April 1, 2010
This week’s decision by the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Jones v.Harris Associates received a good deal of attention because it increased hopes of a cut in the fees mutual funds charge to individual investors. The plaintiffs, Jerry Jones, Mary Jones and Arline Winerman, sued Harris Associates (which runs or “advises” the Oakmark mutual funds) for violating the Investment Company Act, by charging excessive fees. Harris was charging individual investors a .88 percent (88 basis points) management fee, compared to the 45-bps fee charged to its institutional clients.
In his article about the Jones v. Harris case, David Savage of the Los Angeles Times made a point that struck a chord with me:
Pay scales in the mutual fund industry, like those in banking and investment firms, are not strictly regulated by the government, and as the Wall Street collapse revealed, investment advisors and bankers sometimes can earn huge fees while losing money for their shareholders.
In 1970, however, Congress said mutual funds must operate with an independent board of directors. And it said the investment advisors for the funds have a “fiduciary duty,” or a duty of trust, to the investors when setting fees for their services. The law also allowed suits against those suspected of violating this duty.
But investors have rarely won such claims. In Tuesday’s decision, the Supreme Court gave new life to the law, ruling that investment advisors could be sued for charging excessive fees.
But the court’s opinion also said such suits should fail unless there was evidence that advisors hid information from the board or that their fees were “so disproportionately large” as to suggest a cozy deal between the advisors and the supposedly independent board.
The lousy job that boards of directors do in protecting the investors they supposedly represent has become a big issue since the financial crisis, as Mr. Savage explained. Think about it: How could the boards of directors for those too-big-to-fail institutions allow the payouts of obscene bonuses to the very people who devastated our economy and nearly destroyed (or may yet destroy) our financial system? The directors have a duty to the shareholders to make sure those investors obtain a decent dividend when the company does well. If the company does well only because of a government bailout, despite inept management by the executives, who should benefit – the execs or the shareholders?
Michael Brush wrote an interesting essay concerning bad corporate boards for MSN Money on Wednesday. His opining point was another reminder of how the financial crisis was facilitated by cozy relationships with bank boards:
Here’s a key take-away from the financial crisis that devastated our economy: Bad boards of directors played a big role in the mess.
Because bank boards were too close to the executives they were supposed to police, they did a lousy job of spotting excessive risk. They allowed short-term pay incentives such as huge options grants that encouraged bankers to roll the dice.
Michael Brush contacted The Corporate Library which used its Board Analyst screener to come up with a list of the five worst corporate boards. Here is how he explained that research:
The ratings are based on problems that can compromise boards, including:
- Allowing directors to do too much business with the companies they are supposed to oversee.
- Letting the CEO chair the board, which is supposed to oversee the CEO.
- Overpaying board members and keeping them on too long.
- Allowing directors to miss too many meetings to do an effective job.
These and other red flags signal that a board is entrenched — too close to management to do its job of overseeing the people in the corner offices.
* * *
The big problem with bad boards is that they’re unlikely to ask CEOs tough questions, act swiftly when it is time to replace a CEO or tighten the reins on pay and perks. And bad boards hurt shareholders. Several studies have indicated that the stocks of companies with weak boards underperform.
I won’t spoil the surprise for you by identifying the companies with the bad boards. If you want that information you will have to read the full piece. Besides — you should read it anyway.
All of this raises the question (once again) of whether we will see any changes result in the aftermath of the financial crisis that will help protect the “little people” or the not-so-little “investor class”. I’m not betting on it.
Getting It Reich
April 8, 2010
Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, has been hitting more than a few home runs lately. At a time when too many commentators remain in lock-step with their favorite political party, Reich pulls no punches when pointing out the flaws in the Obama administration’s agenda. I particularly enjoyed his reaction to the performance of Larry Summers on ABC television’s This Week on April 4:
Is it because our elected officials just don’t understand what needs to be done to prevent another repeat of the financial crisis – or is the unwillingness to take preventative action the result of pressure from lobbyists? I think they’re just playing dumb while they line their pockets with all of that legalized graft. Meanwhile, Professor Reich continued to function as the only adult in the room, with this follow-up piece:
Reich’s recent criticism of the Federal Reserve was another sorely-needed antidote to Ben Bernanke’s recent rise to media-designated sainthood. In an essay quoting Republican Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Reich transcended the polarized political climate to focus on the fact that the mysterious Fed enjoys inappropriate authority:
You probably thought that Ron Paul was the only one who spoke that way about the Federal Reserve. Fortunately, when people such as Robert Reich speak out concerning the huge economic and financial dysfunction afflicting America, there is a greater likelihood that those with the authority to implement the necessary reforms will do the right thing. We can only hope.