The bill amends the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to make a customer’s ‘‘best interest’’ hinge on pecuniary factors unless the customer gives written informed consent to consider non‑pecuniary factors. If a customer permits non‑pecuniary factors, brokers, dealers, and investment advisers must disclose expected pecuniary effects over a customer‑selected horizon (not to exceed three years) and, at the end of that period, compare actual results — including all fees and costs — to a reasonably comparable index or basket of securities chosen by the customer.
The bill defines ‘‘pecuniary factor’’ as one a fiduciary prudently determines will materially affect risk or return based on appropriate horizons.
Separately, the bill directs the Securities and Exchange Commission to complete two studies and submit reports within one year: one analyzing climate change and other environmental disclosures by municipal issuers, and another reviewing the effectiveness and impacts of solicitation rules governing municipal securities (specifically MSRB Rule G‑38 and SEC Rule 206(4)‑5). Both studies must solicit public comment and recommend regulatory or legislative steps where concerns are identified.
At a Glance
What It Does
It amends the Investment Advisers Act to require pecuniary factors to govern best‑interest determinations and conditions consideration of non‑pecuniary factors on written informed consent plus specific forward‑looking and retrospective disclosures. It also compels the SEC to study municipal issuers’ environmental disclosures and the operation and effects of solicitation rules for municipal securities.
Who It Affects
Retail brokerage customers and anyone advising them, plus broker‑dealers, registered investment advisers, and asset managers that incorporate ESG or other non‑pecuniary criteria. Municipal issuers, underwriters, advisers, and firms subject to MSRB G‑38 and SEC Rule 206(4)‑5 will face SEC scrutiny through mandated studies.
Why It Matters
The bill legally prioritizes financial return over non‑pecuniary goals absent explicit consent, potentially constraining how advisers integrate ESG. The SEC studies could prompt future regulation of municipal disclosures and reshape how solicitation and political activity intersect with municipal underwriting and continuing practice.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new subsection into section 211(g) of the Investment Advisers Act that pins the ‘‘best interest’’ standard to pecuniary factors. In practice, advisers must evaluate investments on the basis of factors expected to materially affect risk or return over appropriate horizons.
The bill bars subordinating financial considerations to non‑financial ones — like environmental, social, or governance (ESG) goals — unless the client signs a written, informed consent specifically allowing such factors.
When a client permits non‑pecuniary considerations, the adviser must do two things. First, before relying on non‑pecuniary factors, the adviser must disclose the expected pecuniary effects over a time period the client chooses, but not more than three years.
Second, at the end of that chosen period the adviser must provide a retrospective performance comparison: actual pecuniary effects compared with a reasonably comparable index or basket the client selected, and that comparison must account for all fees, costs, and expenses incurred because non‑pecuniary factors were considered. The statute defines ‘‘pecuniary factor’’ by reference to a prudent determination of material effect on risk or return and ties that determination to ‘‘appropriate investment horizons.’nThe bill builds in a short implementation timeline.
The SEC must issue or revise rules to implement the amendment within 12 months of enactment, and the statutory change applies to broker, dealer, and adviser actions beginning 12 months after enactment. Separately, the SEC must conduct two discrete studies and deliver two reports within one year: one examining how often and by what standards municipal issuers disclose climate and environmental information to investors, whether those disclosures align with other issuer communications, and whether investors actually use that information; the other evaluating whether MSRB Rule G‑38 and SEC Rule 206(4)‑5 prevent pay‑to‑play, how frequently those rules are enforced, whether compliance policies exist and their burdens, and whether small, minority, or women‑owned firms are disadvantaged by the rules.
Both studies must solicit public comment and may include other topics the SEC deems appropriate.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires written, informed client consent before any non‑pecuniary factor (e.g.
ESG) may be considered in a best‑interest analysis.
If a client consents, advisers must disclose expected pecuniary effects over a client‑selected time horizon (maximum three years) and later provide an end‑period comparison to a comparable index or basket chosen by the client that includes all fees and costs.
The SEC must issue or revise rules to implement the Advisers Act amendment within 12 months of enactment, and the new fiduciary standard applies to broker, dealer, and adviser actions starting 12 months after enactment.
Within one year the SEC must report on climate and environmental disclosures in the municipal securities market, assessing frequency, standards used, investor reliance, financial risks, and whether disclosures are adequate.
Within one year the SEC must also study the effectiveness and impacts of MSRB Rule G‑38 and SEC Rule 206(4)‑5 (pay‑to‑play/solicitation rules), including enforcement frequency and effects on small, minority, and women‑owned firms.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the Act as the 'Ensuring Sound Guidance Act of 2025' or the 'ESG Act of 2025.' This is purely nominal but signals the legislative focus on restricting non‑pecuniary considerations in advice and studying municipal market practices.
Make 'best interest' depend on pecuniary factors; condition ESG on consent
Adds a new paragraph that instructs that a customer's best interest must be determined using pecuniary factors and prevents subordinating those factors to non‑pecuniary ones unless the customer gives written informed consent. It also defines 'pecuniary factor' as any factor a fiduciary prudently determines will have a material effect on risk or return given appropriate horizons. Practically, this converts a policy preference (ESG or other values) into an opt‑in exception rather than an integrated component of fiduciary analysis.
SEC must adopt implementing rules and delayed effective date
Directs the SEC to revise or issue rules within 12 months to implement the amendment and sets the substantive applicability to broker, dealer, and investment adviser actions starting 12 months after enactment. Compliance officers need to budget for a short rule development window and an additional year before the statutory obligations begin to apply to client relationships and product offerings.
Study and report on climate and environmental disclosures by municipal issuers
Requires the SEC to study how frequently municipal issuers disclose climate and environmental matters, whether those disclosures align with other issuer communications, and what voluntary or mandatory standards issuers follow. The SEC must assess investor use of those disclosures and include a discussion of financial risks tied to municipal securities in the report to Congress, plus recommended regulatory or legislative responses. The study must solicit public comment and conclude with a report to the banking and financial services committees within one year.
Study and report on solicitation rules for municipal securities; definitions
Tasks the SEC with studying the effectiveness and effects of covered solicitation rules (explicitly defining 'covered rules' as MSRB Rule G‑38 and SEC Rule 206(4)‑5). The study must analyze whether the rules achieve intended anti‑pay‑to‑play goals, any unintended adverse effects, enforcement frequency, compliance posture among regulated persons, interactions with other laws, and impacts on small, minority, and women‑owned firms. The SEC must solicit comments and deliver a report with findings and recommendations within one year.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Retail investors who prioritize financial returns: The statute elevates pecuniary factors in best‑interest determinations, aiming to ensure investment recommendations prioritize risk‑return outcomes before value‑based preferences.
- Investors skeptical of ESG integration: Clients who do not want value overlays will see clearer rules preventing advisers from substituting non‑pecuniary goals for financial criteria without consent.
- Policymakers and Congress: The SEC studies provide targeted empirical material—on muni climate disclosures and solicitation rules—that lawmakers can use to craft follow‑on legislation or oversight.
Who Bears the Cost
- Brokers, dealers, and registered investment advisers: They must implement a consent process, produce forward‑looking expected‑pecuniary disclosures, perform end‑period benchmarking selected by clients, and update policies and systems within a short rulemaking timeline.
- Asset managers offering ESG strategies: Managers will face higher disclosure and client‑consent demands; some products may require redesign or additional documentation to demonstrate compliance with the new pecuniary‑first requirement.
- Municipal issuers, underwriters, and municipal market intermediaries: They will be subject to SEC studies that may lead to new disclosure expectations or regulatory proposals, increasing compliance and reporting burdens if Congress or the SEC acts on study findings.
- The SEC and regulators: The agency must complete two substantive studies and adopt rules within tight deadlines, creating resource and timing pressures that may divert staff from other rulemakings or examinations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between safeguarding investors’ financial interests through a pecuniary‑first fiduciary rule and respecting investors’ autonomy to pursue value‑driven investment choices; the bill solves for financial primacy but shifts the burden onto clients and advisers to document, forecast, and retrospectively validate value‑based investing, creating implementation complexity and potential market distortions.
The bill attempts a surgical fix — force advisers to put financial return first while preserving client choice for non‑pecuniary goals — but it leaves several operational and legal questions unresolved. The definition of 'pecuniary factor' ties to a fiduciary's prudent determination and 'appropriate investment horizons' without specifying what qualifies as 'material' or which horizons apply to retail strategies, multi‑asset portfolios, or long‑term fiduciary mandates.
That ambiguity will drive rulemaking battles over bright‑line tests versus principles‑based guidance and may produce litigation over what counts as informed consent.
The disclosure regime the bill creates is procedurally specific (customer selects a period up to three years; advisers must disclose expected pecuniary effects and later report actual results against a customer‑chosen comparable). That design raises practical problems: projecting 'expected pecuniary effects' reliably, standardizing what constitutes a 'reasonably comparable index or basket,' and accounting for market volatility or events outside an adviser’s control.
Those operational choices affect product design, client onboarding, and recordkeeping costs. On the municipal side, the SEC’s two one‑year studies are compressed: meaningful empirical assessment of disclosure practices and solicitation effects typically requires longitudinal data and resource‑intensive review, so outcomes may be descriptive rather than definitive.
Finally, by requiring opt‑in consent for non‑pecuniary considerations, the bill could chill ESG integration that some advisers and clients view as long‑term risk mitigation, shifting costs and competitive advantages across firms.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.