Friday, December 29, 2006


Hedge Fund Notables for Pension Investors



Given the flood of money making its way from pension land to alternatives, fiduciaries may be interested in today's New York Times article entitled "The Private Lives of Hedge Funds." Reporter Jenny Anderson celebrates the panache of more than a few hedgies with a colorful description of the Houdini award, the Better-Than-Barings Blow-Up award, and the Debutantes award, to name a few.

Mr. Phillip Goldstein gets the Braveheart award for playing David to the SEC Goliath when he questioned their authority to have hedge funds register. After winning his case, he has since taken to the airwaves, campaigning to be exempted from disclosing details about his fund's holdings.

I have written about Mr. Goldstein on three occasions as part of a continuing commentary about transparency versus the protection of proprietary (and arguably valuable) information. While this issue remains unsettled as of today, it's noteworthy that over 1,200 hedge fund professionals showed up at a recent industry event to hear about topics such as the impact of newly released AICPA document, "Alternative Investments Audit Considerations: A Practice Aid for Auditors". For those who have yet to read this beauty, auditors must have sufficient data to support fund valuation numbers, including position detail.

Here are the links to the three aforementioned posts.

1. "Pensions, Hedge Funds and Disclosure" (October 27, 2006)

2. "Will Private Equity Stay Private? U.S. Dept. of Justice Makes Inquiries" (November 5, 2006)

3. "Hedge Fund Disclosure-Round Three" (November 12, 2006)

Is this the start of a new trend?

Labels:

posted by Susan Mangiero at 12/29/2006 12:30:00 AM | 0 comments | links to this post  

Wednesday, December 27, 2006


Pension Problem Solving - Building the Team



In an effort to expand my horizons and better understand the dynamics of team-building, I recently spent several hours with an expert in PI. Also known as the Predictive Index, this self-described "unique, in-house management tool" is used to "effectively motivate, lead and leverage a person's strengths to achieve company goals." (Click here for more information.)

I started off as somewhat of a skeptic. (I am after all a Ph.D. in finance with a minor in math.) By the end of the meeting, I think I came away with a much better understanding of how I can improve my communication and leadership skills, something that no doubt is well worth the cost of time and money.

While each individual needs to seek counsel from behavioral experts as they deem appropriate, anything that enhances team-building may merit more than a peek. A wide variety of other tools include Myers Brigg, Raymond Cattell's 16 personality factors, Strong Interest Inventory and Johnson O'Connor aptitude analysis.

This topic is broad and well beyond the scope of any blog post. An interesting takeaway is the extent to which effective team-building can help pension decision-makers in 2007 and beyond. After all, how do we characterize the benefits situation in modern times? A few thoughts follow.

1. Responsibilities involve multiple departments such as Human Resources, Operations, Compliance, Treasury, Accounting and Investor Relations.

2. The need to contain costs while trying to attract, retain and motivate productive workers is often seen as mutually exclusive and is therefore a possible cause for intra-organizational friction.

3. Competing and often disparate compensation rewards for benefit plan decision-makers exist and vary across functions and titles.

4. Penalties for getting the benefits mix "wrong" vary across functions and titles.

5. There is an alarming increase in personal and professional fiduciary liability that could encourage a counter-productive "blame game" unless everyone understands and adheres to a unified set of goals.

Team-building is tough, especially for complex issues. While critics disparage assessment tools as "warm and fuzzy," the reality is that "we're all in this thing together" when it comes to benefit plan decision-making.

Behavioral science and the bottom line? Not such an odd couple after all.

Labels: ,

posted by Susan Mangiero at 12/27/2006 12:14:00 AM | 0 comments | links to this post  

Sunday, December 24, 2006


Happy Holidays!



We're taking two days off to spend with family. We'll be back next week with posts we hope you'll find informative and timely.

Our best wishes for a joyous holiday season!

Labels:

posted by Susan Mangiero at 12/24/2006 12:12:00 AM | 0 comments | links to this post  

Friday, December 22, 2006


Second Chance for Pension Fiduciaries Too?



In case you missed it, Donald Trump, co-owner of the Miss USA pageant, just announced that the reigning titleholder will be given a second chance, despite questions about her behavior, post-win.

In stark contrast, former CEO of Pfizer has been forced into early retirement "in part because of investor anger about his rich retirement benefits." Hang on to your hats. It's written that SEC disclosures describe truly golden years for this former executive - an $83 million pension and nearly $78 million in other deferred compensation. No second chance here but with that much in the bank, one might ask who cares. (For additional information about pensions at the top, see "Executive Paywatch.")

Well, reputation and legacy issues are important to some. Then there is the possibility that allegations of excess compensation could result in legal action. According to New York Times reporter Eric Dash, Fannie Mae's primary regulator has filed suit against top executives in an effort to take back more than $200 million in bonus payouts. Notwithstanding questions about recent accounting restatements, the former head received a "pension valued around $25 million." (See "Fannie Mae Ex-Officers Sued by U.S." by Eric Dash, December 19, 2006.)

So what's the takeaway for pension fiduciaries?

Second chances are a gift, allowing those in charge to improve current practices, stave off trouble and be good, or better, stewards on behalf of plan participants. However, not everyone gets a chance to go round again, begging a logical question.

Why not get it right from the outset?

Labels: ,

posted by Susan Mangiero at 12/22/2006 12:10:00 AM | 0 comments | links to this post  

Tuesday, December 19, 2006


Do We Need a Dr. Phil for Pensions?



Where is Dr. Phil when you need him? According to a recent pension study, courtesy of the Toronto-based Rotman International Centre for Pension Management, problems "range from poor practices in board member selection to organizational dysfunction such as the lack of delegation clarity between board and management responsibilities. Weak oversight functions also have led to difficulties in sorting out the competing financial interests of differing stakeholder groups and self-evaluation of board effectiveness continues to be the exception rather than the rule."

Okay, so maybe we won't be holding hands and singing Kumbaya any time soon. However, failure to recognize behavioral impediments is a recipe for disaster. Since many companies accept the importance of employee benefit plans as a means to attract and retain talent, yet wince at their cost, HR and Treasury must find a way to work together. This is especially true as new accounting rules take effect, motivating shareholders to examine financials in a new light.

Public funds don't get a free ride. Taxpayers are frustrated and unhappy. With GASB 45 about to give the word deficit new meaning, public plan executives are going to hear the howls of protest in city halls throughout the U.S.

Working across disciplines and functions is the new mantra in employee benefits land. Pension decision-makers will need to coalesce or risk doing an incomplete or poor job of navigating stormy waters. A possible result? Increased personal and professional liability, coupled with a host of nasty financial outcomes for plan sponsors.

This is no time to argue over turf!

Labels: ,

posted by Susan Mangiero at 12/19/2006 12:02:00 AM | 0 comments | links to this post  

Monday, December 18, 2006


Tis the Season for All Pension Fiduciaries ...



Dear Santa:

I've been a good pension fiduciary this year so I hope you remember me in a few days. It's been a tough year, with 2007 definitely looking grim. Do I merit a few extra brownie points for tackling my work with a smile and "can do" attitude? I'm trying hard but each day seems to bring a bundle of new challenges.

Here's the rest of my wish list.

1. Ten percent or better equity returns

2. Conflict-free service providers who really try to understand what problems we need to solve

3. Regulatory guidance that promotes a better understanding of how to comply with the Pension Protection Act of 2006

4. Recognition that my job is important

5. Liability insurance protection that helps me do a good job without worrying about significant personal exposure

6. Clarity about the incremental risks associated with strategies such as liability-driven investing, portable alpha and plan design

7. No major hedge fund blow-ups

8. Consultants and money managers who speak plainly

9. User-friendly analytics that support fiduciary due diligence

10. Vacation between the "pension problem" and the "health care crisis"

I better stop here so I can get this note to the North Pole in time for a jolly holiday arrival. By the way, what is your pension plan like? Say hi to Rudolph.

Thanks Santa!

HWPF
Hard Working Pension Fiduciary


Editor's Note:

Click here if you'd like to add to the list or see what your peers think. Neither your name nor your email address will be made public.

Labels: ,

posted by Susan Mangiero at 12/18/2006 12:02:00 AM | 0 comments | links to this post  

Thursday, December 14, 2006


Angelina Jolie, Christopher Cox and Pension Funds



Strange bedfellows? Maybe not. Here's why.

1. Angelina Jolie has agreed to play the role of Dagney Taggart in the film verson of Ayn Rand's best-selling book, Atlas Shrugged.

2. Christopher Cox wrote a review of Letters of Ayn Rand.

3. Christopher Cox heads the SEC.

4. The SEC just proposed several major changes that potentially impact pension funds' investments in hedge funds, securities issued by companies that comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and non-U.S. issuers of equity, respectively.

In addition, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is busy advocating improved regulations in order to promote U.S. competitiveness. His remarks to the Economic Club of New York referenced a forthcoming Conference on Capital Markets and Economic Competitiveness early next year that will address regulatory, accounting and legal issues. He added that the strength of the U.S. economy can be a springboard to reform entitlement programs and "focus on economic and educational policies that will add jobs, improve productivity, and result in tangible income growth for all Americans."

With a new Congress and talk of regulatory investigations and oversight hearings, school's still out on how pension sponsors are likely to fare. At the same time, given the clear and significant link between regulation and pension finance, we all have a vested interest in monitoring what's happening in Washington.

Angelina may do a terrific job at entertaining us as capitalist heroine but it's the lawmakers and chief regulators who are getting the big reviews in pension land. No popcorn but lots of action.

Labels: , ,

posted by Susan Mangiero at 12/14/2006 12:12:00 AM | 0 comments | links to this post  

Wednesday, December 13, 2006


Life of a Benefits Manager Heading Into 2007?



An homage to Norwegian painter Edvard Munch (born on December 12, 1863) Google's same day banner is reprinted herein. A reminder perhaps that 2007 is sure to create some agita for more than a few benefits managers and other related decision-makers?

Here are a few reasons for upset:

1. New pension accounting rules for companies

2. New OPEB (other post-employment benefit) accounting rules for municipalities

3. Forthcoming derivative accounting rules for public funds, similar to FAS 133 for companies (Remember that derivatives are getting more attention as possible elements of a liability-driven investment strategy.)

4. Anticipated Congressional oversight hearings about pension funds, 401(k) fees and hedge funds

5. Stated SEC consideration of rule changes as they apply to alternative investments (and possible impact on pension funds investing in hedge funds)

6. Proposed Form 5500 disclosure rule changes regarding service providers, fees and other elements of pension investing

7. Continued taxpayer upset regarding the cost of municipal benefits and a desire for lower property and state income taxes

8. Continued escalation in pension litigation

9. Continued focus on plan design and expected impact on an organization's cash flow

10. Continued focus on the Sarbanes Oxley - ERISA (corporate governance-pension governance) link

11. Anticipated guidance about default options for defined contribution plans (and related fiduciary impact)

12. The remaining 900+ pages of the Pension Protection Act of 2006

13. Projected worsening of the Social Security situation and likely impact on financing of the "three-legged" stool

14. Continued longevity patterns (good for retirees but expensive for employers)

15. Projected lower interest rates that increase liabilities

16. Anticipated pressure on asset returns

17. International pension woes and possible contagion for the U.S.

18. Predicted health care benefit cost increases that make pensions pale in comparison

19. Continued need to attract and retain scarce pool of talented workers with good benefits while keeping costs low

20. Continued scrutiny from ERISA and D&O liability insurance underwriters (and related impact on coverage and cost of coverage)

The good news is that there are lots of possible solutions but make no mistake. The new year will definitely entail major changes and challenges for all.

Labels: , ,

posted by Susan Mangiero at 12/13/2006 12:30:00 AM | 0 comments | links to this post  

Monday, December 11, 2006


Leverage: Friend or Foe to Pension Investors?



In today's New York Times, reporter Jenny Anderson talks about lackluster returns for some hedge funds. In "Hedging '06: Year to Read the Caveats," she quotes Christy Wood, CALPERS senior investment officer, as saying that this year marks the third year that "the global equity markets and long-only managers outperformed hedge funds" and that "If you threw all these in an index fund net of fees, you would have done better than if you put it in the hedge fund industry."

The article continues that CALPERS has another $3.5 billion to invest, beyond the existing $4 billion in hedge fund investments. Their appeal, says Ms. Wood, is equitylike performance with bondlike risk.

The numbers are compelling. Courtesy of data from Hedge Fund Research, the article describes inflows in excess of $110 billion through Q3-2006, compared with $47 billion last year.

What caught my eye is the quote about leverage and the notion that markets have all but ignored situations like Amaranth and its reported $6 billion loss.

Excerpted from this piece, investment advisor Stewart R. Massey, founding partner of Massey, Quick & Company, is quoted as saying that "If there's a lesson in 2006 - and no one talks about it anymore - it's that leverage is a very dangerous thing" and "there's too much out there."

On the face of it, leverage is not necessarily bad (nor is it necessarily good). However, in bad times, levered investments can cause significant harm to a pension fund portfolio. Let's hope that fiduciaries are asking good questions about leverage and not forgetting that things can sour quickly. Far from an exhaustive list, here are a few basic queries for hedge fund managers.

1. How does your fund measure leverage?

2. What is the fund's average leverage measurement?

3. Are there particular market conditions and/or investment positions that worsen leverage?

4. What is the fund's stop-loss policy as a way to curtail trouble before it's too late?

5. How does the fund value its "hard-to-value" positions and what is the likely impact on reported leverage?

6. Does the fund's leverage vary over time or has it been relatively stable?

7. How does the fund's leverage metric compare with similar strategy hedge funds?

8. How does the fund' return compare with similarly leveraged peers?

9. Does the fund's risk management policy address leverage?

10. Does the fund plan to do anything different going forward that would materially impact leverage? If so, why and what policy changes will occur as a result?

Labels: , ,

posted by Susan Mangiero at 12/11/2006 08:56:00 AM | 0 comments | links to this post  

Friday, December 08, 2006


Bond Demand Influenced by Pensions



There is a lot of evidence, anecdotal and otherwise, that various capital markets are affected by policy. The impact on price and trading volume depends on a host of factors, not the least of which is the nature of the new rules and regulations. So it is with government bonds, domestic and foreign.

In the aftermath of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, many plan sponsors, under pressure to address funding gaps, are adopting an active stance towards interest rate risk management. While strategies can and do vary, trading in bond markets in the U.S. and elsewhere have been affected by a surge in demand for longer-term bonds. According to Reuters journalist Richard Leong, "Appetite for 30-year bonds and other long-dated assets has been fierce as pension fund managers have been stocking up on them to ensure they have enough income-generating assets to meet future obligations, traders and investors said." Additionally, stripped bonds "offer longer duration and more predictable income than a cash bond." (See "Pension demand leads to long bond stripping," December 7, 2006.)

By definition, a stripped bond represents a decoupling of the interest portion from the repayment of principal. The latter is sold as a zero coupon bond. According to Investor Words, "Strip is an acronym for Separate Trading of Registered Interest and Principal of Securities."

Much more will be written about interest rate risk management in later posts. For now, you can find definitions, checklists and step-by-step examples in a book I wrote in 2005 for John Wiley & Sons. Entitled Risk Management for Pensions, Endowments, and Foundations, there is an entire chapter about fundamental concepts. Other chapters address futures, options and swaps, respectively.

Competing methods and products to manage interest rate risk abound. However, the tradeoffs are far from identical. This means that plan sponsors are quickly having to learn about financial risk control, whether they like it or not.

Labels: ,

posted by Susan Mangiero at 12/08/2006 12:06:00 AM | 0 comments | links to this post  

Wednesday, December 06, 2006


Who is Responsible for the Benefits Issue?



A question that arises again and again centers on who "owns" the benefits issue at a particular organization. There is increasing evidence that board members and C-level executives are becoming more involved, if not so already. One gentleman told me that his board has met four times this year about pension issues alone.

This comports with the notion that pension, health care and other types of deferred compensation benefit programs can significantly impact a corporate or government employer's financial health, lower debt ratings, diminish (or enhance) employee productivity and influence the ability to attract and retain skilled workers, already in short supply.

So it is with great pleasure that I will be part of a panel that addresses the ownership issue, enterprise risk management and "pension tensions" (though the issues extend to other benefit programs as well).

Entitled "Strategies for Managing Diverse Constituencies: Shareholders, Employees, Beneficiaries and Management" and part of an exciting risk management conference, sponsored by Pensions & Investments, the panel plans to address a host of important governance and financial issues.

Ms. Fern Jones, CFA is the conference moderator. Managing Partner of FJ Corp/THS Ltd, Jones will lead the following panelists in what is sure to be a lively discussion. Speakers include:

Mr. James H. Norman
Managing Director
Deutsche Asset Management

Dr. Susan M. Mangiero, CFA, AVA, FRM and Accredited Investment Fiduciary Analyst
Managing Member
BVA, LLC and Pension Governance, LLC

Mr. Jim M. Voytko
President & COO
R.V. Kuhns & Associates, Inc.

Labels: ,

posted by Susan Mangiero at 12/06/2006 12:02:00 AM | 0 comments | links to this post  

Tuesday, December 05, 2006


Pensions for Congressional Criminals



Ever read about an issue that strikes you as obvious and yet, here you are, reading about its existence? In a November 30, 2006 press release, the National Taxpayers Union describes its recent communique to House Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader-Elect Harry Reid to "end the slimy practice of allowing convicted lawmakers to draw taxpayer-subsidized retirement benefits." Other groups in agreement include Citizens for Responsibility, Family Research Council and the Congressional Accountability Project.

For further information, read "Nearly Two Dozen Citizen Groups Tell Pelosi and Reid: No Tax-Funded Pensions for Congressional Criminals."

What else is there to say? This one seems like a no-brainer.

Labels:

posted by Susan Mangiero at 12/05/2006 08:10:00 PM | 0 comments | links to this post  

Monday, December 04, 2006


Hedge Funds, SEC and Sunshine



In compliance with the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, the SEC will hold a meeting today to discuss a variety of things, including the proposal of new rules to determine whether to (1.) "revise the criteria for natural persons to be considered 'accredited investors' for purposes of investing in certain privately offered investment vehicles" and (2.) "prohibit advisers from making false or misleading statements to investors in certain pooled investment vehicles they manage, including hedge funds."

Click here for the meeting announcement and here to access the webcast.

While both items merit discussion, the issue of accredited investor qualifications got people talking over lunch a few days ago. The current definition, pursuant to the General Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, Rule 501, Definitions and Terms Used in Regulation D, applies various criteria including whether someone's individual net worth, "or joint net worth with that person's spouse, at the time of his purchase exceeds $1,000,000."

In the event that the SEC applies more rigor to the definition of accredited investor, how will they proceed? Will they increase the minimum net worth number and if so, why? Is the implication that wealthier investors are smarter or just that their losses don't count as much in proportionate terms? While accredited investors are excluded for purposes of calculating the number of purchasers under relevant securities rules, why is a "non-contributory employee benefit plan within the meaning of Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974" counted as one purchaser when the "trustee makes all investment decisions for the plan?"

Hopefully a detailed explanation will accompany any decisions made in the aftermath of this meeting. Better understanding what responsibilities regulators want each hedge fund investor to shoulder by virtue of changing the rules can only be a good thing.

Labels: ,

posted by Susan Mangiero at 12/04/2006 12:02:00 AM | 0 comments | links to this post  

Sunday, December 03, 2006


Congressional Examination of Plan Fees



Jerry Kalish tells us to buckle up for a bumpy ride now that Congress is ready to explore the issue of 401(k) fees. Click here to read his informative post.

Reiterating the emphasis on process, as written in an earlier post about 401(k) fees, "lower" fees are not necessarily "better" if plan participants "pay" for them in terms of additional restrictions on their money. Analogous to the idea of buying a luxury sedan versus something less fancy, price should reflect a variety of features for which people are willing to pay a premium. Whether fees are "high" or "low" for a specific plan and particular investment choice depends on a host of factors and requires a rigorous assessment of relevant information.

Process is everything!

Labels: ,

posted by Susan Mangiero at 12/03/2006 12:53:00 PM | 0 comments | links to this post