Pension Risk News & Analysis : Pension Governance, LLC : Pension Risk & Investment

Disclosure is fast becoming the proverbial four letter word in pension fiduciary land. Critical questions abound.

• How much information do pension fiduciaries need in order to make an "informed" decision?
• Who should provide that information, how often and in what form?
• Is there a danger of having "too much" information?
• What does the law currently require?
• What information is currently available and to whom?
• Is there an industry consensus about what constitutes "good quality" information?
• What are the consequences of "incomplete" disclosure and are they equally unpleasant for plan participants, shareholders, taxpayers and plan sponsors?
• What current roadblocks stand in the way of "better" disclosure (once that term is defined)?

 The topic of disclosure and transparency is as broad as it is critical to good plan governance. We've written extensively about this topic as applied to investment risk and will continue to do so. Click here if you would like to receive copies of some of our many articles. After hours of work, our research librarians are completing an Ebook on the topic of pension information resources. Click here if you want to be notified of its publication.

With a copyright date of July 4, 2007 (symbolic perhaps?), independent fiduciary Matthew D. Hutcheson addresses the topic of 401(k) plan information in "Retirement Plan Disclosure: A Declaration of Ethical Principles and Legal Obligations." Not known for being shy about his point of view, Hutcheson makes a compelling case for additional, complete and user-friendly disclosure about fees and related compensation arrangements.

“The Department (Department of Labor) emphasizes that it expects a fiduciary, prior to entering into a performance based compensation arrangement, to fully understand the compensation formula and the risks associated with this manner of compensation, following disclosure by the investment manager of all relevant information pertaining to the proposed arrangement. [Advisory Opinion Letter 1989 WL 435076 (ERISA)]

Thus, for a fiduciary to know all relevant information ahead of time, service providers must disclose all relevant information prior to entering into an engagement. The failure to disclose all relevant information effectively forces fiduciaries to violate the law unknowingly. The SEC has taken action against various service providers of 401(k) plans because of hidden compensation arrangements which obscured relevant information to fiduciaries. "

Hutcheson provides solid legal and regulatory evidence in support of full disclosure of all types of fees and related non-fee agreements. In addition, he reminds readers that fees impact economic performance and are therefore integral to any kind of investment decision-making. Would we buy a car or get surgery without enough information to gauge potential risk and rewards? 

His message comes at an opportune moment to begin a national "no holds barred" conversation about fees, fiduciary duty and protection of plan participants.  Countless companies are switching from defined benefit plans to defined contribution structures. In loco parentis NOT.  While employers transfer more responsibility to employees, research suggests that individuals are saving much less than is minimally needed to secure a reasonable lifestyle in retirement. Add to that an uncertain outlook for the long-term viability of Social Security and Medicare (and international equivalents to the U.S. post-employment safety net) and policy-makers are starting to take notice. Not a day too soon for many folks. If you think a train is about to crash, why wait to seek preventative measures?

Hutcheson concludes that "industry and regulators must either: (a) Return to the model originally contemplated under ERISA, in which recognized fiduciaries would make all decisions regarding trust assets; or (b) Empower participants to make their own individual decisions with respect to the assets in their personal tax-deferred 401(k) accounts. If the chosen course is to return to the original intent of ERISA, then fiduciaries of 401(k) plans must be armed with all relevant information necessary to construct a low-cost prudent portfolio for the benefit of the participants. Alternatively, if the chosen course is to enable those holding tax-deferred investments to, in essence, serve as their own mini-fiduciaries, then they must be afforded the information necessary to construct the same sort of prudent, low cost personal portfolio."

Those who advocate individual responsibility, and therefore favor the idea of choice at the employee level, get push-back from some that Sally or Joe "Every Worker" is unlikely to delve deep with respect to investment issues. Yet people make decisions for themselves every day - choosing a doctor, buying a car, voting, changing jobs and so on. But, for argument's sake, let's agree that a "mini fiduciarization" of the workforce is impractical, infeasible or otherwise unappealing. What then?

If only plan sponsors are to decide on all things 401(k), should we not be seriously engaged in identifying what makes for a "top quality" fiduciary? Besides access to good and complete information about fees and other pecuniary arrangements, we've long advocated a requirement for "suitable" qualifications (education and experience) before someone makes multi-million decisions with other people's money. To be clear, the use of the term "require" here refers to that which is self-imposed by plan sponsors, perhaps with the help of various industry and fiduciary organizations. Mandatory requirements would be problemmatic and could exacerbate the situation. (Our firm, Pension Governance, LLC provides fiduciary training, process checks and research in the areas of investment risk and valuation. Part of a growing industry to help fiduciaries do a better job, we complement work done by our partners but always with the same message. Good process is everything!)

On the topic of information, the more voices the better as long as it gets us to an enlightened place. This means that "good" disclosure would be seen as a value-enhancing tool for all concerned parties, not another costly, "go nowhere" exercise.

To read the full text of Hutcheson's article, click here. You will be taken to the Social Science Research Network site. Pension Governance, LLC is a proud sponsor of four SSRN sections. Click here to learn more about our sponsorship of a pension risk management section (created just for us) and a research section about mutual funds and hedge funds. Click here to learn more about our sponsorship of a research section about employment law and litigation and a research section about corporate governance.

For further reading, click on the title of each item listed below:

"Who Wants to be a Fiduciary Anyhow?"

"Do You Know the True Cost of Your Retirement Plan?"

"Searching for Hidden Treasure"

"Do We Need an Easy Button for Fiduciaries?"

"401(k) Fee Analysis - Who Benefits?"

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In "Test case looms on backdating" (June 1, 2007), FEI journalists Jeffrey Marshall and Ellen Heffes write that a legal precedent may soon be set in the form of a class action case against builder KB Home. Many managers and board members who participated in backdating decisions and also act as company fiduciaries for the 401(k) plan are named in the lawsuit. Alleging ERISA fiduciary breach due to the backdating of stock options, plan sponsors and their attorneys await the outcome.

"If this case survives summary judgment, plaintiff's attorneys will be emboldened and bring more employees onto the class-action backdating bandwagon," suggests attorney John Gamble, with Fisher & Phillips, a labor and employment law firm. Marshall and Heffes caution that a post-Enron amendment of ERISA  increases punishment. "Individuals who are caught willfully violating ERISA face 10 years in prison and fines up to $100,000."

A few months ago, I predicted an ERISA litigation fallout if companies recommend stock for the 401(k) plan yet do not properly vet the process by which executives receive options. Click here to read "Will Executive Option Issues Drive the Next Wave of Pension Litigation?" by Susan M. Mangiero (Journal of Compensation and Benefits, March/April 2007).

This case is sure to attract attention.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Back from a somewhat relaxing weekend (I had to work part of the time), I opened my mail to find two publications, each with a front page article about 401(k) "stock drop" cases. Is it coincidental or a harbinger of next season's hottest trend in litigation?

According to "401(k) fee suits not soon to retire" by Amanda Bronstad (The National Law Journal, May 28, 2007), earlier filed cases focus on undisclosed fees levied by mutual funds. In contrast, more recent lawsuits look at fees charged for annuities while "others challenge the prudence of employers that invest in funds that charge high fees - even if they're fully disclosed to employees."

In "Stock-drop suits hitch 401(k) ride," writer Susan Kelly describes a resurgence in ERISA lawsuits (Financial Week, May 28, 2007) with companies of all sizes now vulnerable to allegations that stock in the 401(k) plan is a no-no.

Outcomes remain unknown at this time with federal judges in three cases having refused to dismiss (Kraft, Boing, Bechtel). Not all cases are home runs for the plaintiffs. As the National Law Journal article details, the federal judge in a case against Exelon Corp. "dismissed claims that excessive fees in a 401(k) plan caused investor losses." In the Northrup Grumman case, some of the defendants, "including the board of directors," were dismissed.

Along these lines, we think our forthcoming June 4 webinar on the topic of 401(k) plan governance is timely. Click here  to get more details and/or to register. We'll start at noon and end at 1:15 p.m. EST. The webinar is free to Pensiongovernance.com subscribers. The cost to non-subscribers is $125. Pension Governance, LLC is registered with CFA Institute as an Approved Provider of professional development programs. This program is eligible for 1.5 PD credit hours as granted by CFA Institute.

Topics to be discussed include the following:

• Description of fiduciary duties under ERISA
• Discussion of procedural prudence as relates to 401(k) plan selection of fiduciary advisors
• Overview of safe harbor and selection of fiduciary advisor pursuant to the Pension Protection Act of 2006
• Litigation trends in the area of investment fiduciary breach as relates to plan sponsors and service providers such as consultants
• Fiduciary investment process for assessing 401(k) provider fees
• Role of fiduciary advisor in providing financial education
• Governance considerations with respect to selection of default investment 
• Structural changes in money management industry in response to material shift away from defined benefit plans
• Fiduciary advisor “red flag” practices such as soft dollar questions, revenue-sharing, limited disclosure.
  

Dr. Susan M. Mangiero, AIFA, AVA, CFA, FRM, president of Pension Governance, LLC will moderate an expert group of panelists to include:

• Mr. Blaine F. Aikin, AIF®, CFA, CFP® - Managing Partner, Fiduciary360
• Mr. David J. Bauer - Partner, Casey, Quirk & Associates LLC
• Mr. David Vriesenga - Chief Rating Officer, Cefex - Centre for Fiduciary Excellence, LLC.
  

We hope you can join us for what is sure to be an informative and lively discussion!

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

According to Fulbright & Jaworski partner and global chair of the Litigation Department, Stephen C. Dillard, fear may be appropriate with respect to all things litigation. In "Litigation Nation" (Wall Street Journal, November 25, 2006), Dillard describes results from their third Litigation Trend Survey, emphasizing an increasing upward trend in lawsuits here and abroad. "Even we were surprised by the volume and scope of legal actions across all major industries and regardless of company size."

Besides finding that "Some 89% of companies report being hit with at least one new lawsuit in the past year," companies stateside "face an average of 305 lawsuits pending world-wide." At the same time, "companies with sales of $1 billion or more" face an average of 556 cases, "with 50 fresh suits emerging each year for nearly half of these firms."

The cost of litigation is far from trivial. The survey cites corporate legal expenditures averaging $12 million, up from $8 million last year and with some industries - engineering and insurance - spending over $35 million.

Given the nature of this blog, www.pensionriskmatters.com, what caught my eye were the assertions that "more than half of the in-house counsel cited employment as their top litigation concern" and that "disputes over wages and hours can be brought as class actions in many jurisdictions, creating more waves of litigation."

Other press accounts about corporate lawsuits are similarly engaging.

According to the Chief Legal Officer Survey 2006, compliance and litigation are huge concerns. Conducted by Altman Weil, Inc. and LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell, respondents lament that time and money used to fight and/or prevent lawsuits could not be otherwise used to grow the company.

New York Times reporter Paul B. Brown describes the concept of litigation funding companies in "What's Offline: Next, a Lawsuit Futures Exchange?" Citing Joshua Lipton in "Litigation 2006," Brown informs that hedge funds are researching the possibilities of investing now in anticipation of enjoying hefty case outcomes later on. That same supplement to the American Lawyer & Corporate Counsel includes a piece by Alison Frankel that offers insight about the globalization of litigation.

Lest you need more of a reminder that a sea change is upon us, consider the U.S. Appeals Court decision that found a fiduciary personally liable for nearly $180,000 due to losses realized by the International Brotherhood of Industrial Workers Health and Welfare Fund. In "Ruling highlights fiduciary need for hindsight", Reid and Riege attorneys David M.S. Shaiken and Eileen M. Marks describe the serious fallout from Chao v. Merino, 452 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2006), stating that the individual in question "was permanently prohibited from serving as a fiduciary or service provider to any employee benefit plan."

Other excerpts from the November 2006 Employee Benefit News article merit attention.

1. "The Court of Appeals' holding underscores how important it is for new plan fiduciaries to inform themselves thoroughly about a plan's operations, consultants and service providers with whom the plan has contracted. New fiduciaries should raise with co-fiduciaries any concerns about existing relationships after conducting their review.

2. The mere fact that an imprudent relationship predates a fiduciary's tenure does not shield the fiduciary from liability. The duties to be informed about plan business and to act prudently include a duty to be informed about, raise objections to, and protect the fund from any imprudent relationships that are in place with consultants and service providers when a fiduciary's term begins.

3. Plan fiduciaries may wish to review their and their plan's insurance coverage. ERISA plan fiduciary liability insurance covers claims against current and former plan trustees and, if they are named in the policy, plan administrators who have fiduciary duties. In case of a claim of breach of fiduciary duty, within the insurance policy's limits the insurer provides and pays for defense counsel, and indemnifies the plan fiduciary from liability, provided that the claim is not excluded from the policy's coverage."

Given the tsunami of litigation (with all indications that more is on its way), pension fiduciaries need to assess their personal and professional risk.

It's scary stuff indeed. Email us if you want to know more about our fiduciary and board training programs. If you are an attorney, ask to receive our complimentary pension governance kit.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

During a September 26, 2006 panel discussion about the use of derivatives by pensions, mention was made of a U.S. Department of Labor letter. Several people asked for more information. (The Pensions & Investments conference focused on liability-driven investing.)

Click here to read the letter. Excerpts are provided below. Several items are noteworthy, especially since liability-driven investing strategies often rely on the use of derivatives.

1. There is a clear focus on process.

2. Regulators cite the need to identify operational and legal risks.

3. Passing the baton to a money manager does not absolve plan decision-makers of oversight duties with respect to the use of derivatives by outside firms.

4. Methods used to assess market risk should be appropriate and could include stress testing and simulation.

<< Investments in derivatives are subject to the fiduciary responsibility rules in the same manner as are any other plan investments. Thus, plan fiduciaries must determine that an investment in derivatives is, among other things, prudent and made solely in the interest of the plan's participants and beneficiaries.

In determining whether to invest in a particular derivative, plan fiduciaries are required to engage in the same general procedures and undertake the same type of analysis that they would in making any other investment decision. This would include, but not be limited to, a consideration of how the investment fits within the plan's investment policy, what role the particular derivative plays in the plan's portfolio, and the plan's potential exposure to losses. While derivatives may be a useful tool for managing a variety of risks and for broadening investment alternatives in a plan's portfolio, investments in certain derivatives, such as structured notes and collateralized mortgage obligations, may require a higher degree of sophistication and understanding on the part of plan fiduciaries than other investments. Characteristics of such derivatives may include extreme price volatility, a high degree of leverage, limited testing by markets, and difficulty in determining the market value of the derivative due to illiquid market conditions.

As with any investment made by a plan, plan fiduciaries with the authority for investing in derivatives are responsible for securing sufficient information to understand the investment prior to making the investment. For example, plan fiduciaries should secure from dealers and other sellers of derivatives, among other things, sufficient information to allow an independent analysis of the credit risk and market risk being undertaken by the plan in making the investment in the particular derivative. The market risks presented by the derivatives purchased by the plan should be understood and evaluated in terms of the effects that they will have on the relevant segments of the plan's portfolio as well as the portfolio's overall risk.

Plan fiduciaries have a duty to determine the appropriate methodology used to evaluate market risk and the information which must be collected to do so. Among other things, this would include, where appropriate, stress simulation models showing the projected performance of the derivatives and of the plan's portfolio under various market conditions. Stress simulations are particularly important because assumptions which may be valid for normal markets may not be valid in abnormal markets, resulting in significant losses. To the extent that there may be little pricing information available with respect to some derivatives, reliable price comparisons may be necessary. After entering into an investment, a plan fiduciary should be able to obtain timely information from the derivatives dealer regarding the plan's credit exposure and the current market value of its derivatives positions, and, where appropriate, should obtain such information from third parties to determine the current market value of the plan's derivatives positions, with a frequency that is appropriate to the nature and extent of these positions.

If the plan is investing in a pooled fund which is managed by a party other than the plan fiduciary who has chosen the fund, then that plan fiduciary should obtain, among other things, sufficient information to determine the pooled fund's strategy with respect to use of derivatives in its portfolio, the extent of investment by the fund in derivatives, and such other information as would be appropriate under the circumstances.

As part of its evaluation of the investment, a fiduciary must analyze the operational risks being undertaken in making the investment. Among other things, the fiduciary should determine whether it possesses the requisite expertise, knowledge, and information to understand and analyze the nature of the risks and potential returns involved in a particular derivative investment. In particular, the fiduciary must determine whether the plan has adequate information and risk management systems in place given the nature, size and complexity of the plan's derivatives activity, and whether the plan fiduciary has personnel who are competent to manage these systems. If the investments are made by outside investment managers hired by the plan fiduciary, that fiduciary should consider whether the investment managers have such personnel and controls and whether the plan fiduciary has personnel who are competent to monitor the derivatives activities of the investment managers.

Plan fiduciaries have a duty to evaluate the legal risk related to the investment. This would include assuring proper documentation of the derivative transaction and, where the transaction is pursuant to a contract, assuring written documentation of the contract before entering into the contract.Also, as with any other investment, plan fiduciaries have a duty to properly monitor their investments in derivatives to determine whether they are still appropriately fulfilling their role in the portfolio. The frequency and degree of the monitoring will, of course, depend on the nature of such investments and their role in the plan's portfolio. >>

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a riveting and timely article, senior Greenberg Traurig ERISA attorney Jeff Mamorsky provides a serious wake-up call to pension fiduciaries everywhere. (Click here to read "Is Today's Pension Plan Environment Cause for Concern?", CEO Magazine, August 2006.)

Mamorsky chronicles the parade of corporate horribles in the U.S. that eventually led to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). He points out the irony that "All this happened in the USA despite the fact that the federal pension law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), contains rules that require plan sponsors to establish internal control procedures to monitor compliance with the fiduciary responsibility requirements of ERISA."

In the spirit of the stick winning over the carrot, Mamorsky adds that "These rules were in some cases not followed since there were few real teeth in the law. It took SOX with its draconian certification penalties and ERISA's 'white collar' criminal penalty provisions to make plan sponsors take pension governance more seriously."

Emphasizing the nature of personal liability for pension fiduciaries, the article explains the critical, and undeniable, connection between SOX compliance and pension governance. In a rather ominous statement, Mamorsky warns "This liability has increased as the result of legislation such as SOX that requires a public company CEO, CFO or other responsible fiduciary to certify the establishment and adequacy of 'disclosure controls and procedures' relating to material items in the annual financial report. What companies sometimes overlook is that this SOX section 404 management assessment of the adequacy of internal control procedures requirement applies to pension and benefit expenses."

If you aren't scared at this point in the article, he goes on to describe SOX sanctions of money and jail - "$2m and up to ten years' imprisonment for non-wilful ($5m / up to 20 years' imprisonment for wilful) certification of any statement that does not comply with SOX requirements." Then there is the matter of heightened IRS scrutiny of pension plan governance (or lack thereof), a rise in litigation and general upset about the topics du jour, pension funding gaps, rescinded benefits and so on.

Mamorsky concludes that the rest of the world is starting to feel the pinch as the UK and other countries address governance as an important element of the "global pension world."

As an aside, our sister company, Pension Governance, LLC is soon to launch a pension litigation database, chock full of analyses and trends. We had planned to launch earlier but found many more cases than we originally anticipated.

A harbinger of days ahead in pension governance land?

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In its newly released "Pension Insurance Data Book", the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) continues to show about a $23 billion deficit, adding that "typically, the plans trusteed by the PBGC are only about 50 percent funded on a termination basis. Very few of the claims against the agency (only 1.5 percent) come from plans that are at least 75 percent funded."

By way of background, the "PBGC is a federal corporation created by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to guarantee payment of basic pension benefits earned by workers. Its two insurance programs cover 44 million American workers and retirees participating in over 30,000 private-sector defined benefit pension plans, including some 1,600 multiemployer plans. The agency receives no funds from general tax revenues. Operations are financed largely by insurance premiums paid by companies that sponsor pension plans and by investment returns."

Could it get any worse?

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Wikipedia describes the Rashomon Effect, named after the 1950 classic movie, as the proper way to describe any situation "wherein the truth of an event becomes difficult to verify due to the conflicting accounts of different witnesses."

And so one wonders if the Rashomon Effect pervades in pensionland. After all, it seems that every day brings new headlines with gloomy news about pension losses. Can it all be bad?

Whether a pension crisis is upon us is an excellent question. Solving a problem is impossible without acknowledging its existence.

These thoughts arose a few days ago when a blog reader sent the following anonymous note:

Government plans are not covered by ERISA for sound constitutional reasons, state sovereignty, the 10th Amendment, etc. Take a closer look and you will see that most plans are soundly managed. They are also subject to multiple levels of state oversight. Don't buy the hype.

Importantly, one might have penned something similar about ERISA funds regarding what we read and hear. The focus of the newly passed Pension Protection Act of 2006 in all of its 907 page glory, and now awaiting Presidential approval, company pension headlines are often negative, replete with references to losses, rescinded benefits and/or impact on employee morale.

The National Association of State Retirement Administrators ("NASRA") has written extensively in support of municipal pension plan management. To illustrate, in an August 2, 2006 letter to federal lawmakers, they and other signatories wrote about the misperceptions of public pension finance and the benefits of a study by the Government Accountability Office to set the record straight.

There are fundamental differences between governments and businesses that result in critical distinctions between plans in each sector and the way in which they are accounted for and measured. These distinctions are often unknown or misunderstood.

Public plans are in sound financial condition and State and local governments take seriously their responsibility for paying promised benefits to their employees and retirees. Comprehensive State and local laws, and significant public accountability and scrutiny, provide rigorous and transparent regulation of public plans and have resulted in strong funding rules and levels. Public plans are backed by the full faith and credit of State and local governments. Additionally, a public plan participant's accrued level of benefits and future accruals typically are protected by state constitutions, statutes, or case law that prohibits the elimination or diminution of a retirement benefit, providing far greater protections than what is provided by ERISA or PBGC.

State and local retirement plan assets are professionally-managed and provide valuable long-term capital for the nation's financial markets. The $2.8 trillion held in plan portfolios are an important source of stability for the marketplace and are designed to withstand short-term fluctuations while still providing optimal growth potential.

The bulk of public pension funding is not shouldered by taxpayers.

The vast majority of public plan funding comes from investment income.

This author concurs that shedding more light on the financial health of public plans is a great idea. Ditto for ERISA funds.

Finger pointing is futile. Taxpayers, shareholders and plan participants just want to know what impacts their wallets.

1. Can I afford to retire?

2. Will my benefits be limited or, worse yet, pulled away once I've retired?

3. Will my taxes go up?

4. Will my equity investment fall in value because of a company pension problem?

Reasonable people want answers now, not later on when it's too late to do anything to salvage their financial stake. As mentioned many times before, a real dilemma is information - old, incomplete and/or difficult to interpret. (Click here to read "Will the Real Pension Deficit Please Stand Up?")

How can we get closer to the truth and then use it productively?

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

According to PENSION AND BENEFITS, a CCH Business & Corporate Compliance publication, "EBSA, the PBGC and the IRS have proposed revisions to the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report forms. The goal is to modernize the ERISA fund disclosure process. While mandated by law, the current reporting system is in need of major improvements, something this author has described in several articles elsewhere.

What are some of the problems with the current reports? There is a long lag time between when data is submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor and when the information becomes available for public consumption. To illustrate, this author did a quick search of Freeerisa.com for several large U.S. companies and found data up to and including 2004 but nothing for 2005. As investors and beneficiaries know all too well, things can go downhill pretty quickly in which case a stale Form 5500 would be of no use whatsoever.

Moreover, the Form 5500 (Schedule H for large plans) provides scant details about a plan's investments. Nothing is provided about valuation methodology nor is any information proffered about risk measurements or risk mitigation strategies.

A welcome change is the expansion of information about service provider compensation. CCH reports the following.

The DOL has determined that it is appropriate to modify the Schedule C reporting requirements to ensure that plan officials obtain the information they need to assess the reasonableness of compensation paid for services rendered to the plan. As proposed, Schedule C would consist of three parts. Part I of Schedule C would require the identification of each person who received, either directly or indirectly, $5,000 or more in total compensation (money or anything else of value) in connection with services rendered to the plan or their position with the plan during the last plan year. This requirement would no longer be limited to the 40 highest paid service providers.

Filers would also have to indicate, for all service providers, whether the service provider received any compensation attributable to the person's relationship with, or services provided to the plan, from a party other than the plan or plan sponsor. Thus, if a fiduciary or anyone on a list of service providers received, directly or indirectly, $5,000 or more in total compensation and also received more than $1,000 in compensation from a person other than the plan or plan sponsor, then the Schedule C would have to provide information identifying the payor of the compensation, the relationship or services provided to the plan by the payor, the amount paid, and the nature of the compensation.

For further information, check out these sites.

1. IRS Form 5500 Corner

2. U.S. DOL "Troubleshooter's Guide to Filing the ERISA Annual Report (Form 5500), Part I"

3. U.S. DOL "General Guidelines for Completing Form 5500 and Schedules A, C, D, G, H and I"

4. Freeerisa.com (You can register for no charge and then search over 270,000 new filings.)

5. Article entitled "Deciphering Risk Management Disclosures" (While the article does not address Form 5500, it describes some important transparency issues.)

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Valuation and risk professional Dr. Susan M. Mangiero, CFA, AVA, FRM will moderate a panel of esteemed retirement plan experts at the forthcoming 42nd annual meeting of the Eastern Finance Association at the Sheraton Society Hill in Philadelphia on April 20 from 10:15 a.m. to noon. (The hotel is located at 1 Dock Street in Philadelphia.)

Months away from sweeping Congressional reform and accounting standards that will dramatically impact the financial health of Corporate America, a diverse and seasoned panel of experts will talk about plan termination, 401K plan design, pension governance, fiduciary compliance, ERISA litigation trends, liability-driven investing and pension risk management with respect to shareholder value and employee productivity and morale. With over $10 trillion and 100 million plan participants at risk, conference producer Dr. John Finnerty describes this presentation as "an urgent call to our 850 financial members who are helping finance leaders, at all levels, grapple with the real challenges that post-retirement benefits present". Moderator Dr. Mangiero concurs. "CEOs and CFOs alike are quickly realizing how vulnerable they are to pension problems that can force rating downgrades, invite litigation and higher regulatory compliance costs, increase the cost of capital and otherwise impede corporate growth. For more than a few companies, pensions have become a veritable albatross."

Panelists include Mr. I. Lee Falk, Senior Counsel (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP), Mr. Wayne H. Miller, CEO (Denali Fiduciary Management), Mr. James V. Morris, Senior Vice President (SEI Global Institutional Group) and Mr. Norman Jackson, Deputy Regional Director (United States Department of Labor - Employee Benefits Security Administration's Philadelphia Regional Office).

The general public is invited. There is a nominal fee of $50, payable at the door. The Eastern Finance Association is a non-profit organization. Its members include college and university professors, officers of financial institutions and organizations, and others interested in finance and the objectives of the EFA. The Association sponsors The Financial Review, a journal that publishes original empirical, theoretical, and methodological research providing new insights into issues of importance in all areas of financial economics.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks