Can Unregistered Entities Receive TBC? The SEC Finally Says Yes (Sometimes)

Overview

Listen

The SEC has issued long-awaited clarity on whether personal service entities can receive transaction-based compensation. Hear Red Oak react to the news for Broker-Dealers and registered representatives.

Critical Questions Powered by Red Oak

Yes—under specific conditions. 
The SEC’s November 2025 no-action letter states that a representative-owned personal service entity may receive transaction-based compensation (TBC) as long as the entity does not engage in broker-dealer activities such as soliciting, negotiating, or executing securities transactions. The Broker-Dealer must retain full supervisory authority, maintain required records, direct the size and timing of payments, and ensure that all owners and principals of the entity are registered persons. Firms must strictly comply with these conditions to avoid inadvertently triggering broker-dealer registration requirements. 

The primary compliance risks involve supervision, recordkeeping, and inadvertent broker-dealer activity by the unregistered entity. If the personal service entity participates in securities-related functions—beyond clerical or administrative tasks—it could be deemed to be acting as an unregistered broker-dealer. Additionally, failure to maintain the required books and records, proper registration of all associated persons, or clear supervisory agreements can expose the Broker-Dealer to regulatory action. Implementing robust written policies, monitoring compensation flows, and formalizing responsibilities through well-crafted agreements are critical to mitigating these risks. 

To rely on the no-action relief, Broker-Dealers must satisfy several structural and supervisory conditions, including: 

  • Maintaining a bank account through which TBC is paid to representatives. 
  • Directing or approving the exact payment amounts and timing for each registered representative. 
  • Ensuring the entity promptly distributes compensation but only retains amounts necessary for overhead. 
  • Keeping detailed records of all compensation paid, consistent with Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4. 
  • Requiring that all owners and registered principals of the entity are also registered with the same Broker-Dealer
  • Designating the entity’s location as a branch office or OSJ. 
  • Entering into a written agreement affirming that the Broker-Dealer maintains exclusive control over securities activities, registration, supervision, discipline, and compliance obligations. 

Meeting these conditions is essential to avoid violating the Exchange Act and to ensure the entity is not viewed as improperly receiving compensation outside the scope of SEC expectations. 

Transcript

Speaker 1: 00:00 
Okay, let's dive in. So think about this. If you're an independent contractor, I mean pretty much anywhere, right? A high-level consultant, a software developer, whatever, it's super common to set up what's called a personal services entity, a PSE, to get paid. 
 
Speaker: 00:15 
Oh, absolutely. Yeah. It's just, you know, it's standard operating procedure, it can make things easier administratively, and there are potential tax planning benefits. 
 
Speaker 1: 00:23 
For years, the broker dealer community has been looking at this very normal practice and asking this huge regulatory question. 
 
Speaker: 00:31 
Aaron Powell A multi-million dollar question, really. Can our registered representatives, our RRs, actually use this? Can an unregistered entity that the RR owns receive their commissions, their transaction-based compensation without blowing up the whole registration system? 
 
Speaker 1: 00:47 
Aaron Powell And that uncertainty has been a major roadblock for decades. I mean, our source material points to historical inconsistencies among earlier letters and the resulting confusion. So most firms, just to be safe, said no. It was just easier to prohibit these PSEs than to risk the regulatory headache. 
 
Speaker: 01:03 
Aaron Powell It was total risk aversion. But that all changed, or at least started to, on November 17, 2025. The SEC issued a clarifying no action letter. And that really is what granted the specific relief the industry was looking for. So our mission today is to get into the weeds on this. 
 
Speaker 1: 01:21 
And this is not a free-for-all. I think that's the key takeaway. The SEC has opened a door, but it's a very narrow one. And it's surrounded by uh tripwires. So we're gonna unpack exactly what's allowed and maybe more importantly, what the strict boundaries are so that door doesn't just slam shut on you. 
 
Speaker: 01:37 
Aaron Powell Let's start with the core relief itself, because on its face, it's a huge step forward. The SEC has basically stated it will not pursue an enforcement action against an RR's unregistered PSE. 
 
Speaker 1: 01:48 
Okay. 
 
Speaker: 01:49 
Solely for the act of receiving that transaction-based compensation. That statement alone clears up a massive amount of ambiguity. 
 
Speaker 1: 01:55 
But that word solely is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. 
 
Speaker: 01:59 
A ton of work. This is the absolute non-negotiable line. The PSE can be a pass-through for payments, but it cannot function as anything more than that. 
 
Speaker 1: 02:06 
So it can't be a shadow brokerage firm. 
 
Speaker: 02:08 
Not in any way, shape, or form. The unregistered entity may not engage in any activity that meets the definition of a broker or dealer. Period. 
 
Speaker 1: 02:17 
So give us the specifics. What are the forbidden activities? 
 
Speaker: 02:20 
The big three are soliciting, executing, or negotiating transactions. Think of it this way: the PSE can cash the check, but it can't pitch the business, structure the deal, or place the trade. 
 
Speaker 1: 02:32 
Any of those, and the relief is gone. 
 
Speaker: 02:34 
Instantly. The whole framework is built on one overarching requirement. The broker dealer has to be able to effectively supervise and oversee the rep, just as if the PSE didn't even exist. 
 
Speaker 1: 02:46 
So it's all about control. 
 
Speaker: 02:47 
Absolute control. That one principle dictates every single condition that follows. 
 
Speaker 1: 02:51 
Okay, so let's get into those conditions. Let's talk about the money. If control is everything, how does the compensation have to flow to make sure the BD never loses its grip? 
 
Speaker: 03:00 
  Well, the mechanics are uh surprisingly specific. They're designed to create a closed auditable loop. First, the BD has to maintain a specific bank account just for paying this kind of compensation.  
 
Speaker 1: 03:11 
Segregated funds, clear traceability makes sense. 
 
Speaker: 03:14 
Exactly. And second, and this is crucial, the broker dealer must instruct or approve the PSE on the size and the timing of every single payment made to the RRs. 
 
Speaker 1: 03:25 
So this isn't a blanket authorization for the year. 
 
Speaker: 03:27 
No, not at all. It's specific to each payment. Now, what's interesting is that the registered principals at the PSE can make recommendations. They can say, hey, we need to pay R.R. Smith this much this week.   
 
Speaker 1: 03:38 
But the BD has to sign off. They have the final say. 
 
Speaker: 03:41 
Final. Absolute discretion. Yeah. It's a massive limitation, but it ensures the PSE never gains any real financial independence or control over that revenue stream. 
 
Speaker 1: 03:51 
So the PSE gets the funds, and then what? It can't just sit on the money? 
 
Speaker: 03:56 
Nope. The directive is prompt distribution. It has to pass that TBC along to the RRs quickly. It reinforces its role as just a temporary conduit. 
 
Speaker 1: 04:05 
But here's the part that makes it all worthwhile for the RR, right? The administrative benefit. 
 
Speaker: 04:08 
  That's it. The PSE is allowed to keep a portion of the payments, but only to pay for its overhead and administrative expenses. 
 
Speaker 1: 04:15 
Which is the whole point of the structure for them. 
 
Speaker: 04:17 
Exactly. It's the mechanism for that tax and admin efficiency. 
 
Speaker 1: 04:20 
And with money flowing like this, I have to assume the record keeping requirements are intense. 
 
Speaker: 04:25 
 Paramount. The broker dealer has to keep meticulous records of all payments made to the PSE, and this is mandated under rules17a-3 and 17a-4 of the Exchange Act. And critically, those records have to detail the final payments that go to each individual RR. So regulators can trace every single dollar. 
 
Speaker 1: 04:44 
Let's shift from the money to the people and the place. The SEC requires mandatory parity here. The PSE can't just be floating out there on its own. 
 
Speaker: 04:53 
Right. It has to be completely interwoven with the BD structure. The registration rule is strict. Every single RR and registered principal of the PSE has to be registered with the same broker dealer. 
 
Speaker 1: 05:05 
Which stops reps from using one PSE to collect commissions from like three different firms. 
 
Speaker: 05:09 
A supervisory nightmare. That's what they're preventing. And it goes beyond just the reps. It applies to ownership too. 
 
Speaker 1: 05:14 
So every owner has to be registered. 
 
Speaker: 05:16 
Every single owner of the PSE has to be a registered person of that same broker dealer. It walls it off from any outside unregistered influence. 
 
Speaker 1: 05:24 
And what about the physical location, the PSE's office? 
 
Speaker: 05:27 
That's another key control. The physical location of the PSE has to be officially designated as either a branch office or an OSJ, an office of supervisory jurisdiction of the broker dealer. 
 
Speaker 1: 05:39 
So the BD's compliance team can walk in and do an inspection anytime, just like any other branch? 
 
Speaker: 05:44 
That's the idea. There's no hiding place. It ensures full physical oversight and examination capabilities. 
 
Speaker 1: 05:50 
Okay. This is all leading up to the agreement itself. The contract between the broker dealer and the PSE sounds like it's the linchpin for all of this. 
 
Speaker: 05:58 
It's the final firewall. It's basically the BD's binding compliance checklist. And it has to explicitly lay out who's responsible for what. 
 
Speaker 1: 06:07 
So what has to be in it? 
 
Speaker: 06:08 
Well, for starters, it has to affirm that the BD is solely responsible for compliance with all regulations, federal, state, local, everything. And it has to state that the BD has sole and exclusive control over the day-to-day securities activities of all its reps. 
 
Speaker 1: 06:23 
So the contract basically strips the PSE of any claim to employment control. 
 
Speaker: 06:28 
Precisely. The agreement must say the BD is solely responsible for hiring, registration, licensing, training, and supervision. And the real kicker. 
 
Speaker 1: 06:39 
Let me guess. Firing. 
 
Speaker: 06:40 
The BD must retain the exclusive right to discipline and terminate its associated persons. The PSE has zero authority there. 
 
Speaker 1: 06:48 
And what about transparency? What if the SEC wants to see the books? 
 
Speaker: 06:51 
The contract has to spell that out. It must state that all books and records the PSE keeps on behalf of the BD are available for inspection immediately for the SEC, the NRA, anyone with jurisdiction. 
 
Speaker 1: 07:03 
And the BD can't use the PSE as a legal shield if something goes wrong. 
 
Speaker: 07:08 
No. The agreement explicitly forbids that. It must include a clause where the BD agrees not to claim the PSE, affects a regulator's ability to examine or discipline them or their reps. The BD accepts total liability. 
 
Speaker 1: 07:18 
Okay, one last piece. What about the people at the PSE who are not registered, like the admin staff? 
 
Speaker: 07:23 
  That's a crucial area. The agreement has to confirm the PSE will not engage in any securities activities itself. It can't hold itself out as a broker dealer. 
 
Speaker 1: 07:31 
And the unregistered staff, the office manager, for instance. 
 
Speaker: 07:35 
They're limited to purely clerical or ministerial work. They can't answer client questions about investments, they can't discuss the market, nothing that requires a license. 
 
Speaker 1: 07:44 
And the SEC closed a big potential loophole in how they get paid, right? 
 
Speaker: 07:48 
Yes, a very important one. The PSE is strictly prohibited from paying any bonuses to unregistered staff that are tied to the commissions the BD pays to the PSE. It prevents a back doorway of incentivizing security sales by people who aren't registered. 
 
Speaker 1: 08:04 
So after this deep dive, it is crystal clear that the SEC has given the industry a very, very detailed roadmap. Let's bring this back to the trade-off. On one hand, you get this long-awaited clarity, you get potential administrative and tax flexibility for the reps. 
 
Speaker: 08:18 
You absolutely do. But that flexibility is oh well, it's tethered by some very heavy chains of compliance. The source material says it requires strict adherence, and that's not an exaggeration. The risk of accidentally crossing that line of becoming an unregistered broker dealer is still very real. 
 
Speaker 1: 08:34 
You know, when you look at the whole picture, the mandatory registration, the physical office being a branch, the BD controlling hiring and firing, and especially the requirement for the BD to have final exclusive discretion over the size and timing of every single payment, it really begs a question about this flexibility. 
 
Speaker: 08:52 
It does. The compliance burden on the broker dealer is immense. 
 
Speaker 1: 08:55 
So here's the final thought we want to leave you with. If the whole purpose here is to give RRs some administrative flexibility, but the broker dealer has to retain absolute control over every single commission payment, is this structure truly delivering any operational independence? 
 
Speaker: 09:10 
Or is it really just a sophisticated high compliance tax optimization tool? 
 
Speaker 1: 09:14 
Something to think about as you navigate this new and very highly conditional regulatory accord. 

Read the Blog Post

For many industries, it is common for independent contractors to receive compensation through a separate entity rather than in their individual capacity. Typically, this can result in tax savings for these business owners and the subcontractors they may hire, as well as other potential benefits. 

For those in the Broker-Dealer community, the question arises: Is this option available to my representatives? Can an unregistered entity receive transaction-based compensation in lieu of my representative? The answer now appears to be yes, subject to certain conditions.      

On November 17, 2025, the SEC issued a no-action letter indicating that, under specified conditions and restrictions, it would not pursue action against a registered representative–owned personal services entity that is not registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act solely for receiving transaction-based compensation. The SEC cited prior inconsistencies among earlier letters and the resulting confusion for member firms, which led many to prohibit such arrangements to avoid a potential violation that was never intended. 

However, the entity in question may not engage in soliciting, executing, or negotiating transactions, or in any other activity that would cause it to meet the definition of a broker or dealer under the Exchange Act. Furthermore, the Broker-Dealer must retain the ability to effectively supervise and oversee the registered representative and their operations. To promote this, the SEC established a number of conditions that must be met in order to permit this exception:  

  • The Broker-Dealer will maintain a bank account for paying transaction-based compensation to its independent contractor registered representatives who are also employees or an independent contractor of the Entity and associated with the Broker-Dealer (the “RRs”). 
  • The Broker-Dealer will instruct (or otherwise approve) the entity regarding the size and timing of transaction-based compensation to be paid to the RRs; Such instruction (or approval) will be specific to the payment to be made to each RR. In this regard, registered principals who are also employees or independent contractors of the unregistered entity may make recommendations to the Broker-Dealer regarding the size and timing of transaction-based compensation to be paid to the RRs; however, the Broker-Dealer will have final discretion regarding the size and timing of the payment to each of the RRs. 
  • Upon receiving instructions or approval from the Broker-Dealer, the unregistered entity will, promptly, distribute transaction-based compensation to the RRs, provided that the unregistered entity may retain a portion of such payments for its use in paying for its overhead and administrative expenses. 
  • As required by Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4 of the Exchange Act, the Broker-Dealer will maintain records regarding all compensation payments it makes to the unregistered entity, and which will provide required details as to payments made to each RR. 
  • Each of the RRs and Registered principals of the unregistered entity will be registered with the same Broker-Dealer. 
  • Each owner of the unregistered entity will be a registered person of the Broker-Dealer. 
  • The unregistered entity’s location will either be designated as a branch office or as an Office of Supervisory Jurisdiction of the Broker-Dealer. 

The Broker-Dealer must maintain appropriate policies and procedures to ensure those conditions are satisfied, and the Broker-Dealer must enter into an agreement with the entity stating:  

  • The Broker-Dealer will be obligated to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and registration and licensing requirements; 
  • The Broker-Dealer will have sole and exclusive control over the day-to-day securities related activities of all of its associated persons; 
  • The Broker-Dealer will be solely responsible for hiring, proper registration, licensing, training, and supervision of all of its registered representatives with respect to the Broker-Dealer's obligations under all applicable securities laws, rules, and regulations; 
  • The Broker-Dealer will retain the exclusive right to discipline and terminate its associated persons; 
  • All books and records in the possession of the unregistered entity that are maintained on behalf of the Broker-Dealer will be made available for inspection by the SEC, any SRO, or any other regulatory authority with jurisdiction over the Broker-Dealer's business; The Broker-Dealer will not assert that the existence of any agreement with the unregistered entity in any way affects the ability of the SEC, any SRO, or any other relevant regulatory authority to regulate, examine or discipline the Broker-Dealer or any of its associated persons for violations of applicable securities laws; 
  • The unregistered entity will not itself engage in any securities-related activities that would require it to register as a broker-dealer; 
  • The unregistered entity will not hold itself out as a broker-dealer;  
  • To the extent the unregistered entity employs any person who is not registered, such personnel will not be permitted to engage in any securities-related activities that would require them to become registered representatives of a broker-dealer and will only have clerical or ministerial involvement in securities transactions; and 
  • The unregistered entity will not pay any bonuses to unregistered personnel which are tied to TBC paid by the Broker-Dealer to the unregistered entity 

This no-action relief provides long-awaited clarity for Broker-Dealers and their registered representatives seeking flexibility in structuring compensation through personal service entities. While the SEC’s position seems to open the door to potential administrative and tax advantages, firms must proceed with caution lest the door slam shut. Strict adherence to the outlined conditions, robust supervisory procedures, and well-drafted agreements will be essential to remain compliant and avoid inadvertent registration or supervisory violations.  

Sources: financial-services-institute-111725-bdother.pdf 

Contributor

Cathy Vasilev is the Chief Compliance Officer and Co-Founder of Red Oak. Connect with Cathy on LinkedIn.