Et Tu New York? What Deregulation Means to Pension Funds

According to Financial Times reporter David Wighton ("Regulation a threat to New York, report says", January 22, 2007), New York City stands to lose nearly 60,000 jobs over the next five years in the absence of significant regulatory reform. A McKinsey & Company report, commissioned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Senator Chuck Schumer, extols the virtues of London and other venues that are considered more user-friendly for derivatives trading and other financial service activities.

Mr. Kevin LaCroix, creator of the informative blog, The D&O Diary, provides a link to the report and some interesting comparisons with the Paulson report that likewise pleads for liberalization of U.S. capital markets.

While free marketeers applaud initiatives that permit capitalism to do its magic of bringing together diverse buyers and sellers, consider some recent statistics from the Conference Board.

1. In 2005, U.S. institutions such as pension funds, insurance companies, banks and foundations controlled $24.1 trillion in assets.

2. In 2005, these institutional giants owned 67.9% of the equity of the largest 1000 corporations versus 61.4% in 2000.

3. In 2005, four companies revealed institutional investor ownership in excess of 70%. In 2004, the number was two and one or none before then.

4. Public pension plans continue to prevail in important corporate matters. Co-author of the 2007 Institutional Investment Report (Report #1400, The Conference Board), Dr. Carolyn Kay Brancato, Senior Fellow and Director Emeritus of The Conference Board Governance Center describes their critical role. "Ten years ago, these funds weren't likely to join in lawsuits or exert pressure in out of court settlements, but now, having been severely burned by the Enron and WorldCom situations, these funds are asserting themselves as never before. In addition, as the election of directors becomes more heated, and as many companies adopt bylaws saying their directors will resign if they don't get a majority of shareholder votes, the voting clout of these activist investors becomes more meaningful."

What does this mean?

As stewards of trillions of dollars of retirement monies, pension fiduciaries must serve as the first line of defense with respect to sniffing out corporate misdeeds or identifying boards that are "oversight challenged." Already tasked with a daunting job, deregulation compels these watchdogs to do an even more rigorous search for red flag issues BEFORE they turn into financial calamities.

This goes back to a recurring theme of this pension blog. Do pension fiduciaries have what it takes? On what basis are they selected? How are they trained? Is there a pension fiduciary who can serve as a Sarbanes-Oxley type "financial expert," someone who understands how to go beyond financial statements to detect possible trouble? Are the right mechanisms in place for pension fiduciaries to gather adequate information about corporate policies, procedures and internal controls AND then evaluate the data in a meaningful way? Are fiduciaries compensated in such a way that encourages their active participation, before the fact? How has the role of lead plaintiff changed in the aftermath of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and can litigation replace regulation?

I'm not saying that statutory regulation is a panacea. In fact, there is great comfort in being part of a system that permits a vigorous debate about the numerous merits of industry self-review.

As patriot Thomas Paine declared: "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."

Labels: Governance, Regulation

posted by Susan Mangiero at 1/24/2007 06:00:00 AM | 0 comments | links to this post   

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 | 0 comments | links to this post   

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: Executive Compensation, Governance

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

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: Fiduciary Responsibility, Governance

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

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: Enterprise Risk Management, Governance

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

Compliance and Litigation Remain Hot Button Issues

According to Fulbright & Jaworski partner and global chair of the Litigation Department, Stephen C. Dillard, fear may be appropriate with respect to all things litigation. In "Litigation Nation" (Wall Street Journal, November 25, 2006), Dillard describes results from their third Litigation Trend Survey, emphasizing an increasing upward trend in lawsuits here and abroad. "Even we were surprised by the volume and scope of legal actions across all major industries and regardless of company size."

Besides finding that "Some 89% of companies report being hit with at least one new lawsuit in the past year," companies stateside "face an average of 305 lawsuits pending world-wide." At the same time, "companies with sales of $1 billion or more" face an average of 556 cases, "with 50 fresh suits emerging each year for nearly half of these firms."

The cost of litigation is far from trivial. The survey cites corporate legal expenditures averaging $12 million, up from $8 million last year and with some industries - engineering and insurance - spending over $35 million.

Given the nature of this blog, www.pensionriskmatters.com, what caught my eye were the assertions that "more than half of the in-house counsel cited employment as their top litigation concern" and that "disputes over wages and hours can be brought as class actions in many jurisdictions, creating more waves of litigation."

Other press accounts about corporate lawsuits are similarly engaging.

According to the Chief Legal Officer Survey 2006, compliance and litigation are huge concerns. Conducted by Altman Weil, Inc. and LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell, respondents lament that time and money used to fight and/or prevent lawsuits could not be otherwise used to grow the company.

New York Times reporter Paul B. Brown describes the concept of litigation funding companies in "What's Offline: Next, a Lawsuit Futures Exchange?" Citing Joshua Lipton in "Litigation 2006," Brown informs that hedge funds are researching the possibilities of investing now in anticipation of enjoying hefty case outcomes later on. That same supplement to the American Lawyer & Corporate Counsel includes a piece by Alison Frankel that offers insight about the globalization of litigation.

Lest you need more of a reminder that a sea change is upon us, consider the U.S. Appeals Court decision that found a fiduciary personally liable for nearly $180,000 due to losses realized by the International Brotherhood of Industrial Workers Health and Welfare Fund. In "Ruling highlights fiduciary need for hindsight", Reid and Riege attorneys David M.S. Shaiken and Eileen M. Marks describe the serious fallout from Chao v. Merino, 452 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2006), stating that the individual in question "was permanently prohibited from serving as a fiduciary or service provider to any employee benefit plan."

Other excerpts from the November 2006 Employee Benefit News article merit attention.

1. "The Court of Appeals' holding underscores how important it is for new plan fiduciaries to inform themselves thoroughly about a plan's operations, consultants and service providers with whom the plan has contracted. New fiduciaries should raise with co-fiduciaries any concerns about existing relationships after conducting their review.

2. The mere fact that an imprudent relationship predates a fiduciary's tenure does not shield the fiduciary from liability. The duties to be informed about plan business and to act prudently include a duty to be informed about, raise objections to, and protect the fund from any imprudent relationships that are in place with consultants and service providers when a fiduciary's term begins.

3. Plan fiduciaries may wish to review their and their plan's insurance coverage. ERISA plan fiduciary liability insurance covers claims against current and former plan trustees and, if they are named in the policy, plan administrators who have fiduciary duties. In case of a claim of breach of fiduciary duty, within the insurance policy's limits the insurer provides and pays for defense counsel, and indemnifies the plan fiduciary from liability, provided that the claim is not excluded from the policy's coverage."

Given the tsunami of litigation (with all indications that more is on its way), pension fiduciaries need to assess their personal and professional risk.

It's scary stuff indeed. Email us if you want to know more about our fiduciary and board training programs. If you are an attorney, ask to receive our complimentary pension governance kit.

Labels: Compliance, Fiduciary Breach, Governance, Litigation

posted by Susan Mangiero at 11/27/2006 12:16:00 AM | 1 comments | links to this post