Friday, January 05, 2007
Paper Clip Theory of Pension Governance
In speaking to a colleague about managerial excesses the other day, I relayed the story of something that took place years ago. I was in college and worked as a bank teller in the afternoons and opened new accounts on Saturdays. The woman assigned to provide on-the-job training (long retired I'm sure) chided me for tossing a paperclip. "I'm a shareholder of this bank and every penny counts. We just don't throw away paperclips."
At the time, she struck me as old-fashioned and picky. Of course, when you're twenty, I suppose everyone seems un-cool.
What continues to amaze me is that I recall that event as clearly as if it had just happened. Her comment was an epiphany of sorts. This woman was not an executive. She wasn't even a bank officer. She was a secretary (administrative assistant in today's parlance). She wasn't responsible for the budget. No one counted supplies. Certainly one abandoned clip couldn't mean much. Yet her words resonate still. With skin in the game, she had a compelling motivation to be thrifty and encourage others to follow suit.
The relevance to pension governance is striking. When fiduciaries do not have a vested interest in adhering to best practices, will they be tempted instead to follow the path of least resistance? What motivates an individual to be a good steward of other people's money? Is it an increasing awareness of personal and professional liability that moves people to act or a concern that doing the right thing counts most?
A few days ago, I asked several financial advisors why they thought so many lawsuits focus on 401(k) fees rather than defined benefit plan fees. One response speaks volumes. "It's the company's money with DB plans but when employees pay, there is less managerial concern." Cynical or a reflection of the existing risk-reward system? Fiduciary responsibilities apply to both DB and DC plans. Yet decision-makers tend to feel pain faster and more fully when DB plan assets underperform and their compensation is tied to share price, cash flow or budget variance.
Experts agree that pension governance is AWOL at more than a few companies and statehouses. Why is that? As I wrote in Executive Decision last year, incentives are everything. Reward people for good behavior and you get what you pay for. The converse is true as well.
For those already in the vanguard with respect to effective investment fiduciary practices, kudos and keep up the great work. For those doing the equivalent of the pension paperclip toss, a good New Year's resolution is to stop.
P.S. Click here if you'd like to read "Do Fiduciaries Need Better Incentives to Make the Retirement System Work?"
Labels: Executive Compensation, Fiduciary Responsibility, Governance, Stewardship
posted by Susan Mangiero at 1/05/2007 06:02:00 AM
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 (
