A few months ago I was asked to complete a Request for Information ("RFI") by the sponsor of a large pension plan. Their goal was to hire an independent outside party to vet the investment management policies and procedures of its outsourced manager. I've long maintained that it is an excellent idea to have someone review operations and render a second opinion about how asset managers perform relative to a retirement plan's objectives, how much risk is being taken to generate returns, the extent to which the asset manager is mitigating risks and much more.
While this type of "kick the tires" engagement is not as common as many think it should be, that could change quickly. The Outsourced Chief Investment Officer ("OCIO") business model (sometimes referred to as the Delegated Investment Management or Fiduciary Management approach) is rapidly growing at the same time that recent mandates such as the U.S. Department of Labor's Fiduciary Rule, along with a flurry of lawsuits that allege breach, call more attention to how in-house plan fiduciaries hire and monitor their vendors.
Given the relative newness of this type of engagement and the fact that a review can mean different things to different people, I strongly recommend that the hiring party consider how much work they want done and what budget applies. In the case of the aforementioned invitation to submit a work plan and detailed budget, my colleagues and I were told by the plan sponsor they weren't really sure what should be done. Our suggestion was to carry out a preliminary review of existing policies, procedures and operations, report the findings to the trustees and then discuss what could be done as a subsequent and more granular assessment, if needed. This would get the ball rolling in terms of identifying urgent concerns and avoid having to write a big check. Even with an opportunity to ask questions of the hiring plan, there were still many unknowns. For example, would the plan sponsor be willing to pay for a complete investigation of items such as vendor's data security measures, adherence to its compliance manual, growth plans, risk management stance, employee personal trading safeguards, measures to avoid conflicts of interest, business strength, type of liability insurance in place and verification (if true) that back office cash management was separate from trading or instead have an examiner concentrate on a subset? When the plan sponsor said it wanted to have an outside reviewer look at historical investment performance numbers, was its goal to assess data frequently or over a longer period of time, relative to a selected benchmark, relative to an asset-liability management hurdle, based on risk per return units and so on?
Anyone who has reviewed bid documents from public and corporate plan sponsors will likely conclude that there is not much consistency, especially for due diligence and governance assignments. That's not ideal. Yes, it's true that facts and circumstances will differ but clarity in terms of what a hiring plan wants can be a plus for everyone. I think it would likewise be helpful for the bid document to state a budget number or "not to exceed" range and let the respondents suggest what work could be reasonably done for that fee. Both the buyer and seller would know at the outset whether it makes sense to proceed with discussions. Another way to go would have the plan sponsor hire someone to interview its in-house fiduciaries, identify and rank their major concerns and then use that information to create a structured Request for Information or Request for Proposal ("RFP") that would be distributed to potential review firms. This exercise would entail a short-run expense but could save money in the long-run by ensuring that the plan sponsor and the review team are in sync about expectations and deliverables.
The bidding process is often a tough one for both buyer and seller. In 2015, I interviewed the co-CEO of a company called InHub, Mr. Kent Costello. I have no economic connection with this company. I had asked for a demo after reading about the use of technology to help fiduciaries with their search and hiring of third parties. In answer to my question about the limitations of the existing RFP process for the buyer, Kent said "It can be difficult for investment committees to put together a list of questions that will help them to effectively compare firms and service offerings ... Poorly crafted, irrelevant, or repetitive questions will lead to a weak due diligence process and leave the committee confused and frustrated. Worse yet, it could mean the selection of an inadequate vendor." Just as important, he pointed out that sellers could be reluctant to take the time and money to prepare a detailed proposal, "given the low likelihood of winning the business..." Click to read "Electronic RFP Process and Fiduciary Duty."
Process improvement is always a plus, whether applied to crafting a bid document, responding with a proposal or implementing the work, once hired.