Pension Risk Matters : Pension Risk News & Analysis : Investment Governance, Inc. : Pension Risk & Investment

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I am delighted to co-present on May 14, 2013 from 1:00 pm to 2:40 pm EST for Business Valuation Resources about the urgent need to properly assess pension fund economics as part of any opinion of value.This is a particularly timely topic as the U.S. Department of Labor seeks to designate appraisers as a fiduciary for an assessment they render about an ERISA plan such as an Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP"), 401(k) plan and/or defined benefit plan.

The session is entitled "Valuation and ERISA Fiduciary Liability: How to Protect Yourself." Speakers include:

• Dr. Susan Mangiero, CFA, certified Financial Risk Manager, Accredited Investment Fiduciary Analyst, trained appraiser and past president of the Connecticut chapter of the National Association of Certified Valuation Analysts (Fiduciary Leadership, LLC;
• Mr. Robert Schlegel, ASA, MCBA and past president of the Indiana chapter of the American Society of Appraisers (Houlihan Valuation Advisors); and
• Senior ERISA attorney James V. Cole II, with the Groom Law Group.

Click here to register for this ERISA valuation program.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Speedy and insightful as always, ERISA attorney Stephen Rosenberg has commenced a series of blog posts that describes his view of the "hot off the press" conclusions made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Tibble v. Edison. Click to access the March 21, 2013 Tibble v. Edison opinion. This ruling will no doubt receive much attention in the coming days as jurists and ERISA fiduciaries digest its content. Some will view this adjudication as yet another reminder that prudent process must be undertaken and can be demonstrated with respect to a host of issues (although the outcome is mixed in terms of plaintiff versus defendant "wins"). Issues include the selection of investment choices and the fees paid accordingly. Click to access the amicus brief filed by the U.S. Department of Labor in support of the plaintiffs.

In his first post about yesterday's opinion, Attorney Rosenberg points out that the timeline that determines ERISA's six-year statute of limitations was deemed to have started "when a fiduciary breach is committed by choosing and including a particular imprudent plan investment" and did not continue by virtue of the investment mix remaining in the plan. He further asserts that defendants will want the clock to begin on the day an investment option is first introduced and that "any breach of fiduciary duty claims involving that investment that are filed later than six years after that date are untimely."

I will leave court commentary to the legal experts. Click to access the Boston ERISA & Insurance Litigation Blog for his analysis about this case and many more.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

ERISA plans have long relied on over-the-counter swaps to hedge or to enhance portfolio returns. Given the high level of attention being paid to de-risking solutions these days, the role of swaps is even more important since these derivative contracts are often used by insurance companies and banks to manage their own risks when an ERISA plan transfers assets and/or liabilities. Big dollars (and other currencies) are at stake. According to its 2012 semi-annual tally of global market size, the Bank for International Settlements ("BIS") estimates the interest rate swap market alone at $379 trillion. Click to access details about the size of the over-the-counter derivatives market as of June 2012. It is therefore noteworthy that regulatory feedback has now been provided with respect to the use of swaps by ERISA plans.

In its long awaited advisory opinion issued by the U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration ("EBSA"), ERISA plans can use swaps without fear of undue regulatory costs and diminished supply (due to brokers who do not want to trade if deemed a fiduciary).

In its rather lengthy February 7, 2013 communication with Steptoe & Johnson LLP attorney Melanie Franco Nussdorf (on behalf of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association), EBSA officials (Louis J. Campagna, Chief - Division of Fiduciary Interpretations, and Lyssa E. Hall, Director - Office of Exemption Determinations) made several important points about whether a swaps "clearing member" (a) has ERISA 3(21)(A)(i) fiduciary liability if a pension counterparty defaults and the clearing member liquidates its position (b) is a party in interest as described in section 3(14)(B) of ERISA with respect to the pension plan counterparty on the other side of a swaps trade and (c) will have created a prohibited transaction under section 406 of ERISA if it exercises its default rights. These include the following.

• Margin held by a Futures Commission Merchant ("FCM") or a clearing organization as part of a swap trade with an ERISA plan will not be deemed a plan asset under Title 1 of ERISA. The plan's assets are the contractual rights to which both parties agree (in terms of financial exchanges) as well as any gains that the FCM or clearing member counterparty may realize as a result of its liquidation of a swap with an ERISA plan that has not performed.
• An FCM or clearing organization should not be labeled a "party in interest" under ERISA as long as the swap agreement(s) with a plan is outside the realm of prohibited transaction rules.

There is much more to say on this topic and future posts will address issues relating to the use of derivatives by ERISA plans. In the meantime, links to this 2013 regulatory document and several worthwhile legal analyses are given below, as well as a link to my book on the topic of risk management. While it was published in late 2004 as a primer for fiduciaries, many of the issues relating to risk governance, risk metrics and risk responsibilities remain the same.

• U.S. Department of Labor Advisory Opinion 2013-01A;
• "DOL Advisory Opinion 2013-01A: Cleared Swaps Under ERISA - Margin Not a Plan Asset/CCPs & FCSm Are Not Fiduciaries/No Prohibited Transactions" by Attorney Andrew P. Cross and Allison W. Sizemore, The Swap Report, February 14, 2013;
• "DOL Resolves Important ERISA Issues About Cleared Swap Transactions," Bloomberg BNA, February 27, 2013; and
• Risk Management for Pensions, Endowments and Foundations by Dr. Susan Mangiero, John Wiley & Sons, November 2004.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Despite a plethora of information about how to implement shortcuts to enhance workplace productivity, fiduciaries need to ask themselves whether a "jack in the box" approach that equates speed with care and diligence is worth pursuing.

This topic of shortcuts came up recently in a discussion with appraisal colleagues about the dangers of using a "plug and play" model to estimate value. Although New York Times journalist Mark Cohen rightly cites the merits of having a business valuation done, he lists all sorts of new tools such as iPhone valuation apps that some might conclude are valid substitutes for the real thing. Rest assured that punching in a few numbers versus hiring an independent and knowledgeable third party specialist to undertake a thorough assessment of value is a big mistake, especially if the underlying assumptions and algorithms of a "quick fix" solution are unknown to the user. See "Do You Know What Your Business is Worth? You Should," January 30, 2013.

It's bad enough that a small company owner opts for a drive-in appraisal. It's arguably worse when institutional investors do so, especially as their portfolios are increasingly chock a block with "hard to value" holdings. In the event that a valuation incorrectly reflects the extent to which an investment portfolio can decline, all sorts of nasty things can occur. A pension, endowment or foundation could end up overpaying fees to its asset managers. Any attempts to hedge could be thwarted by having too much or too little protection in place due to incorrect valuation numbers. Asset allocation decisions could be distorted which in turn could mean that certain asset management relationships are redundant or insufficient.

Poor valuations also invite litigation or enforcement or both. As I wrote in "Financial Model Mistakes Can Cost Millions of Dollars," Expert Witnesses, American Bar Association, Section of Litigation, May 31, 2011:

"Care must be taken to construct a model and to test it. Underlying assumptions must be revisited on an ongoing basis, preferably by an independent expert who will not receive a raise or bonus tied to flawed results from a bad model. Someone has to kick the proverbial tires to make sure that answers make sense and to minimize the adverse consequences associated with mistakes in a formula, bad assumptions, incorrect use, wild results that bear no resemblance to expected outcomes, difficulty in predicting outputs, and/or undue complexity that makes it hard for others to understand and replicate outputs. Absent fraud or sloppiness, precise model results may be expensive to produce and therefore unrealistic in practice. As a consequence, a “court or other user may find a model acceptable if relaxing some of the assumptions does not dramatically affect the outcome.” Susan Mangiero, “The Risks of Ignoring Model Risk” in Litigation Services Handbook: The Role of the Financial Expert (Roman L. Weil et al, eds., John Wiley & Sons, 3d ed. 2005).

In recent months, it is noteworthy that regulators have pushed valuation process and policies further up the list of enforcement priorities. Indeed, in reading various complaints that allege bad valuation policies and procedures, I have been surprised at the increased level of specificity cited by regulators about what they think should have been done by individuals with fiduciary oversight responsibilities. Besides the focus of the U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has brought actions against multiple fund managers in the last quarter alone. Consider the valuation requirements of new Dodd-Frank rules (and overseas equivalent regulatory focus) and it is clear that questions about how numbers and models are derived will continue to be asked.

For further reference, interested readers can check out the following items:

• "Mitigating Risks of Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims," June 16, 2011;
• "SEC Charges Eight Mutual Fund Directors for Failure to Properly Oversee Asset Valuation," December 10, 2012;
• "SEC Charges New York-Based Fund Executives for Overvaluing Assets During Financial Crisis," November 28, 2012; and
• "SEC Charges Hedge Fund Adviser and Two Executives With Fraud in Continuing Probe of Suspicious Fund Performance," October 17, 2012.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a related online interview for the Professional Liability Underwriting Society ("PLUS"), Chartis Executive Vice President Rhonda Prussack cites financial distress (including the filing for bankruptcy protection) as a significant concern for ERISA fiduciary liability. She adds that a troubled plan sponsor may see the value of company-issued securities plummet which in turn could trigger an ERISA "stock drop" case if such securities are part of the mix for a 401(k) or profit-sharing plan. A company seeking to save cash may switch from a defined benefit plan to a cash balance plan which in turn could pave the way for a lawsuit over allegations relating to the change in design. A company in trouble could shut down factories, instigate large-scale layoffs and/or cut back benefits, all of which lead to unhappy individuals who are more likely to sue. Ms. Prussack emphasizes that happy workers are less likely to sue. She further adds that plan participant actions are likely to take the form of putative class actions.

The bottom line is that there is a long list of potential risk exposures for ERISA fiduciaries and a continued need to mitigate liability.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to its September 6, 2012 press release, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") settled with two Portland, Oregon investment advisory firms for $1.1 million. At issue was whether investors were harmed due to the allegedly hidden revenue-sharing arrangements in place that may have resulted in a less than neutral basis for recommending certain funds. Neither party admitted or denied the regulator's charges. See "SEC Charges Oregon-Based Investment Adviser for Failing to Disclose Revenue Sharing Payments," September 6, 2012.

The issue of revenue sharing is unlikely to go away, especially with multiple regulators paying close attention now. The SEC had said that it plans to ask more questions about the independence, or lack thereof, that characterizes the relationship between professionals who give advice and the brokers and/or asset managers they use. Mr. Marc J. Fagel, Director of the SEC's San Francisco Regional Office, states that there will be a continued focus on "enforcement and examination efforts" related to "uncovering arrangements where advisers receive undisclosed compensation and conceal conflicts of interest from investors."

 The U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL") is likewise investigating whether revenue-sharing arrangements are being adequately disclosed. A few months ago, DOL settled with Morgan Keegan and Co. According to published accounts, monies will be returned to nearly a dozen pension plans by Morgan Keegan for having received a fee in exchange for recommendations it made about hedge fund vehicles. Morgan Keegan will also need to disclose whether it is acting as an ERISA fiduciary. See "Morgan Keegan settles with DOL over revenue-sharing accusations" by Darla Mercado (Investment News, April 16, 2012). 

Given recent court activity, more will be said later on by this blogger about when the practice of revenue-sharing could make sense and when there could be problems.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to Troutman Sanders ERISA attorneys Jonathan A. Kenter and Gail H. Cutler, the outcome of a recent 401(k) plan lawsuit known as Tussey v. ABB did more than force the sponsor to write a check for $37 million. It led to lessons learned about the need to regularly review record-keeping and investment management fees, negotiate for rebates if possible and adhere to documented investment guidelines. What it did not resolve was "whether the record keeping costs of a 401(k) plan may be borne exclusively by those participants whose investment funds enjoy revenue sharing...while participants whose accounts are invested in investment funds with no revenue sharing pay little or nothing."

In "The Next Frontier in Fiduciary Oversight Litigation?" (April 27, 2012) they suggest that courts will likely be asked to opine as to whether ERISA fiduciaries have justified prevailing revenue sharing arrangements, taking allocation and class-based fee levels into account. Their recommendation is to decide on a disciplined approach that makes sense rather than making arbitrary decisions. Allocation rules to consider include the following:

• Apportion record keeping fees on a pro-rata basis so that each participant is only charged his or her "fair share." Credit any revenue sharing received back to the "funds or participants as part of a periodic expense balance true-up."
• Levy the same record keeping fee for each participant. Allocate revenue sharing monies ratably "to all investment funds or participants."
• Adopt a combined pro-rata and per capital allocation such that a record keeping fee would consist of a fixed amount and a variable amount. Imposing a cap on total fees could be included.
• "Hard wire the allocation method in the plan document" so that how record keeping fees are charged becomes a settlor function versus a fiduciary task.

In 2007, the ERISA Advisory Council's Working Group on Fiduciary Responsibilities and Revenue Sharing Practices reviewed industry practices as a way to improve disclosure for 401(k) plan participants. One recommendation made to the U.S. Department of Labor thereafter was to categorize payments for certain professional services as settlor functions and thereby protect fiduciaries from allegations of breach. Another request was for clarification that revenue sharing is not a plan asset "unless and until it is credited to the plan in accordance with the documents governing the revenue sharing."

With ERISA Rule 408(b)(2) fee disclosure compliance just ahead, numerous questions remain. This had led litigators and transaction attorneys alike to comment that further lawsuits and enforcement actions are likely to follow.

Note: Interested persons can read "Final Regulation Relating to Service Provider Disclosures Under Section 408(b)(2)," published the U.S. Department of Labor in February 2012.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In recent discussions with asset managers, pension trustees and consultants, investment fraud continues to attract attention. It is no surprise that people want to know more about what constitutes bad practice versus crossing the line, especially in the aftermath of a devastating few years of economic losses. New disclosure regulations are another catalyst for learning more about how to avoid trouble. Email your request if you want more information about what can be done to detect fraud and/or would like to receive research and thought leadership on the topic of investment fraud.

Impending changes to fiduciary standards and allegations of fiduciary breach likewise continue to create a stir.

In "The EBSA Cracks Down on Retirement Plan Advisors," AdvisorOne's Melanie Waddell (March 26, 2012) describes a material increase in enforcement actions brought by the U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL"), Employee Benefits Security Administration ("EBSA"). Besides effecting nearly 3,500 civil cases in 2011, EBSA closed 302 criminal cases with "129 individuals being indicted," "75 cases being closed with guilty pleas or convictions" and an excess of $1.3 billion in monetary damages collected. Quoting Andy Larson with the Retirement Learning Center, the article mentions fiduciary negligence as a key concern of regulation and a driving force behind a proposed expansion of ERISA fiduciary duties to numerous professionals who work with retirement plans in an advisory capacity.

ERISA Attorney David Pickle points out that fraud and embezzlement of 401(k) plan money have been investigated for years by the DOL and U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") but recent investigations are being done now as part of the formal Contributory Plans Criminal Project ("CPCP"). He observes that "the DOL is conducting an increasing number of investigations of financial service providers, including registered advisers, banks and trust companies (both as trustees or custodians but also as asset managers), and consultants. For other insights about ERISA pain points, read "An Excerpt From: K&L Global Government Solutions (R) 2012: Annual Outlook."

According to the ERISA enforcement manual, civil violations include:

• Failure to operate a plan prudently and for the exclusive benefit of participants
• Use of plan assets to benefit the plan administrator, sponsor and other related parties
• Failure to properly value plan assets at the current fair market value
• Failure to adhere to the terms of a plan (assuming that those terms are compatible with ERISA)
• Failure to properly select and monitor service providers
• Unlawfully taking action against a plan participant who seeks to exercise his or her rights.

Criminal violations include:

• Embezzlement of monies
• Accepting kickbacks
• Making false statements.

The "oops - I didn't know" strategy is unlikely to serve those who work with or for pension plans. The spotlight continues to focus on ways to improve the management of $17+ trillion U.S. retirement system and rightly so. There is so much at stake for millions of people.

George Washington said that "In executing the duties of my present important station, I can promise nothing but purity of intentions, and, in carrying these into effect, fidelity and diligence.

ERISA and public pension trustees are likewise tasked to be faithful and diligent, among other things. For those who choose a different path, the outcome can be dire indeed. Jail time and stiff penalties as well as legal costs are a few of the potential costs associated with a fraud conviction, not to mention shame and the loss of income.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As the U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL") prepares to expand the definition of fiduciary, at the same time that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is doing likewise, the financial industry is girding for some potentialy massive changes.

In response to the DOL's request for comments about an expanded definition of fiduciary as relates to retirement schemes, I warned that the law of unintended consequences could push knowledgeable professionals out of the marketplace. If fears that the liability costs will outweigh the benefits of working with plan sponsors, perhaps materially so, it will be difficult to attract the talent that is so badly needed to assist with implementing pension governance policies and procedures. 

I further wrote that a hefty dose of transparency could do wonders for differentiating "good" fiduciaries from others. This problem is not new. In fact, I wrote in 2006 that trying to identify who serves as a member of a plan's investment committee is like searching for hidden treasure. Click to read my 2006 post about pension fiduciary disclosure.

Click to read my January 20, 2011 letter to the U.S. Department of Labor about their proposed expansion of who should serve as a fiduciary.

Click to read the other letters submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor about this important issue of who properly counts as a fiduciary. Letters I read suggest the need for a universal education standard. As is the case in other countries, the United States could well end up with a mandate for independent fiduciaries to serve on investment committees, after having been properly vetted, licensed or otherwise credentialed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today's blog post is provided, courtesy of Mr. Phil Chiricotti, President of the Center for Due Diligence. Since the topic of contract review as an important element of proper due diligence is one which I have addressed elsewhere on www.pensionriskmatters.com and in my articles and speeches, I asked Phil for permission to reprint his article and he kindly agreed.         

                                          Advisor Service Agreements: The Weak Link

Enormous attention has been centered on retirement plan fees in recent years, including the new 408(b)(2)disclosure requirements. The liability has also increased for those who fail to comply. Lost in this shuffle is the fact that fees are only one piece of the puzzle.

While a well drafted, reviewed and understood service agreement can help preclude errors and claims, the service agreement is also the primary defense against liability caused by service provider mistakes and negligence. In spite of this important role, many plan sponsors - particularly small plan sponsors - sign standard service agreements without adequate review or counsel.

In addition to agreeing to vague service agreements, some sponsors engage advisors without a service agreement or verification of insurance coverage and bonding. As noted many times, most small plan sponsors also lack first party fiduciary liability insurance. A combination of the aforementioned is nothing less than a nuclear accident waiting to happen.

The DOL's new regulations provide an increase in both fee disclosure and clarity for comparative shopping, but 408(b)(2) does not preclude the need for an equitable service agreement. In our minds, the service agreement remains a weak link in the advisor vetting process, particularly in the small plan market. Indeed, the service agreement may not even reflect what was discussed and/or negotiated during the vetting process.

As noted by many attorneys, ERISA's primary focus has been on regulating the relationship between plan sponsors and participants. Beyond prohibited transactions and prior to the DOL's new disclosure regulations, little guidance was provided on how to manage the relationship between sponsors and service providers, including those assuming a fiduciary role.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to "DOL rule could raise pension funds' costs: Proposed fiduciary requirement would hit appraisers of alternative investments" by Doug Halonen (Pensions & Investments, November 15, 2010), those who provide independent valuations could soon be declared fiduciaries. Remembering that there is no free lunch and that every new rule has unintended consequences, third party pricing experts are already running for cover. Some say they may exit the appraisal business at the same time that ERISA plans are enlarging their positions in alternatives and also being called upon to provide more information in their Form 5500 filings.

In case you missed it, click to access my comments on this topic, entitled "September 11, 2008 Testimony Presented by Dr. Susan Mangiero before the ERISA Advisory Council Working Group on Hard to Value ("HTV") Assets."

I had the pleasure of presenting on the same topic of risk management and valuation to the OECD and International Organization of Pension Supervisors in Paris in June 2010.

Clearly, pension plan decision-makers and their advisors, attorneys and consultants are going to be challenged to find the right balance between return and risk (with valuation questions being one type of risk). Not every alternative investment is "hard to value." Indeed, some mutual funds and other "traditional" choices have their own challenges in terms of pricing and liquidity.

Click to read "Hedge Fund Valuation: What Pension Fiduciaries Need to Know" by Susan Mangiero, Journal of Compensation and Benefits, July/August 2006.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link