Pension Regulation - Driving Under the Influence of a Muffin
I live in a lovely town of about 18,000 people. Thankfully, there is little crime other than an occasional act of mailbox vandalism or the theft of holiday inflatables. Credit good-hearted people and a vigilant police force, especially it seems, when it comes to driving. I know this firsthand because I was pulled over the other day for DUIM (driving under the influence of a muffin, blueberry in this case). Apparently, I was swerving slightly to the right even as I drove a cautious twenty-five miles per hour. When I rolled down my window to say hello, the police officer saw the muffin, gave me a warning not to eat while driving and said he was on the lookout for DUI's (driving under the influence). After I thanked him, a bit shaken for the experience, I got to thinking.
Can rules be too rigid and what happens when you cross the line ever so slightly?
These thoughts are not unique to me. The topic du jour in financial policy circles is whether regulation is too heavy-handed and thereby impedes capital market innovation. Just last week, wonk wizard and New York Times columnist Ben Stein queried the wisdom of the so-called Paulson Committee in seeking to redress the "onerous" audit standards attached to Sarbanes-Oxley. (See "So Many Millions, So Little Body Armor", January 7, 2007)
Citing a plethora of option problems on Corporate Boulevard, he asks: "Isn't backdating precisely an example of a failure of internal controls? Haven't we just found out that internal controls are far too lax, not too strict?"
The same question, applied to benefit plan governance, is apt. At a whopping 908 pages, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 has spawned a new industry to decipher the nooks and crannies of this far from simple regulation. Too soon to assess the fallout, one ponders. Could it be too much? If so, what can take its place?
I'm a big believer in industry self-regulation but that begs yet another question. Who represents the "pension industry" and do the players speak with one voice? Arguably, HR has a different perspective than Audit or Treasury. Without a unified world view about what pension governance means, it's hard to imagine a system without mandatory regulation.
Free marketeers will say this is troublesome. The regulatory burden is far from trivial. Real dollars are redirected to activities that may not reap rewards. Perverse incentives arise and the law of unintended consequences results. Look what happened in the UK. In the aftermath of FRS 17, a large number of companies terminated defined benefit plans as quickly as possible.
Then there is the issue of compliance. Many suggest that pension regulatory changes are outpacing the industry's ability to keep up. Does this put a fiduciary in harm's way (the equivalent of swerving slightly while eating a muffin)? You think you're doing the right thing but get "pulled over" nonetheless. How can a decision-maker protect herself (himself) from mounting personal and professional liability?
Here's to pension governance solutions - the sooner the better!
