Friday, November 13, 2015
Mailbag; What about Hedge Fund companies using their own hedge funds in their own 401(k) Plan?
Occasionally, we will receive a reader question that requires a little digging into. When we get one like this, we feel like we should put it up for all to see.
Question from Steve: We have a client who is the CFO of a Hedge Fund company. 100% of their employer match is being automatically put into their own hedge fund. We believe that this presents a real fiduciary risk for our client, but I was hoping you could site a lawsuit or DOL guidance?
Our Response: Steve, there are several situations that I think apply to this directly, and specifically with regard to hedge funds. The first issue is a recent case, Sulyma vs. Intel; reference article here Former Employee Sues Intel Over Hedge Fund. This lawsuit is ongoing and only alleges imprudent investing in hedge funds meaning that it does not allege a conflict of interest which would be a violation of duty of loyalty to the participants (ERISA §404(a)). I believe your group would have both the imprudent investing problem as well as a conflict of interest; a possible Self-Dealing violation of ERISA §406(b). So they would be potentially violating two sections of ERISA §404(a) and have a non-exempt Prohibited Transaction under §406(b)(2).
ERISA § 404(a)(1) to act solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plans they serve and “(A) for the exclusive purpose of: (i) providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries; and (ii) defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan” and (B) to discharge their duties “with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims.”
In the Intel lawsuit it almost implies that a plan can never invest outside of the current norm (Modern Portfolio Theory, “normal” asset classes, etc.). So the question is: “How does innovation occur in the prudent world of ERISA plans?” This is something the industry will have to address at some point.
I also wanted to dig into whether or not there would/could be a Prohibited Transaction Exemption (PTE) for this. For example, there are PTEs for mutual fund companies selecting their own funds for their employees 401(k) Plan. Actually American Express tried to cite this PTE when they were sued a few years ago by their employees and when ruled they didn't meet the PTE, Amex settled the case for $15m. Not to be too technical here but I don't think many of the PT exemptions (listed below) are going to be available to this group. As mentioned, there is, in fact, a DOL opinion that deals with mutual funds, but, because the hedge fund is specifically not a registered investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, I believe they have much less room to act.
The potential conflicts of interest that could arise are numerous. Here’s just a few. Are they receiving any fees? Are the plan assets giving them some kind of economy of scale? Are the plan assets used as seed money for a new fund? Here is full piece on the matter published by Groom Law Group, but the excerpt I clipped out below is what’s applicable. See the yellow highlighted area.
Investing Plan Assets in Proprietary Mutual Funds. To the extent that a plan fiduciary also serves as investment adviser to a registered, open-end investment company, the fiduciary’s investment of plan assets in the mutual fund may involve one or more fiduciary conflicts. PTE 77-4 (for client plans) and PTE 77-3 (for the fiduciary’s own, in-house, plans) provide relief for such investments provided that certain conditions are satisfied, including disclosure and consent, and taking steps to avoid double fees. Similar relief is granted under PTE 79-13 for in-house plans of closed-end investment companies (but not for client plans, which effectively prevents most registered hedge fund managers from relying on these exemptions). PTE 84-24 also exempts, among other things, a plan’s investment in a mutual fund where the fund’s adviser or principal underwriter is also a directed trustee, prototype plan sponsor, or other service provider with respect to a plan (but not a discretionary investment manager or trustee, nor the plan sponsor), where an
affiliate of the fund’s adviser or principal underwriter will receive a sales commission with respect to the transaction. For this purpose, sales commissions generally include 12b-1 distribution fees. The PTE does not explicitly authorize the receipt of fund-level advisory and other fees (in contrast to PTEs 77-3 and 77-4), though it appears to do so implicitly. (Note that PTE 84-24 is not limited to the marketing of proprietary funds, though it is often used for that purpose.)
Steve, thank you for the excellent question and the chance to flex our research muscles.
- Jason Grantz