A Proposal For Managing Pension Consultants

September 1, 2000

A Proposal For Managing Pension Consultants 
 
In 1996, I designed and chaired a convention entitled, 
"Hiring and Managing Investment Consultants." It was 
marketed as an "intensive course to prepare pension plan 
sponsors for the decision-making process of hiring and 
evaluating investment consultants." Topics addressed at the 
convention included, identifying the role of the 
consultant; defining the standard of care the consultant 
will be held to; the hiring process; compensating the 
consultant; and selecting consultants for brokerage 
services, including soft dollars and commission recapture. 
To the best of my knowledge, this was the only convention 
ever held addressing the all-important question: Who 
manages the consultant? 
 
As I stated in my opening speech to the convention, (the 
full text of which can be found in our Library of 
Articles): 
 
"One of the most important and controversial issues facing 
pension funds and investment managers today is the role of 
investment consultants. Tremendous energy has been focused 
on the question of the appropriate expectations, goals and 
methodology for selecting investment managers for pension 
funds. However, remarkably little attention has been paid 
to the hiring and managing of investment consultants. 
Consultants are the advisors, gatekeepers, interpreters, 
data collectors and information processors to the pension 
fund community. This is a tremendous responsibility. 
Pension funds involve trillions of dollars and effect the 
economic security of millions of beneficiaries and their 
families. More than half of corporate plans currently use 
consultants. The percentages are considerably higher in the 
case of public funds (75%) and endowments and foundations 
(63%). 
 
Yet, the business of investment management consulting has 
always been plagued with issues of perception versus 
reality. Investment consultants for the most part operate 
outside the regulatory scheme. Fundamental issues, such as 
the role of consultants, capabilities of consultants, 
regulation of consultants, disclosure obligations of 
consultants and conflicts of interest in the consulting 
business have never been openly and clearly addressed. 
 
At this point, under current law, it is generally up to the 
parties involved to identify and address all of these 
issues. There is virtually no federal and state law to 
guide you and very little information of any sort is 
available for plans sponsors." 
 
In 1997, with the backing of a large venture capital firm, 
I undertook an analysis of the consulting business that 
included a review of the financial operations of a diverse 
group of consultants, including both smaller and larger 
firms. While I was, in some cases, astounded by how much 
money some of the least credible consultants earned from 
the divergent lines of business their firms exploited, more 
often I was disappointed by the compensation levels of the 
more ethical, disciplined consultants. Overall, my respect 
for consulting grew as a result of this study; however, 
some of the most notoriously unscrupulous firms refused to 
meet with me. 
 
I had written articles in the past such as, Consultants 
With Affiliated Broker-Dealers: How Independent Is Their 
Advice?" which harshly criticized consultants who earned 
income from multiple sources that posed conflicts of 
interest, without adequately disclosing the conflicts to 
clients. My initial position was that consultants with 
divergent lines of business were suspect and should be 
avoided by plan sponsors, given the lack of candid 
disclosure. However, a review of the economics of 
consulting in 1997, led me to reconsider my position. 
Ethical consultants who limited themselves to offering 
services to plan sponsors only, were being unduly 
penalized. Furthermore, it seemed unlikely plan sponsors 
would ever agree to pay higher consulting fees for "pure" 
consultants. 
 
Money managers, investment banks, brokerages, and insurance 
companies, all offer different products and services. Money 
managers do business with their affiliated brokerages. 
Mutual funds buy stock from their affiliated underwriters. 
Those of us in financial services are in the business of 
managing conflicts of interest. One important difference 
between us is how we manage these conflicts. Should 
consultants be frowned upon for maximizing their business 
opportunities, if they can do so ethically? After all, I 
quit the practice of law in part because getting paid on an 
hourly or retainer basis could never be as interesting (or 
profitable) as creatively managing an investment banking, 
brokerage and investigative services firm. 
 
While I do now accept that consultants can ethically offer 
different products and services to both money managers and 
plan sponsors, my initial concerns remain. Not only do 
certain consulting firms fail to disclose to clients 
important information about conflicts of interest, some 
firms outright lie about their lines of business when 
asked. A recent article in Forbes entitled, Pay For Play, 
for the first time has drawn national attention the 
existence of conflicts in the consulting business. A letter 
sent to us by Jack Silver, a trustee with the Chicago 
Public School Teachers Retirement Fund, provides further 
examples of conflict-of-interest situations that should be 
disclosed. The letter can be found below. 
 
In light of these ongoing concerns and the risks to 
pensions that conflict situations pose, I would propose the 
following simple list of questions to be asked of pension 
consultants prior to hiring. 
 
1.What services does your firm or its affiliates offer in 
addition to pension consulting services? 
 
2. Detail any financial arrangements that exist with 
affiliated or other financial organizations. 
 
3. Describe your policies and procedures to prevent 
possible conflicts of interest. 
 
4. Does your firm accept soft dollars as a method of 
payment for services provided? 
 
5. Describe all fees or other consideration you receive 
from managers. 
 
The following standard operating procedures for pension 
funds to require of their consultants is also advisable. 
 
1.Please advise us promptly and in advance when possible, 
of personnel or organizational changes at your firm. 
 
2. Please advise us immediately of any legal or regulatory 
proceedings involving your firm. 
 
3. Please provide specific written notification whenever a 
former employee of your firm is employed by a manager you 
recommend to us. 
 
4. Please return all phone calls to board members within 24 
hours; staff phone calls should be returned with 48 hours. 
 
5. Please provide board members with an agenda and 
materials for board meetings at least ten days in advance 
of a meeting. 
 
Plan sponsors should bear in mind that consultants are not 
subject to a regulatory body. Terms such as "affiliated 
persons," which are defined under the federal securities 
laws and have a specific meaning when used by entities 
registered under the securities laws, may not be used by 
consultants with the same meaning. As a result, a 
consultant may maintain it has no affiliates in the money 
management business when the manager would be required 
under the federal securities laws to name the consultant as 
an affiliated company. 
 
It is up to plan sponsors to do their own due diligence of 
consulting firms prior to selecting a firm and to craft a 
contract for services, as well as standard operating 
procedures that reflect the unique concerns of the fund. We 
would be interested in hearing from you as to whether the 
above proposal is useful.  
 
___________________________________________________ 
To: Benchmarkalert.com 
 
From: Jack Silver 
Trustee, Chicago Public School Teachers Retirement Fund 
 
Date: August 28,2000 
 
Dear Sirs: 
 
It is not at all unusual for a pension fund trustee to 
receive a recommendation from his fund's investment 
consultant to terminate a money manager due to "personnel 
turnover" or "organizational changes." The investment 
consultant's duties typically include not only guidance on 
selection of managers or "manager searches" but also 
ongoing review of managers' and their performance. 
Certainly loss of key personnel at a money management firm 
and other "organizational" developments, such as 
questionable manager conduct, are matters as to which 
fiduciaries charged with the responsibility of overseeing 
pension assets should be advised. 
 
We often refer to investment consultants as "gatekeepers" 
who provide a "due diligence" service to trustees of 
pension funds. The consultant's job is to inform trustees 
as to all facts material to the investment decision. 
However, increasingly it has become clear to me that while 
consultants may be thorough in their review of money 
managers and provide their fund clients with full 
disclosure as to manager developments, consultants 
regularly neglect to disclose important information about 
themselves to pension funds. 
 
In case you hadn't heard, the pension consulting business 
is in turmoil at this time. Consultants generally do not 
pay their employees salaries comparable to the money 
management industry. As a result, many consulting firms are 
losing key employees to managers and shutting offices. Do 
consultants advise their clients when they have lost key 
employees? In my experience, they generally do not. Often 
pension fund trustees are the last to learn of consultant 
personnel losses. Money managers to whom the consultant's 
employees have been applying for jobs and others in the 
"manager grapevine" know well in advance. I can't tell you 
how annoying it is to hear "on the street" something my 
consultant hasn't told me! What about when former employees 
of the consultant are hired by a manager who the consultant 
subsequently recommends in a search? Does the consultant 
disclose that a former employee now works for the manager? 
After all, a conflict of interest does exist in this 
situation. The consultant may favor the manager purely 
because of the prior employment relationship. Again, in my 
experience, consultants do not routinely disclose such 
prior employment information. 
 
Finally, consultants are increasingly turning to 
alternative sources of revenue to increase their 
bottom-lines. Apparently there isn't enough money in the 
"pure" consulting business to keep many firms interested. 
Consultants are selling services to money managers and 
hosting conferences where their manager clients can, for a 
hefty fee, meet their pension fund clients. I'm not saying 
its wrong for a consultant to make money from having me as 
a client. What I am saying is that I want to know about it. 
And I want to hear about it from my consultant-not "the 
street." 
 
Very Truly Yours, 
Jack Silver


Setting Standards For The Investment Management Industry

Home              Current Article             Benchmark In the News               About Benchmark          Contact Us  

Contents © Benchmark Financial Services, Inc.

Powered by sitebuilder365.com