Sunday, November 12, 2006
Hedge Fund Disclosure - Round Three
On November 8, 2006, I spoke again about the issue of hedge fund transparency and disclosure as relates to ERISA fiduciaries. Part of a three-person panel focused on hedge fund risk management (co-sponsored by BVA, LLC, ING Investment Management and law firm Alston Bird LLP), my comments were directed to an audience of about ninety people, representing hedge funds and service providers.
Since my remarks were picked up by several publications, and because this issue has now become a cause celebre of sorts, I'd like to clarify a few things. (Click here to read "The Law Giveth, The Law Can Taketh Away", 11/10/06, Institutional Investor.com and here to read "Amaranth, New Law Puts Onus on Pension Trustees" by Chidem Kurdas, New York Bureau Chief, 11/08/06, Hedgeworld.com. Registration may be required.)
In case you missed my earlier two posts on the topic of information and economic value, click here and here.
1. No investment is "good" or "bad" on its face. An investor must carry out a careful analysis of characteristics that are thought to contribute to the expected risk-return tradeoff. Moreover, an investor must consider its objectives and constraints.
2. Current law requires ERISA fiduciaries to make informed decisions. (Other criteria apply and fiduciaries are urged to seek legal counsel to better understand their responsibilities.)
3. Notwithstanding current law, common sense mandates a modicum of information and analysis before plunking down money. Why would someone invest in something resembling a black box, especially when they are acting as stewards of other people's money?
4. Some fund managers can choose to provide limited information to potential investors, to the extent permitted by prevailing law. ERISA fiduciaries may be subsequently forced to look at other funds that provide whatever information is deemed necessary to discharge their duties. (Click here for an interesting debate about information and its economic value.)
5. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 sheds arguably more light on what a fiduciary must do with respect to proper investment decision-making. However, it is not a standalone document and references opinions that will ultimately have to come from the U.S. Department of Labor and elsewhere.
6. The point about due diligence was emphasized by attorney Nir Yarden with Bryan Cave LLP as part of a recent Financial Research Associates conference about liability-driven investing. Yarden urged fiduciaries, including consultants and money managers, to thoroughly consider their exposure under ERISA, adding that "it won't take another blow-up to get people in trouble. Fiduciaries do not have the luxury of walking away from their statutory responsibilities. ERISA may apply even in the event of sub-performance."
7. Having a healthy debate about information requirements is a good thing. Please send or post comments. (If you have any difficulty posting to the blog, please email right away.) posted by Susan Mangiero at 11/12/2006 05:57:00 PM

PENSION RISK MATTERSSM focuses on pension financial risk issues from a governance and fiduciary perspective. The goal is to identify important topics, ask thought-provoking questions, examine best practices and encourage meaningful debate about the $10 trillion global pension industry upon which millions of individuals depend. Author and consultant Susan M. Mangiero, Ph.D. is a CFA charter-holder, Accredited Valuation Analyst, Accredited Investment Fiduciary Analyst and certified Financial Risk Manager. Dr. Mangiero combines many years of experience in finance with a keen interest in solving problems and simplifying the complex (
