Willing Fiduciary

With whom do you work?

Category: Fiduciary Oversight (Page 1 of 2)

Fiduciary Prologue to a Cross-Examination

The litmus test for suitable behaviors and the products that result, is woven from Fiduciary Responsibility. Breaches are born from a lack of methodology which materializes in behaviors and product selection. Perhaps these behaviors are best characterized in Trust Law which describes the prudence, commitment, and loyalty that the trustee has for the beneficiary of the asset.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a trustee is:
“The person appointed, or required by law, to execute a trust; one in whom an estate, interest, or power is vested, under an express or implied agreement to administer or exercise it for the benefit or to the use of another.”

In addition, Fiduciary Duty is:

“A duty to act for someone else’s benefit, while subordinating one’s personal interests to that of the other person. It is the highest standard of duty implied by law (e.g. trustee, guardian).”

The fulfillment of Fiduciary Duties becomes apparent where there is evidence of behaviors and methodology, in “content and oversight,” that improve the likelihood that the beneficiary of the asset(s) achieve their goals.

When one is compelled to discover evidence of fiduciary behaviors, clues materialize in the products that were purchased, the timing of the purchases, how such products meshed and correlated with other assets, the level of compensation, and any compensation relationships if applicable. If these facts were not transparent to the inquirer then, chances are, they weren’t to the beneficiary of the assets. Thus, the path of behavior and methodology discovery will extend and fork to include oversight.
Expert Witnesses and Subject Matter Experts
Even though there are many attorneys disciplined in ERISA and Class Actions, few have any experience in money management, financial technology, and the application of the law to fiduciary matters. That is why attorneys need assistance from Expert Witnesses and Subject Matter Experts before the case is filed.
Choosing the right experts can be a daunting task especially when the correct questions to ask are not known. Career consultants and Business Advisors are very good at methodology, modeling, and quantifying evidence. Many, however, have only “kept score from the stands” and have never “stepped into the batter’s box.” There is a clear difference between those who have applied their skill sets in different environments and those who quantify the opinions of people that do. In addition, it is probably best to seek assistance from someone who has been a fiduciary as opposed to someone who hasn’t. This is also critical in the cross examination.

Class Action: The Case Against JPMorgan Chase

A Class Action suit has been filed against the fiduciaries of JPMorgan Chase’s 21 billion dollar Retirement Plan on 1/25/2017.

Typical to most of these cases, it is “a class action brought pursuant to §§ 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1109.” This is a lengthy complaint that describes a lot of investment content that includes the following allegations described in two counts:
. “failing to adequately review the investment portfolio..”
. “retaining proprietary funds…. despite the availability of nearly identical lower cost and better performing investment options.”
. “failing to affect a reduction in fees..”
. “failing to offer commingled accounts…. despite their far lower fees…”
. “the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to adequately monitor other persons..”

Causation, as described in the complaint, was “because substantial assets of the Plan were imprudently invested.”

There seems to be a lot of content and outcome evidence in this Class Action and a reference to the assets being held in a trust (which is mandated by ERISA). To this author, there does not seem to be an obvious statutory definition to Trust Law in our Courts. Perhaps it was never codified. However, trustee duties regarding the assets entrusted to him/her are characterized through judicial creation by the courts and the ensuing regulations. In a Trust relationship, rights are created and the behaviors owed by the trustee to the beneficiary that adhere to those rights are characterized. It seems to me that if Fiduciary Duties are characterized by the behaviors that are owed by the Trustees the causation of the breaches should focus on a lack of or a misguidance of those behaviors instead of outcome. Where market outcomes cannot be controlled, fiduciary behavior can be.

“The Class Action Holiday Season.”

Class Actions I bring

To Fiduciaries of your plan

Glad tidings of litigation

And a happy New Year!

Fiduciary Litigation made its appearance during this holiday season as 4 new Class Actions were filed against the following institutions:

. Starwood Hotels & Resorts
. Delta Air Lines
. Fidelity Management Trust Co.
. Putnam Investments

In aggregate, the following claims were made:

. Failure to make sure that Plan fees were reasonable
. Failure to offer a Stable Value fund
. Revenue sharing whereby kickbacks were made for including particular funds in the menu of investment choices
. Incurring unnecessary management fees by offering passive index funds which held other passive index funds (double layer of fees)
. Lower cost investment options were available; incorrect share class
. Excessive record-keeping/administrative charges
. Redundant investment options
. Retained historically underperforming investment options
. Excessive indirect compensation through revenue sharing
. Poor performance in Stable Value Fund
. Self-dealing

These claims seem to focus on performance outcome, fees, and compensation. The Fiduciary Relationship between a Plan Fiduciary and its Participants can be defined by the behaviors and duties that the fiduciary has for the participants. Interesting enough, I did not sense any motivations to focus on breaches of Fiduciary Duty via a lack of visible oversight and methodology as the causation of outcome.

Fiduciary Ethics: Removing Conflicts of Interest

Removing conflicts of interest is a recognized and necessary ethical behavior. So much so that the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) is dedicated to overseeing the executive branch’s ethics programs, programs whose primary function is to prevent and resolve conflicts of interest. To give you an idea as to the size and scope of this endeavor, there are approximately 4,500 full-time and part-time ethics officials who work in the executive branch that try to provide employees assistance in identifying and resolving potential conflicts of interest.

The OGE’s mission is to create public confidence in the impartiality of government decision making by improving transparency, increasing accountability, and making sure that senior leaders are making decisions based on the interests of the public rather than their own personal financial interests.

The Department of Labor’s clarification attempts to define and enforce the required ethics that bind human behavior in governance where Fiduciary Duty and Responsibility is mandated. It is no different than the OSE’s mission, 18 U.S.C. § 208, or, ultimately, the Constitution.

Fiduciary Focus #1 of 3: Conduct not Outcome

The most successful Class Actions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) against Employer Sponsored Plan Fiduciaries will uncover behaviors that are detrimental to the participants of the plan. Behaviors, not products or product outcomes.

If, under ERISA or Trust Law, Fiduciaries must act solely in the interest of participants then there must be visible evidence of loyalty and prudence. Only by examining the conduct and methodology of the Fiduciaries can it be determined whose interests were paramount and if a breach of duty has occurred. Once a behavior is suspect it, perhaps, is better to investigate possible causation based on the visible evidence or lack thereof. Walking through “the valley” of causation, is not a journey that a CPA or Attorney should be embarking on alone. They have little experience in the proper conduct and methodologies required to complete the journey.

Outcome may foster presumptions of prudence. Conduct and allegations supporting propositions MUST appear in the complaint.

Next two blogs:

Fiduciary Drift: Content

Fiduciary Drift: Oversight

University of Litigation

Since August 1st, twelve Class Action lawsuits were filed against universities for breaches of ERISA Fiduciary Duties:
Yale: $3.6 Billion Assets under management (AUM), 37,939 participants
NYU: $4.2 Billion AUM, 24,164 participants
Columbia: $4.6 Billion AUM, 27,000 participants (there are two separate lawsuits)
Cornell: $3.1 Billion AUM, 29,452 participants
U of Penn: $3.88 Billion AUM, 26,904 participants
Duke: $4.7 Billion AUM, 37,939 participants
Johns Hopkins: $4.3 Billion AUM, 24,561 participants
Vanderbilt: $3.4 Billion AUM, 41,863 participants
Northwestern: $2.87 Billion AUM, 33,015 participants
USC: $2.19 Billion AUM, 28,423 participants
Emory: $3.66 Billion AUM, 51,797 participants

Here are some allegations:
. No competitive bidding process
. Excessive fees
. Underperforming mutual funds
. Duplicative mutual funds
. Incorrect, more expensive (sometimes Retail), Share Class

Class Action is in session!

Fiduciary Dilemma: Is your Clearing Firm transferring their risk to you?

In the Financial Services Industry, it is not enough to fulfill Fiduciary obligations in isolation. Business partners must be committed to this standard as well. Clearing Firms and associated technology must enable a Fiduciary to meet client obligations.

Like Employer Sponsors of Retirement Plans, Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs) are responsible for monitoring investment “content” and provider oversight. Each provider agreement must be reviewed carefully as it has a tendency to morph in heightened regulatory environments.

Predictably, attempts to transfer various types of risk become visible during contract renewals or amendments. Without warning, terms like “custody,” “technology integration,” and “client data” become legal ambiguities and justifications to shift risk to the Independent Broker Dealer or RIA. These risks are inherent to their business. Are Clearing Providers no longer responsible for custody, settlement, payments, wire transfers, and their own business partners that facilitate these functions?

The Fiduciary has a legal and ethical duty to oversee the integrity of their business partners to protect the interest of their clients. According to Black’s Law Dictionary a Fiduciary is a person holding the character of a trustee, or a character analogous to that of a trustee, in respect to the trust and confidence involved in it and the scrupulous good faith and candor which it requires. Is your Clearing Firm enabling you to do so for your clients?

Litigation Failure: White vs. Chevron Corp

Even though the allegations may be sound, the conclusions may not be supported with the sufficient facts “to infer that the fiduciaries had breached their fiduciary duties.”

Though the plaintiffs have until September 30th to amend the complaint, such is the recent case, White Vs. Chevron Corp.

The plaintiffs argued:
. the wrong types of investments were offered rather than “others” (they offered investments with higher expenses/expense rations while similar investments were available with lower expense/expense ratios)
. there were revenue sharing relationships based on AUM (as the plan grows, the charges increase) instead of a per participant basis
. failure of oversight (a poor performing investment option should have been removed earlier)

These are all sound reasons that cause “suspicions or inferences of fiduciary breaches” but none are demonstrative that one has occurred. Conclusive evidence must be provided as to how these allegations prove that the participant’s interest didn’t come first in content and oversight.

This story exemplifies the reasons why Attorneys need someone with experience in Portfolio Construction, Financial Technology/Analytics, and Legal Application expertise to support their allegations.

Fiduciary Oversight

Establishing a Retirement Plan, in itself, is not a fiduciary action but a business decision. However, by implementing a plan one is acting on behalf of the plan and in these actions one may be a fiduciary. For example, hiring a service provider in and of itself is a fiduciary function.

Acting prudently with regards to oversight is a critical responsibility under ERISA but not engrained in the culture of Employer Sponsored Retirement Plans and the Investment/Brokerage business. The culture has been compensation and product spread driven for decades. In fact, it doesn’t seem as if fiduciaries are aware of others who serve as fiduciaries which can leave them vulnerable to participate in another fiduciary’s breach of responsibility.

Oversight can be demonstrated by following and documenting a formal review process visible through technology. This is what the regulatory authorities are asking for.

Retirement Plan Fiduciaries: A Storm On the Horizon

It seems Retirement Plan Sponsors should be taking their Fiduciary Duties more seriously or the legal community will.

The decision, in itself, to select an Investment Advisor, Record-keeper, Administrator, etc. is a fiduciary action. While the Financial Service Industry is focused on fees, commissions, exemptions, and conflicts of interest, the Fiduciary Responsibility of oversight seems to be lost in the equation.

Sometimes, the evidence of history can be seen in our courts. As of now the fear focus seems to be on allegations of excessive fees, commissions, and conflicts of interests. However, Retirement Plan Sponsors should be focusing their concerns on allegations of oversight and/or lack of prudence. Litigation storm clouds are gathering over the documented plan Fiduciaries for not monitoring either the investment options via analytic evidence or for not monitoring the performance of those parties assisting the Fiduciary for monitoring the investment options. If the correct facts and allegations supporting propositions directed at the proper defendent trend, expect a “cloud burst” of legal activity against Retirement Plan Sponsors.

Page 1 of 2

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén