed-upon monitoring may create implicit hold recommendations subject to Reg BI. Whether that monitoring remains solely incidental depends on its scope, frequency, purpose, related disclosures, and the facts and circumstances of the particular relationship. Periodic monitoring alone does not resolve the issue.

• Arbitrators should examine whether agreed-upon monitoring — whether memorialized in writing or reflected in the parties’ consistent course of dealing — was present in the relationship at issue.

 

Regulation Best Interest and the Advisers Act broker-dealer exclusion address distinct regulatory questions. Regulation Best Interest specifies the standard of conduct for covered recommendations. The availability of the broker-dealer exclusion is governed by Section 202(a)(11)(C) and the facts-and-circumstances inquiry described in the Solely Incidental Interpretation. Compliance with Regulation Best Interest, standing alone, does not answer that separate inquiry.

 

The SEC was explicit on this point in the Reg BI adopting release: “[W]e are not applying the existing fiduciary standard under the Advisers Act to broker-dealers.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 33,330.¹¹ The SEC adopted Regulation Best Interest as a tailored standard for the broker-dealer model rather than as a wholesale application of the Advisers Act fiduciary standard, an alternative the Commission considered and consciously declined. 84 Fed. Reg. at 33,321–22.

​

Accordingly, the conduct-based analysis described here is not a routine overlay on brokerage relationships. It is an analytical framework for evaluating the actual scope, purpose, and character of services where the record presents a genuine question about whether those services remained reasonably related to the broker-dealer’s primary business.

​

Section II – Defining Continuous Advisory Relationships: A Conduct-Based Inquiry

​

Episodic brokerage may involve discrete, client-initiated transactions with limited guidance. Frequency of contact alone does not determine status; the nature and comprehensiveness of the advice is what controls — a distinction the SEC drew explicitly in the Reg BI adopting release, noting that an investment adviser’s fiduciary duty “generally includes a duty to provide ongoing advice and monitoring,” while Regulation Best Interest “imposes no such duty.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 33,321.

​

Continuous advisory services may feature recurring strategy discussions, periodic reviews, concentration/leverage evaluations, household planning, and active involvement patterns creating reasonable expectations of ongoing engagement.

​

By contrast, a broker who executes client-directed trades without offering portfolio-level guidance would more likely reflect episodic brokerage. Account titles do not control; duties depend on function and expectations. This conduct-based approach aligns with the SEC’s longstanding position that substance controls over form in determining regulatory obligations.¹² ¹³

 

Section III – Factors for Assessing Advisory Conduct (Comparative Table)

 

Arbitrators evaluate conduct rather than labels by examining the totality of the relationship. Importantly, frequent contact, enhanced customer service and/or periodic portfolio reviews — standing alone and when reasonably tethered to transaction-based recommendations — do not convert brokerage activity into advisory conduct.

​

No single characteristic is determinative. The following items identify facts that may assist arbitrators in evaluating the nature, scope, purpose, and relationship of services to brokerage transactions. They are not a test, and each must be assessed in light of the total record, including compensation, disclosures, the representative’s actual authority, supervisory practices, and the connection between services and securities transactions.

​

The following indicators are drawn from conduct factors identified in the authorities listed below and reflect an illustrative framework synthesized from those authorities for distinguishing advisory from brokerage relationships. They are illustrative and non-exhaustive, and are not an SEC factor test. Sources: Investment Advisers Act § 202(a)(11), 15 U.S.C. § 80b-2(a)(11); Fiduciary Interpretation, supra note 4, §§ II.A, II.B.1, II.B.3, II.C; IA-1092, supra note 5; FINRA Rules 2111, 3110, 3120.¹⁴ ¹⁵​

​​

[Editor’s note: In the PIABA Bar Journal this material appears as a 3-column table. It is presented here in list form for readability on mobile devices. The text is unchanged.]

​

Indicator: Frequency of Contact

Typical Brokerage Characteristics: Sporadic, client-initiated only

Potential Indicators Requiring Context: Regular (e.g., quarterly reviews, proactive outreach) (Fiduciary Interpretation, supra note 4, § II.B.3)

​

Indicator: Portfolio Discussions

Typical Brokerage Characteristics: Rare or transaction-specific

Potential Indicators Requiring Context: Recurring, addressing allocation and risks (Fiduciary Interpretation, supra note 4, § II.B.1)

​

Indicator: Monitoring

Typical Brokerage Characteristics: Minimal or none

Potential Indicators Requiring Context: Ongoing, with documented evaluations of concentration/leverage (Fiduciary Interpretation, supra note 4, § II.B.3)

​

Indicator: Household Planning

Typical Brokerage Characteristics: Typically absent

Potential Indicators Requiring Context: Present, integrating family financial goals (Fiduciary Interpretation, supra note 4, § II.B.1)

​

Indicator: Written Strategy

Typical Brokerage Characteristics: Usually none

Potential Indicators Requiring Context: Often developed or referenced (Fiduciary Interpretation, supra note 4, §§ II.A, II.B.1)

​

Indicator: Self-Representation

Typical Brokerage Characteristics: As broker for transactions

Potential Indicators Requiring Context: As adviser/manager for ongoing guidance (potentially creating professional expectations of ongoing relationship-wide guidance) (IA-1092, supra note 5; Fiduciary Interpretation, supra note 4, § II.C)

​

Indicator: Supervisory Evidence

Typical Brokerage Characteristics: Basic trade reviews

Potential Indicators Requiring Context: Exception reports, escalation records (FINRA Rule 3110; Fiduciary Interpretation, supra note 4, § II.B.3)

​

Indicator: Compensation Structure

Typical Brokerage Characteristics: Transaction-based commissions tied to specific trades

Potential Indicators Requiring Context: Fee-based, AUM-based, or retainer arrangements suggesting ongoing service relationship rather than discrete transaction compensation (Fiduciary Interpretation, supra note 4, § II.B.3)

​

Indicator: Contact Initiation

Typical Brokerage Characteristics: Client-initiated; representative responds to inquiries or orders

Potential Indicators Requiring Context: Representative proactively initiates contact independent of pending transactions; outreach tied to portfolio conditions rather than sales activity (Fiduciary Interpretation, supra note 4, § II.B.3)

​

Indicator: Scope of Account Discussions

Typical Brokerage Characteristics: Limited to specific security or transaction at issue

Potential Indicators Requiring Context: Encompasses entire portfolio including positions held away or at other institutions; discussions reflect household-level rather than account-level perspective (Fiduciary Interpretation, supra note 4, §§ II.A, II.B.1)

​

Indicator: Customer-Profile Documentation

Typical Brokerage Characteristics: Collected at account opening; rarely revisited absent a new transaction

Potential Indicators Requiring Context: Periodically reviewed and updated as market conditions or client circumstances change; profile treated as a living document rather than a one-time disclosure (Fiduciary Interpretation, supra note 4, § II.B.1; Reg BI Care Obligation)

​

Indicator: Investment Strategy Documentation

Typical Brokerage Characteristics: Absent; no written investment mandate or ongoing strategy articulated

Potential Indicators Requiring Context: Written or orally articulated investment strategy referenced across meetings; communications reflect an ongoing, evolving investment mandate rather than episodic transaction rationale (Fiduciary Interpretation, supra note 4, §§ II.A, II.B.1)

​

Indicator: Possible Delegation of Decision-Making Authority

Typical Brokerage Characteristics: Strictly non-discretionary; all trades explicitly client-approved before execution

Potential Indicators Requiring Context: Representative exercises practical judgment on timing, sizing, or execution without explicit per-trade client approval, suggesting a pattern of delegated decision-making that arbitrators should examine in context of the full relationship record.¹⁶

​​

Note: Each indicator above is context-dependent. Standing alone, none establishes advisory status. The same conduct may be consistent with a robust brokerage relationship or with an advisory relationship, depending on its scope, purpose, compensation, disclosures, the representative’s actual authority, and its connection to securities transactions. Cf. Solely Incidental Interpretation, supra note 3, at 33,685 (the amount, importance, or frequency of advice is not determinative).

​

These indicators are not absolutes. That is, a brokerage relationship may exhibit some advisory traits without leaving the broker-dealer exclusion, provided the primary relationship remains transactional.

​

Firm-level supervision, disclosures, and documented scope-of-relationship controls may appropriately limit representative conduct to a brokerage framework, even where client engagement is frequent or robust. Enforcement of these institutional controls may be relevant in assessing whether representative conduct stayed within the brokerage framework.

​

​Section IV – Applying the Framework: A Fact Pattern Analysis

​

Consider a common fact pattern: A customer opens a non-discretionary brokerage account. Over several years, the registered representative conducts periodic reviews, sends market commentary emails, discusses the customer’s concentrated positions, addresses margin usage during volatility, and references household financial goals.

​

The threshold question is not whether these activities occurred, but what they signify in context.

​

How the Same Facts Can Support Different Conclusions

​

Factor 1: Periodic Reviews

​​

A. Brokerage View: Periodic account reviews are point-of-sale customer service, not an ongoing duty. For recommendations subject to Regulation Best Interest, the Care Obligation — not FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability)¹⁷ — sets the bar, because FINRA amended Rule 2111 so it no longer applies to these recommendations. The Care Obligation calls for reasonable diligence, care, and skill that fits the customer’s investment profile when the recommendation is made. Reviews here support compliant sales activity; they do not create a duty to keep monitoring the account.

 

B. Advisory View: When reviews become systematic portfolio evaluations—assessing allocation, concentration, and risk exposure independent of transactions—they may reflect assumed responsibility for portfolio surveillance characteristic of advisory relationships.

 

C. Key Question: Were reviews tied to specific transaction recommendations, or did they evaluate the portfolio as a whole regardless of whether trades resulted?

​

Factor 2: Market Commentary and Proactive Outreach​

​

A. Brokerage View: Sharing market news is relationship maintenance. Brokers routinely communicate with clients about market conditions. This does not transform the relationship into an advisory one.

 

B. Advisory View: When outreach becomes personalized guidance—“Here’s how this market event affects YOUR concentrated position and what WE should consider”—it may create reasonable expectations of relationship-wide oversight.

​

C. Key Question: Was the communication generic market information, or personalized advice about the customer’s specific portfolio?

​

​Factor 3: Concentration and Margin Discussions

​

A. Brokerage View: Discussing concentration or margin in connection with a proposed trade is appropriate brokerage conduct. Regulation Best Interest requires consideration of reasonably available alternatives at the point of recommendation.

 

B. Advisory View: Ongoing monitoring of concentration and leverage—particularly documented concern about risk levels without corresponding trade recommendations—may indicate the representative assumed portfolio-level oversight responsibilities.

 

C. Key Question: Were these discussions transaction-specific, or did they reflect continuous risk monitoring independent of sales activity?

​

Factor 4: Household Financial Goals

​

A. Brokerage View: Understanding a customer’s financial situation is relevant to an informed recommendation. Asking about household goals to inform investment recommendations is standard practice.

 

B. Advisory View: Integrating household-level planning—coordinating across accounts, addressing tax implications, considering estate objectives—may reflect comprehensive advisory engagement beyond transaction execution.

 

C. Key Question: Did household discussions inform discrete transactions, or did they form the basis for ongoing comprehensive guidance?

​

The Totality of the Conduct

​

​No single factor is determinative. The applicable facts-and-circumstances inquiry considers the full course of conduct in assessing the scope and character of the services. The same periodic review that constitutes routine brokerage service in one context may evidence continuous advisory engagement in another—depending on documentation, communications, and reasonable customer expectations.

​

Key Documents for Conduct Analysis

​

​The following document categories reflect the conduct factors identified in SEC Release IA-5248 and the standard discovery framework for FINRA customer arbitrations. They are illustrative of the evidentiary record arbitrators typically examine in applying the conduct-based inquiry described in this article.¹⁸

​

[Editor’s note: In the PIABA Bar Journal this material appears as a 2-column table. It is presented here in list form for readability on mobile devices. The text is unchanged.]

​

Document Type: Representative Emails/Notes

What It May Reveal: Whether communications were transaction-specific or reflected ongoing portfolio monitoring

​​

Document Type: Account Review Documentation

What It May Reveal: Whether reviews evaluated discrete opportunities or assessed portfolio-wide risk and allocation

​

Document Type: Margin/Concentration Records

What It May Reveal: Whether leverage was discussed for specific trades or monitored as ongoing risk management

 

Document Type: Suitability Updates

What It May Reveal: Whether profile changes responded to transactions or reflected evolving advisory relationship

​

Document Type: Supervisory Records

What It May Reveal: Whether the firm treated the account as brokerage or applied advisory-level oversight

​​​

The Arbitrator’s Inquiry

​​

Applying established federal standards, arbitrators evaluating this fact pattern may consider:

​

1. The statutory threshold (Section 202(a)(11)): Did the totality of conduct—not isolated activities—satisfy the elements of providing advice, for compensation, as a regular business pattern? Does the broker-dealer exclusion apply?

2. The scope-of-relationship inquiry: If the evidence supports an advisory characterization under the applicable framework, what responsibilities did the representative actually undertake, and what was the agreed scope of services?

3. The Reg BI distinction: Was the representative operating at the point of recommendation (Reg BI), or does the record present a separate question under the broker-dealer exclusion?

​

This analysis does not dictate an outcome. That is because the same facts can support either conclusion depending on context, documentation, and the totality of the circumstances. Accordingly, no inference should be drawn from the presence of these factors alone, absent evidence of assumed advisory responsibility. This analysis is illustrative and not intended to apply to any specific dispute.

​

​Section V – Conclusion

​

Representative-client relationships defy traditional boundaries. A conduct-based evaluation—examining communications, documentation, supervision, and context—helps determine whether duties arise from ongoing engagement. These federal standards provide a framework for analysis without creating new obligations and align with investor protection principles.

 

The central point of this article is simple: in the financial services industry, the standard of care a professional is held to comes from what the relationship actually is and what the person actually did — looked at as a whole, on the facts — not from whatever the account happens to be called. That is the same direction the SEC and the courts have taken, and it matches how the industry has long measured these things: by what a professional does, not by the label on the account. Where a registered representative assumes responsibility for ongoing investment decision-making — through systematic portfolio reviews, continuous risk monitoring, customized strategy discussions, and household-level financial planning — the operational character of the relationship may look far more like an advisory relationship than the broker-dealer exclusion of Section 202(a)(11)(C) would suggest, regardless of how the account is formally designated.

 

The Supreme Court established—in SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc.—that Section 206 of the Advisers Act imposes an affirmative duty of utmost good faith on those who function as investment advisers. The SEC’s 2019 Fiduciary Interpretation reaffirms that principle for modern practice, and the Solely Incidental Interpretation makes clear that the broker-dealer exclusion is narrow and conditional — not a blanket safe harbor.

 

For arbitrators, the framework presented here offers a structured method for evaluating what are often the most consequential disputes in their dockets. The inquiry is not whether periodic reviews occurred in isolation, or whether a representative communicated frequently, or whether the customer trusted the broker. The inquiry is whether, taken in totality, the representative’s conduct created and sustained a relationship of ongoing advisory responsibility — one that the representative assumed, the customer reasonably relied upon, and that the record may show fell outside the broker-dealer exclusion — a determination for the arbitrators on the facts and the governing law.

 

Meeting Regulation Best Interest’s recommendation-specific standard does not itself resolve the separate Section 202(a)(11)(C) inquiry. The relevant record may include documentation, supervision records, internal communications, and the representative’s written and oral descriptions of services. Where the evidence supports further analysis under the applicable advisory framework, the scope of the relationship must be assessed by reference to the responsibilities actually undertaken and the parties’ agreed understanding of services. Arbitrators determine the facts and apply the governing law.

​

Two limitations bear acknowledgment.

​

1. This article addresses federal fiduciary standards under the Investment Advisers Act; arbitrators should also consider applicable state law, which may impose additional, different, or overlapping obligations in any given case.

2. The framework presented here is analytical, not prescriptive: the same facts that support the finding of advisory conduct in one context may constitute ordinary brokerage service in another, depending on the totality of the circumstances, the adequacy of institutional supervision, and the agreed-upon scope of the representative-client relationship.

 

This article does not predict outcomes; it provides the conceptual tools for principled, evenhanded analysis. As the boundary between brokerage and advisory services continues to erode in practice — and as regulators, courts, and arbitration panels grapple with business models that blend both — the need for a conduct-based analytical framework will only intensify. This article is offered as a contribution to that ongoing inquiry. The same analytical tools that may support a finding of advisory conduct on one set of facts may, on different facts, confirm that a relationship remained transactional throughout. The framework carries no presumption — only a method.​​​​​​​​​