Recent developments involving Forbes and SHOOK Research have raised compliance questions for investment advisers that use adviser rankings or awards in websites, adviser biographies, social media, email signatures, and other marketing materials.
What Happened?
Reports in August 2026 disclosed that a former senior Forbes editor received approximately $6 million from R.J. Shook, the founder of SHOOK Research, which has supplied Forbes with financial adviser rankings since 2016. Both Forbes and SHOOK have stated that the payment did not affect the rankings. Forbes has also undertaken an independent review. Nevertheless, Forbes and SHOOK subsequently suspended adviser rankings and related events for the remainder of 2026, and several major financial institutions have withdrawn from participation.
These developments do not establish that any particular adviser ranking was inaccurate or improperly awarded. They do, however, raise questions about the continued use of the rankings as independent third-party ratings.
Why This Matters Under the Marketing Rule
Rule 206(4)-1 under the Investment Advisers Act (the Marketing Rule) permits investment advisers to use third-party ratings in advertisements, but advisers must determine that such ratings are fair, unbiased, and not misleading before the ratings can be used in connection with marketing.
Most relevant here, before using a third-party rating, an adviser must have a reasonable basis for believing that any questionnaire or survey used to prepare the rating is structured to make it equally easy for participants to provide favorable and unfavorable responses and is not designed or prepared to produce a predetermined result. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has characterized this as a due diligence requirement, and its Division of Examinations recently emphasized that advisers should obtain sufficient information regarding a rating's methodology and process to support that determination.1
In addition, the advertisement must prominently display the date of the rating, the time period it covers, the identity of the rating creator, and whether the adviser paid compensation to obtain or use the rating.
The Marketing Rule's general prohibitions are also important. An advertisement may not contain a material misstatement or omission or present information that is reasonably likely to cause a client or investor to draw a materially misleading implication or inference about the adviser.
The Compliance Concern
As stated above, the Marketing Rule places the responsibility on an adviser using a third-party rating to have a reasonable basis for its use of the rating and to ensure that the advertisement does not create a materially misleading implication or inference.
When an adviser promotes a Forbes/SHOOK award, the message to clients and investors is not simply that the adviser appeared on a list. The award typically is being used to communicate that an independent third party evaluated the adviser or its personnel and determined that they merited recognition. Because questions now exist regarding the relationship between the parties involved in the ranking program, continuing to use the award may create an impression of objective and independent validation that the adviser may no longer be in a position to confidently substantiate.
To be clear, there is currently no public finding that the approximately $6 million payment influenced any particular ranking; however, the existence of that financial relationship, together with the suspension of the 2026 rankings and the ongoing review, makes it more difficult for an adviser to assess the integrity of the ranking process with the same level of confidence it may have had previously.
For that reason, even absent evidence that any specific ranking was improperly awarded, continued use of Forbes/SHOOK recognition likely presents increased regulatory and reputational risk until there is greater clarity regarding the review and the independence of the ranking and award process.
What Should Advisers Do Now?
The Marketing Rule does not expressly require advisers to remove Forbes/SHOOK rankings in light of the recent controversy. More broadly, the Marketing Rule requires an adviser to make risk-based compliance judgments about the content of all marketing materials, including any third-party ratings or rankings an adviser uses.
As a best practice, advisers should periodically review their firm websites and social media, adviser and team biographies and webpages, business-related LinkedIn profiles and posts, email signatures, pitchbooks, and presentations to confirm that any third-party ratings, rankings, badges, or logos they display, including Forbes/SHOOK rankings, remain supportable as objective third-party ratings and comply with advisers' obligations under the Marketing Rule.
---
1 See Securities and Exchange Commission, Division of Examinations, Risk Alert: Additional Observations Regarding Advisers' Compliance with the Advisers Act Marketing Rule, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/exams-riskalert-mrkt-rule-2512-508.pdf (last accessed Sept. 16, 2026).