[F]rom Jan. 1, 2013 through March 30, 2018, TC Services and its Wealth Management Advisers (WMAs) did not adequately disclose the full nature and extent of their conflicts of interest in recommending to clients that they roll over their retirement assets into a managed account program called "Portfolio Advisor."  The order finds that TC Services failed to adequately disclose compensation practices that incentivized the firm and its WMAs to recommend Portfolio Advisor for reasons other than a client's particular investment needs.  Further, TC Services trained its WMAs to make, and its WMAs made, representations that they offered "objective" and "non-commissioned" advice, "put the client first," and acted in the client's best interest while holding themselves out as fiduciaries.  This was misleading because TC Services' financial incentives for WMAs rendered their advice non-objective and TC Services did not ensure that WMA's recommendations were, in fact, in the best interest of its clients.  TC Services simultaneously applied continual pressure to compel WMAs to prioritize the rollover of ESP assets into Portfolio Advisor over lower cost alternatives.  The order also finds that TC Services failed to adopt and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the Investment Advisers Act in connection with rollover recommendations. 

27. Advisors also experienced supervisory pressure to sell Portfolio Advisor. For instance, one supervisor instructed his team that managed accounts "should be presented to 100%" of clients and that they were "the right fit for most if not all" TIAA clients. 

28. Advisors who identified clients with large amounts of investable assets were required to participate in "WHALE calls" with other Advisors and supervisors to discuss the client's situation and strategize ways to sell Portfolio Advisor or other TIAA products or accounts. Supervisors discouraged the option of clients directing their own investments and pushed Advisors to identify "pain points" that could make clients "uncomfortable" and motivate them to change their investment approach. Advisors also were required to report back to their supervisors about the outcome of the sales process for all opportunities presented on WHALE calls. 

29. Advisors' scorecards and progress toward their sales targets were tracked on internal TIAA databases and were visible to other Advisors and supervisors at all times. Advisors were ranked on their performance against the scorecard. Many supervisors for local or regional sales teams emailed their teams with weekly or monthly updates on sales rankings. Supervisors congratulated Advisors for the number or size of new Portfolio Advisor accounts and exhorted Advisors with fewer new managed accounts to increase their efforts. 

30. When Advisors failed to meet their sales goals, TIAA Services placed them on performance improvement plans. A significant number of Advisors who were put on performance improvement plans resigned from TIAA Services rather than face potential termination. On the other hand, when Advisors met or exceeded their annual sales goals, TIAA Services increased those goals for the following year, resulting in consistent pressure to increase production and asset growth.

. . .

45. Most significantly, TIAA has made two major changes that impact rollovers from employer-sponsored plans to Portfolio Advisor. First, in June 2020, prior to the implementation of the SEC's Regulation Best Interest, TIAA announced that it would treat managed account rollover recommendations as an investment adviser service subject to a fiduciary duty. This transition eliminated the misleading "hat switch" between financial planning and recommendation of a managed account and established a single internal standard of conduct for all discussions of rollovers to managed accounts. Second, effective in 2021, TIAA has substantially revised its compensation policy to remove differential compensation between managed account sales and other retirement product sales.  

Claimant maintains that internal* * *  reporting to * * * former employer beginning in * * *  and the employer's subsequent reporting of this information to the Commission makes * * * eligible to receive a whistleblower award. Rule 21F-4{b)(7) provides that if an individual reports allegations of possible wrongdoing to an entity and then, "within 120 days, submit[s] the same information to the Commission pursuant to §240.21F-9," the Commission will consider that the individual provided the information to the Commission as of the date it was fast provided to the entity. Even if Claimant internally reported before receiving the Commission's request for an interview in * * * , that internal report occurred years prior to the request from the Commission and thus Claimant cannot avail Redacted of the Rule 21F-4(b) 120-day lookback provision. Accordingly, the effective date of * * * submission of information to the Commission is Redacted not * * * which is subsequent to the request from the Commission. 

Here, it is undisputed that Commission staff contacted Claimant's former employer in Redacted to request an interview with Claimant, and that Claimant was interviewed by the Commission's and other agencies' staff before Claimant submitted * * * Form TCR to the Commission in Redacted. It is further undisputed that the interview related to the subject matter of Claimant's later tip. We thus find that Claimant's submission of information to the Commission was not done voluntarily and, therefore, Claimant does not qualify for a whistleblower award.