Harrison Fiduciary

“All the News That’s Fit to Print” and More

Who doesn’t love a deal, especially in today’s economic environment?  This past Sunday’s NY Times, 23 October 2011, not only offered an update on global current events, but also serves as a virtual handbook for retirement plan fiduciaries.  [Go fish it out of the re-cycling bin … yes, I still read the physical newspaper; one of life’s daily pleasures.]

Starting with a bold graphic representation of the European credit crisis sprawling across two pages of the Sunday Review, Bill Miller’s,  It’s all Connected: An Overview of the Euro Crisis is clearly worth more than 1000 words.   At first blush, it seems too confusing … just too much to get one’s head around.  It’s much easier to turn the page.  Better yet, flip to the Travel or Arts & Leisure Section.

Retirement plan fiduciaries, however, don’t have that luxury.  Ignoring the financial issues brewing in Europe would be irresponsible and imprudent.

And yet, even for a responsible fiduciary, where does one begin?  If only there were a true sage, who had all the answers and could predict the outsome.

Fiduciaries don’t have to be sages.  They simply need to be prudent and responsible.  At the very least, every fiduciary committee, whether for state & local plans or for corporate plans, should be exploring the impact of the European issues on their plans and on their investment policies.

A daunting proposition, but plan fiduciaries don’t have to operate in a vacuum.  Instead, they should turn to each of their investment fiduciaries and pose the following questions:

1. What is your analysis of the European debt crisis?
2. Does this analysis have any impact on your investment strategy and our portfolio?
3. What’s the weakest link in your analysis?
4. Have you constructed contingency plans?

No doubt, every investment advisor will have a different answer, and fiduciaries will need to piece together conflicting data points.  But, in the end, plan fiduciaires must make sure that their investment fiduciaries are themselves being prudent.  Fiduciaries can’t predict investment results, but they can, and must, ensure prudent processes and decision making.

If the above advice seems too general, and therefore too simplistic, and maybe even worthless, then let’s turn to the front page.  Gretchen Morgenson and Louise Story’s, Bank’s Collapse in Europe Points to Global Risks, examines the bailout of  Dexia Bank whose problems, in part, stem from gorging on too much sovereign debt.  Using Dexia as an example, Morgenson and Story extrapolate various scenarios, and related policy issues, raised by potential rounds of bailouts of banks and their trading counter-parties.

I’d supplement their analysis by drilling down to an equally ominous set of challenges to which they allude: repos, securities lending and short-term commercial paper.  Most all banks (domestic and foreign) fund their operations, in large part, through repos and other forms of commercial paper.  Remember what happend to Lehman when no one would fund their short term paper?  And, what about securities lending pools stuck with rapidly declining collateral?  Just ask plan fiduciaries who were unable to terminate investment managers becaus securities were tied up in frozen securities lending pools.

Need more questions to ask?

Let’s not forget about money market funds.  Gretchen Morgenson, in the Business Section,  How Mr. Volker Would Fix It, also wrote about Paul Volker’s blunt recommendations about reforming the financial system; starting with money market funds and the residential mortgage market. Money market funds are huge purchasers of sovereign and bank debt.  As has also been previously reported, many of these funds have been paring back their European exposure.  Plan fiduciaries overseeing 401(k) plans holding money market funds need to be questioning their managers about strategies for addressing these global banking issues.

Plan fiduciaries, however, also have to ask about STIF’s (short-term investment funds).   Every custodial bank runs $ Billions in STIF’s, unregulated funds which no doubt are also chock full of sovereign and bank debt. Fiduciaries, are you asking your custodian banks about their STIFs?

If Miller’s graphics and Morgenson”s and Story’s articles don’t arm fiduciaries with sufficient questions, then turn to The Little State With the Big Mess, an eye opening article about Rhode Island.  The tiniest state, but the biggest pension woes.  Hard to know where to begin asking questions about the Rhode Island mess, but how about starting with the newly revised investment return assumption of 7.5%, down from 8.25%?  Is that a prudent decision?  Where did that number come from?  An easy question to ask, but maybe the answer is not so simple.

Finally, turning from the newsprint to the magazine, Daniel Kahneman, Nobel prize winner in Economics, Don’t Blink! The Hazards of Confidence, writes about the behavioral phenomena that confidence in our own judgments creates a bias that can lead us to ignore hard facts which contradict our judgments.  Focusing on investment performance, Kahneman explains that notwithstanding quantitative proof that certain investment managers added zero value to the investment process, these managers were nonetheless awarded bonuses on the assumptions that they “added value.”  Assumptions die hard.

By the way, maybe someone should forward a copy of Kahneman’s article to the fiduciaries of the Rhode Island state and local pension plans.  I’m still struggling with 7.5%.

Fiduciaries beware.  Don’t be so confident.  Ask lots of questions and work hard not to be so confident in your assumptions.  You are not just investing your own assets … instead, you are investing on behalf of hard working plan participants and retirees.

And I thought that I’d relax with a cup of coffee and a leisurely read of the Sunday paper.

Continue Reading

In 2009 mortage-backed securities, and other related instruments, wreaked havoc on Securities Lending programs.   Many institutions froze assets in their securities lending programs because of illiquid securities held in the collateral pools.

Flash foward two years later and the specific details may have changed, but the principles remain the same.   Rather than mortgaged-backed securities, its now sovereign debt and the short-term paper of European Banks.

Remember, securities lending is a trading/investment program which attempts to capture the spread between the yield on the cost of the “loan” and the yield on the investment of the collateral pool.  By definition, collateral pools are managed to capture higher yields.  This can create, and has created, significant investment risk.

One would hope that Plan Sponsors learned their lessons in 2009.   But, in the event they that resumed business as usual, here are a few simple steps to engage in proper fiduciary oversight.

1.  Request a face to face meeting with the portfolio manager of the collateral pool.

Many different skills sets and functions contribute to the operation of a securities lending program.  However, no one is more important than the portfolio manager.  You need to understand how the collateral is managed.   Don’t have your questions deflected to a client service professional or anyone else.

Any resistance to allowing you to talk with the portfolio manager should result in you conducting a search for a new securities lending manager, ASAP.  It’s that simple.  You are the client.

2.  Review the portfolio against the investment policy statement and investment guidelines.

The first step is simply assessing the holdings of the portfolio and determining whether the portfolio is being managed consistent with the investment guidelines.  Ask the portfolio manager to walk you through the composition of the portfolio and explain the investment rationale concerning any holdings in the portfolio which you may not understand.

With each explanation, ask yourself a simply question:  “does this sounds prudent?”

3.  Request a face to face meeting with the head of compliance.

After the portfolio manager, the senior compliance person responsible for oversight of the securities lending program is the next most important person you need to meet.  Again, any resistance to this meeting should clearly question the long-term nature of your relationship with the securities lending provider.

Ideally, this meeting should be solely between your staff and the compliance professional.  Neither the portfolio manager nor anyone with business line operational experience for the securities lending program should attend this meeting.  You want to be sure that the compliance professional operates with autonomy and independence.

This meeting should cover three distinct topics:  1) the reporting structure of the compliance group, including a description of the flow of information and communication in the event that a significant problem is uncovered; 2) a detailed description of each of the processes and procedures designed to monitor the securities lending program; and, 3) a review of any compliance violations and the corrective actions taken in response to the violation.

As the meeting approaches its conclusion, you should ask the compliance officer to describe their own internal processes for reviewing and updating the compliance department.  Ask about any weaknesses or where they might be directing added resources.   No organization is perfect and no organization is exempt from the obligation to learn from experiences.   An honest response to these questions will engender significant trust btween you and the securities lending manager.

The success of any securities lending program is dependent upon generating high investment yields in the collateral pool.   This “yield chasing” can produce some significant unintended consequences.  As investors continue to “chase yield”, it is the plan fiduciary’s job to make sure these activities are prudent.

Continue Reading

Asking the Right Questions — a Fiduciary Responsibility

Sovereign debt (Greek and others) continues to plague financial markets.  My last few posts have tried to illustrate that these are not abstract issues, but can have real impact on money market funds, securities lending and stable value programs.  Fiduciaries must understand these implications.

Today the NYTimes reports that many money market funds have been paring back their exposure to european bank debt.  Wary Investors Shun European Banks.  As explained in the article,  European Banks rely heavily on short term funding provided by U.S. money market funds.   And, let’s not forget that most US investors turn to money markets as safe investments.

Not surprising, there is a wide spectrum of investment views on european sovereign and bank debt.  The Times points out these different views and, these differing views make markets. Again, no surprises here.

When asked about money market funds’ exposure to european debt, Deborah Cunningham, a senior portfolio manager at Federated Investments commented, “We’re always rethinking it and assessing it, but we’ve not come up with a different answer,” she said. “We don’t feel there’s any jeopardy with regard to repayment.”

Similarly, a spokesman from Fidelity Invetments, Adam Banker explained, “We’re very comfortable with our money market funds’ European bank holdings, including French bank holdings.”

Both Federated and Fidelity are huge players in the 401(k) retirement arena.   The article reports that they manage $114 billion and $428 billion, respectively in money market funds (note, the article was explicit about the Federated money market assets under management, where as the Fidelity number was not specifically identified as money market assests. However, Fidelity reports that it currently manages $1.5 trillion of assets, so it is reasonable to assume that $428 billion is held by money market funds).

The real point is that Federated and Fidelity collectively manage more than $500 billion in money money market funds.  Thousands of plan participants are relying upon their judgment with respect to the safety and security of the participants retirement assets.

The volatility of financial markets these days is historically very high.  In large part due to questions raised by European Debt.

Fidelity and Federated must do better than “we’re very comfortable”  or “we don’t feel there’s any jeopardy … “.  Those are nice quotes for a NYT article.  But for fiduciaries these quotes should constitute red flags.  If we have learned nothing else from the financial crisis, bland statements issued by corporate spokespeople have the potential to hide serious issues.  According to the Times article, Federated has about 13 to 17 percent of assets … invested in French bank debt”.   That is not insubstantial.  It begs further explanation.

For any Plan Sponsor whose retirement plans offer Fidelity or Federated money market funds, pick up the phone today.  Just ask a few basic questions.  Remember, other smart investment professionals are not comfortable.  They in fact see potential jeopardy ahead. Fidelity and Federated must explain their positions.  Here’s a few questions for starters:

• Why are you comfortable?
• Why isn’t there any jeopardy?
• How did you analyze your investment positions to reach this conclusion?
• What assumptions did you make?
• What are the weakest points in your analysis.

As if often the case …. a few open ended questions can spark a very enlightening discussion.

Plan fiduciaries have an obligation to ask these questions and assess the reasonableness of the responses.

Rarely would I turn to Ronald Regan for wisdom, but here goes,  “Trust, but verify.”

Continue Reading

An Independent Fiduciary Can Be Your Best Friend (and Security Blanket)

No one has the right answer.  This weekend’s news papers and financial blogs are filled with every prediction imaginable (from economic disaster to boons) and financial advice to fit each prediction.

With the markets swinging 500 points in opposite directions, this is not the time to embark on market predictions and changes in investment strategies.

Steep, drastic price plunges are not fun.  Like the free-fall drop on a roller-coaster when your stomach does its own loop-de-loop, these prices plunges elicit a real and physical reaction.  Panic is scary.  A racing heart beat, cold sweats and sleepless nights are subjects of cliches.  But, when you are experiencing it yourself, it ain’t a cliche.  It is very real.

From the deepest wells of our very being, panic surges forward.  The visceral emotional response becomes its own reality.  Emotion as reality.  That is never a good place to be. And certainly, not a time to be making decisions.

Prudence on the other hand, provides the required antidote to panic.  In the perennial push and pull between heart and mind, prudence provides the counter-weight to panic. Defined as “care, caution and good judgment, as well as wisdom in looking ahead” (see, www.dictionary.com), prudence requires the mind to prevail over the heart.

The key to extracting oneself from the distorted reality of pure emotions, one needs a trigger, or a technique to break the panic spiral.  Within the world of managing and overseeing retirement assets, care, caution and good judgment can be supplied by an Independent Fiduciary who can review and assess your portfolios against the plan’s Investment Policy Statement (IPS).  Call her.  She is paid to be prudent.

Hopefully drafted with the assistance of professionals and during a period of lessened volatility and other external pressures, an IPS reflects the prudent judgment of plan fiduciaries.  The IPS, in effect, is the road map for wisdom in looking ahead.  An Independent Fiduciary should always have the IPS in hand.

Have the investment performance of each of the plans’s asset classes evaluated.  Determine if any portfolios need to be re-balanced in order to reflect the allocation among assets classes envisioned by the IPS.  Instruct your Independent Fiduciary to make certain recommendations and then implement them.

Taking specific prescribed actions can deflate the power and energy of panic.  The key is to make sure that these actions had been well thought through before the specter of panic arises on the horizon.  An Independent Fiduciary can help allay the fear and the imprudent actions which a volatile market environment can inspire.

Continue Reading

Is Anyone Paying Attention?

The debt-ceiling crisis has been momentarily addressed and the financial markets are continuing to tremble.  In my past few blogs, I’ve raised topics which Plan Sponsors should address with their various plan fiduciaries.   It’s all about being prudent.  Today, the focus is on Securities Lending.

In the 2008-2009 financial crisis, Securities Lending programs froze.  Collateral pools experienced huge liquidity issues and loans could not be unwound.  Pension plan portfolios suffered significant loses.

The last time around the culprits were mortgaged-backed securities and all the various related derivatives.  This time, it could be sovereign debt.  Today, the NYT reports Large Banks in Europe Struggle with Weak Bonds.  The main thrust of the article is that sovereign prices for certain European countries are weakening dramatically thereby affecting the capitalization of some large European banks.

However, tucked deep in the article are references to repo transactions and the posting of collateral.  Sovereign debt is often used in these trascations.   This is where Securities Lending (the “reverse” side of a repo transaction) comes into play, and where Plan Sponsors should be focusing their questions.

Plan Sponsors should examine two separate, but very closely related, potential risk related to European debt and the European banks:

Short-Term Bank Paper Held by Collateral Pools — Remember Lehman Bros?  It’s paper was held by many investors, including pension funds.  As the paper became worthless, securities lending collateral pools lost values.  Plan Sponsors are on the hook for the investment losses related to collateral pools.  Many plan sponsors were not happy.

Collateral Posted by Broker/Dealers — When broker/dealers borrow securities to facilitate short sales by their clients, the broker/dealer must post collateral.  Often, Sovereign Debt offered as collateral qualifies for better terms than other forms of collateral.  Therefore, there is a huge incentive for broker/dealers to offer Sovereign Debt for these purposes.  However, to the extent that debt from any of the troubled European countries was used as collateral, and as prices continue to deteriorate, the broker/dealers will have to post more collateral as the value of this debt deteriorates.  Watch the capitalizations of the broker/dealers.

Don’t dismiss the role of broker/dealers in the stability of our financial system.  As Lehman as entered in bankruptcy, all the others teetered on the edge of the abyss.

Few areas are more technical, “nichey”, or esoteric than Securities Lending.  If Plan Sponsors want to partake of the benefits of Securities Lending, then they must really understand the risk.  They must dive into the details which I outlined above.

If these questions are too “geeky” for Plan Sponsors to develop in-house expertise, then they should delegate oversight to true experts.  Ignoring complicated issues can never be prudent.

Continue Reading

Does Anyone Really Know?

Everyone takes money market funds for granted.  Don’t know where to invest idle cash?   Stick it in a money market fund, right?  Our entire financial system treats money market funds as safe and secure investments.

And, they are safe.  Until they are not.

Today’s NYT, Hopeful, but Wary at Money Markets, prudently identifies the fault lines and risks associated with money market funds.   Fortunately, Edward Wyatt’s reporting is not a Chicken Little,  the-sky-is falling rendition of risks inherent in the financial markets.  [The press and blogosphere are filled with too many of these.]  Instead, Wyatt effectively outlines and explains the risks inherent in money market funds in the context of extreme volatility in treasury securities.

Money market funds exist solely by virtue of a vastly complicated regulatory structure.  Anyone interested in the risks associated with money market funds must be familiar both with the regulations as well as with the investment securities.  One without the other is simply half-the-story.

And, as the Wyatt’s article points out, money market funds are not free from risk.  During the financial crisis of ’08-’09 one of the largest money-market funds, Reserve Primary Money Market Fund, “broke the buck”.  That is, investors lost money.

Plan Sponsors often are not familiar with all of the intricacies surrounding money market funds.  As fiduciaries, however, they should understand the general parameters of the risks.  And, more importantly they should make sure that the experts they have hired are in fact experts on every intricacy and beyond.  The hired experts, however, do not take the plan fiduciaries off the hook.  Everyone needs to be doing their job.

Wyatt, quoting an executive from Fidelity Investments, reports that Fidelity, which manages $440 billion in money market assets, has had “a contingency team focused on this since the end of May.”  Fidelity recognizes that “we have to be prepared to respond to the unthinkable”.

In light of the Reserve Primary Fund’s experiences just a few short years ago, the previously unthinkable is not so unthinkable.

If Fidelity is engaged in contingency planning, prudent dictates that all plan fiduciaries should be engaged in similar contingency planning.  In the financial world, the unthinkable can happen.  Plan sponsors must plan accordingly.

Continue Reading

Confusing Times  — Simple Measures

The headlines may change, but the theme is the same — too much debt.

Weather it is the never-ending saga of European debt (Greece, Portugal, Spain), or the debt-ceiling gridlock here in the US, policy makers, politicians, economist, investors — everyone is trying to make sense of out the debt.

No one has any answers, just best guesses.  In the midst of all of this confusion, however, fiduciaries still must act prudently.  What’s the best course of action?

First, and foremost, fiduciaries do not need to be economic or investment experts or savants.  They do not need to look into their crystal balls and predict the outcome or even the best course of action.

Instead, they must act prudently.  The following actions will advance their fiduciary obligations:

1.  Review investment policy statements and investment accounts

Simply identify the investment accounts or strategies which might be effected by the debt issues.  One could say that all investment portfolios could be effected.  However, it would not be difficult to prioritize the accounts.  No doubt cash,  money market, stable value, and other fixed income portfolios should be at the top of the list.

2.  Meet with your consultants and advisors

Pick and the phone and request a meeting with your advisors — either in person or via teleconference.  Don’t worry if it isn’t time of a quarterly or half-yearly portfolio review.

3.  Obtain their analysis of the market environment and their recommendations

Remember, while a fiduciary does not have to be an expert on these issues, your investment advisors do.   They are paid to be experts.   Therefore, they should have cogent positions and explanations for the current market environment.

4. Question their assumptions

Don’t blindly accept their responses.  Questions their assumptions.  Explore alternative options in the event that their predictions don’t materialize.

5.  Inquire if they have conducted stress tests on the portfolio

Simulating various market conditions has become a standard tool for monitoring investment portfolios.  Require  your managers to provide you with the results of these various tests.  And, most importantly, determine if you are comfortable with the results.

6.  Get recommendations in writing

Don’t be bashful.  Ask your advisors for their advice in writing.  If they hesitate, explore their motivations.  But, continue to press.

7.  Document, Document, Document

Document your process.   This cannot be stressed enough.  Contemporaneous written records of your process and the results of the process are critical to fiduciary prudence.

The issues are daunting.  The landscape changes daily.  Nobel prizing winning economists line up on every side of the issue.

For fiduciaries, be diligent about your process.  This will ensure that you are acting in the best interests of plan participants.

Continue Reading

Fiduciaries Really Need to be Experts

Plan sponsors need to re-calibrate their fiduciary obligations with respect to their retirement plans.  They have to ask hard questions. Do they have the relevant expertise to fulfill these roles?  Do they understand the “business” of maintaining and administering plans?  And, finally, do they want to devote time and resources to this responsibility?

In reality, most plan sponsors are too busy executing on their business strategy to worry about fiduciary matters. And, this is the way it should be.  Typically, HR and finance staff members oversee the plans and identify policies, procedures and vendors — all to be rubber-stamped by  high-level corporate committees.

This model is old-school, is broken, and must be fixed.  A recent appellate court case, in the 7^th Circuit, is bringing these issues into sharp focus.  Plan Sponsors need to pay attention.

The volume and sophistication of ERISA class action lawsuits has grown significantly over the past decade.  Until this April, however, plan sponsors and retirement plan service providers have largely successfully defended against this onslaught.  This has been good news for fiduciaries.

In April, however, the 7^th Circuit, previously a defendant-friendly court, handed plan sponsors and fiduciaries, a very serious set back.  In a class action suit against Kraft Foods, the court did not dismiss the case, but instead sent it back to the district court to determine whether the plan sponsor, Kraft, breached its fiduciary duty to the participants.

This holding is a nightmare for plans sponsors and corporate fiduciaries. No fiduciary wants a trial court to determine whether it’s acts or omissions satisfied the fiduciary standards of ERISA.  Likely the insurance companies will settle.

Nonetheless, this case goes to the heart of the critical importance of fiduciary processes.  With respect to a company stock fund, the court questioned whether the fiduciaries ever examined the operational structure of the fund and balanced the relative merits and drawbacks of different structures.  Furthermore, a question was raised as to whether Kraft ever reached an affirmative decision supporting one structure over another.  Surprisingly, no documentation was submitted which would support that a decision had, in fact, been made.

In addition, the court was not comfortable with Kraft’s 10 year relationship with its record-keeper.  Although consultants had advised that the recordkeeping fees were reasonable, the court was critical that third party bids were not obtained and used for comparison purposes.  Maybe the court just thought that the relationship was too cozy.

At a minimum, this case indicates that fiduciaries must develop a sophisticated understanding of the technical intricacies of the mutual fund, recordkeeping, and fund administration businesses.  Relying on consultants is not good enough.  Instead, fiduciaries must dig into the weeds, compare and assess the merits, deficiencies and costs of various service delivery models.

Plan Sponsors need to focus on capturing their own target markets, developing products, satisfying customer needs and growing their earnings. Why should they be bothered with this stuff?  It can be a nuisance.

As stated in the title of this posting, fiduciary oversight is not a part time job.  There is significant subject matter and procedural expertise required in discharging fiduciary responsibilities.  Plan Sponsors should recognize the professional skill set required to serve as a fiduciary, and acknowledge that it is not in their interest to develop or maintain this expertise in house.  Plan Sponsors, as well as participants and beneficiaries would be best served by hiring expert Independent fiduciaries to oversee the plans.

Continue Reading

BlackRock Solutions Needs to Shed Light on Valuation Methods

Today’s Wall Street Journal, BlackRock’s “Geeky-Guys” Business, focuses a spot light on BlackRocks Solutions — a small business unit tucked away in the bowels of BlackRock, complete with its own elevator entrances, computers and separate office floors.  If nothing else, haven’t we learned from the ’08-’09 financial crisis, that “Geeky-Guys” hidden away from view have the potential to inflict great harm on our financial system.

Let’s give BlackRock Solutions (BRS) the benefit of the doubt — they have some really smart people who work really hard.  And, during the height of the financial crisis BRS assisted with the management of portfolios which held a lot of funky assets.  The system and US government (including the taxpayers) needed BRS.

As the WSJ reports, BRS provides various risk management services, including asset allocation, to major pension plans — both public and private.  As part of these services, BRS also values hard to value assets according to its own proprietary algorithms and processes.  These valuation process are secret — according to the WSJ.

While I obviously am not privy to the contracts between BRS and its clients, I have strong suspicions that BRS is hired as a fiduciary to provide these services.  Furthermore, the people at the pension plans who hire BRS are likely fiduciaries themselves.

Based upon these two assumptions, I have 2 simple questions:

1) If valuation processes are secret, how do the fiduciaries which hire BRS know that they are prudent processes?

2) Are the fees which BRS charge dependent upon these secret valuations?

These are not sophisticated questions.  But, the answers go to the heart of our pension system.

ERISA is very clear.   Plan fiduciaries are able to hire and delegate responsibilities to other fiduciaries.  If they do so, the decision to hire and delegate these responsibilities must be a prudent decision.  Furthermore, the plan fiduciaries must continue to monitor the hired fiduciaries.  How can the decision to hire BRS be prudent if the valuation methods are secret?  Furthermore, how can anyone monitor whether BRS is discharging its responsibilities in the face of secret valuation methods.

Finally, I also strongly suspect that BRS  charges a fee based upon the assets under management.  If this is the case, then the secret valuations placed upon the assets can directly effect BRS’s compensation.  This is a problem under ERISA.

Yes, the professionals at BRS are smart, and we should trust them.  But, that is besides the point.  Assuming that they are fiduciaries, secrets can’t be permitted.

Continue Reading

Outsourced Chief Investment Officer — More Questions Than Answers

Pension investment consultants have found their latest fad …..outsourced CIO services….otherwise known as OCIO.

From benchmarking, to style boxes, every couple of years the investment consultants cook up a new fad to sell to retirement plan fiduciaries.  As a business model, replenishing the product line has served the consulting industry very well.  The question, however, is “how well have the plans performed using their advice?”

And now, the industry is off on its newest fad:  OCIO.  While each firm might tailor their services in a unique manner, the general theme is the same. Rather than offering traditional consulting services, with an OCIO, a plan turns over its entire portfolio to the consultant to be managed.

Presto Change-o!!!!  The lowly consultant morphs into the coveted role of investment manager.  Rather than receiving a fee for consulting services they can now charge fees based upon the assets under management.  And, who knows? If they are lucky, they may even get a performance fee: the holy grail of asset management.

FundFire reports on this industry trend, Consultants Tweak Outsourced CIO Message.  As FundFire explains, however, there is a lot of confusion underlying the OCIO title and the services actually being provided.   This confusion requires the industry to “Tweak”  its message.  In fact, one public plan rejected the shift from traditional consulting to OCIO because of the lack of clarity surrounding these services and this role.

Two points in this article jumped out at me.

First, a critical term is missing. Neither the consultants, nor the article, mention the term “fiduciary”.  This entire model is presented as an asset gathering and fee generating exercise by the consultants.   But where is the fiduciary obligation to the plans and the participants?

Second, the article, in the opening paragraph, references potential “new conflicts of interest” presented by this new arrangement, but does not fully explore these conflicts.  Very often consultants provide multiple services to their clients.  Adding a OCIO role can add to these potential conflicts.

Furthermore, consultants also have significant relationships with other investment managers.   This side of the relationship equation is very murky.  How will the consultant  select managers for its OCIO services?   How will these services be priced?  These are just the start of the questions.

From the perspective of the consultant industry, it is completely understandable that they want to explore new ways to develop their services.  As Shale Lapping, president of IPEX, an independent consulting firm in Plymouth, MI states, “the ability to generate additional revenue is obviously an attractive position …. The margin has always been smaller for consultants (than for managers); that’s not secret in the industry. [Outsourcing] brings in higher margins and makes it easier to retain quality talent.”

This is well and good for the consulting industry.

At Harrison Fiduciary Group, we unequivocally and categorically reject this form of the  OCIO business model as embraced by many consultants.  While it might make sense for the consultants, it doesn’t necessarily makes sense for clients.

On one level, we do support the delegation of investment oversight, monitoring and management to outside, independent experts. In contrast, however, at HFG our business model starts and finishes with our role as a fiduciary for plan assets.  First, we provide a single service to plan sponsors — fiduciary services.  We don’t have multiple services to sell, or rather cross-sell, to a plan sponsor.  We have no ability to increase our fees with a client.  We also do not have affiliates such as broker/dealers which also can give rise to conflicts of interest.  Plain and simple, we pledge:  No Conflicts of Interest.

Importantly — and maybe even heretically in our business — we will charge a flat fee for our services.   We are not engaged in an asset gathering exercise and will not charge a basis point fee for assets under management.  Anwill bed, of course, we will never charge a performance fee. Instead, our flat fee is based upon (i) the complexity of an engagement, (ii) the resources needed to execute the project and (iii) the fiduciary risks which we assume.  Our fees will never increase simply because the value of a particular market increases.

To use a much over used expression; “we are thinking outside of the box”.  We present an alternative business model for the oversight, monitoring and management of retirement assets.  We are competing against traditional big players in our field.  However, we have a principled and new approach which puts the best interest of plan participants at the core of our business model.

We are not embracing a fad by serving as a fiduciary.  The duties of a fiduciary harken back to the 16^th century.  At Harrison Fiduciary Group we serve a time honored role.

Continue Reading