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

My client conversations are mainly with financial professionals and attorneys. However, as someone who wants to stay informed about the economy, I likewise enjoy getting different perspectives from market participants, especially those who are directly impacted by changing rules and regulations. So it was with interest that I read the following note on my doctor's pay window:

"Dear patients -

As of October 1, 2010, I no longer accept Medicare insurance due to the harassment and cuts in payments by the federal government. My fees are very reasonable. Please feel free to discuss them with me personally. I would love to continue to care for my Medicare patients, just without the federal government telling me how to do my job or how much to get paid. This is just the beginning of the healthcare reform. Please thank your politicians. Remember, elections have consequences."

Whether you agree with him or not, the reality is that, like any regulation, there are unintended consequences. When you deny someone the opportunity to earn a risk-adjusted return, don't be surprised that some individuals exit the market and seek gainful work elsewhere. If true that large numbers of physicians are no longer "supplied" at the same time that health care mandates force demand upward, it's obvious that prices are going to spiral. To the extent that regulations keep prices in check, even more doctors will get discouraged, leave the industry and put more pressure on the demand-supply gap.

According to "The Coming Doctor Shortage" by Herbert Pardes (Wall Street Journal, January 19, 2011), "Health-care reform will add an estimated 32 million people to the ranks of the insured, driving them to seek medical attention that in the past they may have avoided due to expense." In addition, an aging populace adds to demand even as nearly a third of doctors in the United States are older than 55 years with plans for retirement at some point.

The math is straightforward.

• 250,000 doctors will retire within the next decade.
• Increased needs require "an additional 130,000 doctors, both general-practice physicians and specialists, 15 years from now."
• About 16,000 doctors are trained each year.

Besides those doctors who are throwing in the towel, I've talked to quite a few who are discouraging their relatives, friends and family members from studying medicine.

If things don't correct soon, fewer rational individuals will be willing to incur large personal debts and study long hours to become doctors. If that happens, "do no harm" may be the reality of too much legislative interference.

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

Love her or hate her (the woman), many feel that Ayn Rand's literacy legacy is beyond reproach. Author of best-selling books such as The Fountainhead, her main message is one of self-determinism and excellence of work. New York Times reporter describes the business glitterati who embrace her words to this day, including former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, and a bevy of Fortune 500 CEOs. No wonder then that her books continue to sell. According to "Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism," Atlas Shrugged, published nearly fifty years ago, "is still drawing readers; it ranks 388th on Amazon.com’s best-seller list. 'Winning,' by John F. Welch Jr., at a breezy 384 pages, is No. 1,431."

So why does her work capture the hearts and minds of corporate scions and entrepreneurs alike and what could the pension world learn from Ms. Rand's work?

Addressing the first question, consider her many admirers who describe the inspiration they draw from reading this long (1,200+ pages) novel about the philosophical integrity and strength of characters such as Dagny Taggart (slated to be played by Angela Jolie in the Hollywood film version now underway), Hank Reardon and the all-time favorite, John Galt. Withstanding immense scrutiny and criticism from the entrenched bureaucracies, each fictional business persona fought steadfastly to create wealth by building a better mousetrap and to resist, at all costs, the temptation to be mediocre and do "just enough." 

Part of the book's appeal is its timelessness. As one Atlas Shrugged reviewer recently wrote, this 1957 book could just as easily have been written today. As Rand railed against excessive government regulation (influenced no doubt by her childhood experiences of living in Bolshevist Russia), contemporary critics decry the "excesses" of regulations such as SOX. Rand extolled the virtues (and urgent need) for bold leadership. She cautioned what would happen if the world fell from the shoulders of Atlas and the producers of high-quality products and services (without government help) left the "exploiters" to their own feeble devices. She impugned those who defrauded or otherwise took what did not belong to them. Her words resonate loud and clear in the aftermath of a wave of corporate fraud and scandals. She allowed only for strong property rights and proper commercial incentives (economic profit) to support a better quality of life for all in the form of unfettered markets. (How many innovations occur in the lands of despots and closed markets?) 

Should Atlas Shrugged be a guidebook for pension trustees? Asked in other ways, should benefit plan decision-makers focus on full transparency and accountability? Should fiduciaries bravely step up to the plate and make decisions that are in the interests of beneficiaries first and and always? Should plan sponsors map out a detailed plan (and follow it closely) to avoid conflicts of interest? Will plan sponsors adopt best practices that, in the short-run may cost more in terms of time and money, but in the long-run, create a better outcome for participants and shareholders alike? Should high-integrity fiduciaries be economically rewarded for their insight, commitment and diligence? Conversely, should those who accept sub-par quality of work be penalized?

If the answer to any or all of these questions is affirmative, the following quotes are for you.

"A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others."

"Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps, down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision."

"The ladder of success is best climbed by stepping on the rungs of opportunity."

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

While November 16, 2006 marks the passing of famed economist, Dr. Milton Friedman, his ideas will no doubt live on for years to come. Economists in the U.S. and abroad embrace his work for its clarity, originality and impact. Recipient of the 1976 Nobel Prize for Economic Science, Friedman was a staunch advocate of free markets, something that put him at odds with the big government crowd. Author of Capitalism and Freedom and co-author (with his wife Rose) of Free to Choose (book and television show), Friedman wrote about the "tyranny of controls" in 1979, adding that "restrictions on economic freedom inevitably affect freedom in general, even such areas as freedom of speech and press." Taking a page from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, this well-respected Ph.D. wrote that "it is in the self-interest of the businessman to serve the consumer" and by doing so, everyone wins.

Post-mortem tributes that review Friedman's work as part of a general discussion about free markets versus regulation come at a time when laws such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 are being critically examined. In early September of this year, the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, "a newly formed independent group of U.S. business, financial, investor and corporate governance, legal, accounting and academic leaders" announced its intent to study ways to "improve the competitiveness of the U.S. public capital markets."

A critical question? How much regulation is enough?

In "Businesses Seek New Protection on Legal Front," journalist Stephen Labaton (New York Times, October 29, 2006) writes that the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation and a parallel group "aim to limit the liability of accounting firms for the work they do on behalf of clients, to force prosecutors to target individual wrongdoers rather than entire companies, and to scale back shareholder lawsuits."

Dr. Friedman was not only prescient but correct to observe that "there is no such thing as a free lunch." Someone, somewhere, somehow pays.

What is an appropriate cost to pay for a relaxation of current rules? More self-policing at the industry level? At the individual company level? At the shareholder level?

With regard to pension funds, should we abandon ERISA and ask company sponsors to provide more transparency and financial backing on their own? How do we reward companies that do that already and without prodding from government watchdogs? Will the aftermath of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 reflect the law of unintended consequences, i.e. outcomes that are antithetical to the original intent of legislators?

Only time will tell but, until then, thank you Dr. Friedman. Your legacy of thought-provoking ideas is a rich one indeed.

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