Tag: Jones v. Harris Associates

Supreme Court Rules on When Mutual Fund Fees are too High

The Supreme Court issued its opinion in Jones v. Harris Associates, addressing the standard for when mutual fund fees are too high.

Background

Under §36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 the “the investment adviser of a registered investment company shall be deemed to have a fiduciary duty with respect to the receipt of compensation for services, or of payments of a material nature, paid by such registered investment company.”

The traditional standard was that a breach of fiduciary duty occurs when the adviser charges a fee that is “so disproportionately large” or “excessive” that it “bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s-length bargaining.” Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch, 694 F.2d 923 (2nd Cir. 1982)

The Jones v. Harris case starts with the claim that the fees are excessive because they far exceed those charged to independent clients. Like many investment advisers, Harris charges less for institutional clients that invest in funds similar to its Oakmark funds. The plaintiffs take the position that a fiduciary should not charge a different price to its controlled clients than it does to its independent clients.

Judge Easterbrook in the Seventh Circuit rejected the Gartenberg standard and crafted a new one.  The court adopted a standard that an allegation that an adviser charged excessive fees for advisory services does not state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under § 36(b), unless the adviser also misled the fund’s board of directors in obtaining their approval of the compensation.

Decision

The Supreme Court concludes that

“Gartenberg was correct in its basic formulation of what §36(b) requires: to face liability under §36(b), an investment adviser must charge a fee that is so disproportionately large that it bears no reasonable relationship tothe services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s length bargaining.”

They also make it clear that the burden of proof is on the party claiming the breach, not the fiduciary.

The Supreme Court found fault is looking almost entirely at the element of disclosure. The result is that the Supreme Court overturned the Seventh Circuit and remanded it back for further proceedings.

What does the standard mean?

The Investment Company Act does not necessarily ensure fee parity between mutual funds and institutional clients. Courts need to look at the similarities and differences in the the services being provided to different clients.

Courts should not rely too heavily on comparing fees charged by other advisers. Fees may not be the product of arm’s length negotiations.

A court should give greater deference to fund fees when a board’s process for negotiating and reviewing compensation is robust. “[I]f the disinterested directors considered the relevant factors, their decision to approve a particular fee agreement is entitled to considerable weight, even if a court might weigh the factors differently.” If a fund adviser fails to disclose material information to the board, the court should use greater scrutiny.

“[A]n adviser’s compliance or non-compliance with its disclosure obligations is a factor that must be considered in calibrating the degree of deference that is due a board’s decision to approve an adviser’s fees.”

The result is that courts should defer to the “defers to the informed conclusions of disinterested boards” and hold “plaintiffs to their heavy burden of proof.”

Sources:

Will the Supreme Court Affect Mutual Fund Fees?

supreme court

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard the arguments on a case involving mutual fund fees. The case is trying to reconcile the standard for when mutual fund fees are too high.

Under §36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 the “the investment adviser of a registered investment company shall be deemed to have a fiduciary duty with respect to the receipt of compensation for services, or of payments of a material nature, paid by such registered investment company.”

The traditional standard was that a breach of fiduciary duty occurs when the adviser charges a fee that is “so disproportionately large” or “excessive” that it “bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s-length bargaining.” Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch, 694 F.2d 923 (2nd Cir. 1982)

The Jones v. Harris case starts with the claim that the fees are excessive because they far exceed those charged to independent clients. Like many investment advisers, Harris charges less for institutional clients that invest in funds similar to its Oakmark funds. The plaintiffs take the position that a fiduciary should not charge a different price to its controlled clients than it does to its independent clients.

The parties argued their positions Monday in front of the Supreme Court. I was not there, but I thought I could collect some coverage and Tuesday Morning Quaterbacking of the arguments.

According to the coverage, neither party supported Chief Judge Easterbrook’s ruling in the Seventh Circuit. He had found that the marketplace may be trusted to curb excessive fees and that mutual fund investors unhappy with the fees they are charged could withdraw their money and invest it elsewhere.

The mutual fund side argued for the Gartenberg standard: Fees must be “within the range of what would have been negotiated at arm’s length in the light of all of the surrounding circumstances.”

The plaintiff side argued:

“It surely cannot be the case that where you are dealing with a fiduciary duty — which is a higher standard recognized in the law — that you can charge twice as much as what you are obtaining at arm’s length for services that you are providing.”

William Birdthistle thinks:

“If, as some of today’s questions seem to indicate, the eventual decision from the Court in Jones v. Harris will read like Gartenberg with just one additional factor included in an already long and nebulous evaluation, we might have to wait for the next wave of litigation in trial courts to see whether the new Jones standard makes any practical difference on fees. If, on the other hand, the justices highlight and strongly emphasize the institutional/individual fee comparison in an opinion that reads like Posner’s dissent or Ameriprise v. Gallus, the pressure upon the industry to lower fees could be more acute and immediate.”

Anna Christensen thinks:

There did not seem to be five votes for adopting the Seventh Circuit’s market-based approach. The Court may reject that standard and decide little else, perhaps adopting the basic Gartenberg test with some degree of explication, and sending the case back to the court of appeals for application of the test. On the other hand, the Court may decide that as the argument in this case demonstrates, the terms of Gartenberg test do not provide significant guidance on how to identify an unfairly large fee, and use the facts of this case to provide an object lesson to lower courts.

It sounds like the Supreme Court is unlikely to come out with a ruling that dramatically affects the industry. Inevitably, it will require additional work for compliance.

References:

A Flurry of Stories on Mutual Fund Fees

oakmark_logo_new

Over the last few days there has been renewed interest in the upcoming Supreme Court case that will should rule on the fees charged by mutual funds. Back in May, I published Supreme Court to Decide on Investment Company Act Case after they agreed to hear Jones v. Harris Associates, L.P. I didn’t expect much mainstream press coverage of the case until the decision comes out next winter.

Over the weekend, Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Zweig published Can the Supreme Court Undress High Fund Fees? which pointed out that this case will “hit you right in the pocket.” Then The New York Times ran Supreme Court to Hear Case on Executive Pay which portrayed the as one focused on out of control executive pay. It sounds like the press has figured out that the case could have some broad implications on the way mutual funds decide what fees to charge.

Under §36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 the “the investment adviser of a registered investment company shall be deemed to have a fiduciary duty with respect to the receipt of compensation for services, or of payments of a material nature, paid by such registered investment company.”

The traditional standard was that a breach of fiduciary duty occurs when the adviser charges a fee that is “so disproportionately large” or “excessive” that it “bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s-length bargaining.” Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch, 694 F.2d 923 (2nd Cir. 1982)

The Jones v. Harris case starts with the claim that the fees are excessive because they far exceed those charged to independent clients. Like many investment advisers, Harris charges less for institutional clients that invest in funds similar to its Oakmark funds. The plaintiffs take the position that a fiduciary should not charge a different price to its controlled clients than it does to its independent clients.

Certainly, mutual funds rarely fire their advisers. But investors do fire the advisers by moving their money to different mutual funds and investments.The decision is likely to focus more on the procedure for setting fees than the absolute value of the fees.

It sounds like this case is getting tarted up as a blast against executive compensation. But really, its about the dense language in the Investment Company Act, fiduciary duty and compliance. Since the decision could have a broad impact on lots of peoples’ investments, it will likely get lots of coverage at the oral arguments on November 2, 2009 and whenever the decision comes out.

References:

Supreme Court to Decide on Investment Company Act Case

oakmark_logo_new

There has been a lot of focus on the Supreme Court’s acceptance of the PCAOB case: Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB (08-861). It squarely addresses an interesting administrative law question. I also find it interesting that this case originates from the last bout of financial fraud in the press (the collapse of Enron) and comes to the Supreme Court during the media coverage of the next bout of financial fraud.

Although it is less interesting, the Supreme Court also agreed to hear another case that may interest compliance professionals: Jones v. Harris Associates, L.P., (No. 08-586). This case focuses on the fees paid to the investment adviser of a mutual fund.

Harris Associates advises the Oakmark complex of mutual funds. Plaintiffs own shares in several of the Oakmark funds and contend that their fees are too high and in violation §36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

The Oakmark Fund paid Harris Associates 1% per year of the first $2 billion of the fund’s assets, 0.9% of the next $1 billion, 0.8% of the next $2 billion, and 0.75% of anything over $5 billion. These fees are roughly the same as other funds of similar size and investment goal. Mutual funds are largely captive to their investment advisers. There is an ability to change advisers and there is a requirement for independent directors. In my view the market really controls the fees. If one fund charges less in fees than another fund with  similar performance  and investment goal, investors will put their money in the less expensive fund.

Plaintiffs’ claim that the fees are excessive because they far exceed those charged to independent clients. Like many investment advisers, Harris charges less for institutional clients that invest in funds similar to the Oakmark funds. The plaintiffs take the position that a fiduciary should not charge a different price to its controlled clients than it does to its independent clients.

Under §36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 the “the investment adviser of a registered investment company shall be deemed to have a fiduciary duty with respect to the receipt of compensation for services, or of payments of a material nature, paid by such registered investment company.”

The traditional standard was that a breach of fiduciary duty occurs when the adviser charges a fee that is “so disproportionately large” or “excessive” that it “bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s-length bargaining.” Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch, 694 F.2d 923 (2nd Cir. 1982)

The district court concluded that Harris Associates had not violated the Act and granted summary judgment in its favor. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld that ruling. But they rejected the traditional standard and crafted a new one. Instead, the court adopted a standard that an allegation that an adviser charged excessive fees for advisory services does not state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under § 36(b), unless the adviser also misled the fund’s board of directors in obtaining their approval of the compensation. Section 36(b) does not say that fees must be “reasonable” in relation to a judicially created standard.

I find it funny that the plaintiffs had argued that the court should not follow the traditional standard in Gartenberg. They won on that point, but still lost with the new standard.

Since one part of the country is subject to the traditional standard in Gartenberg and another part is subject to this new standard, I assume the Supreme Court took the case to clean up this split. It will give the Court an opportunity to clarify the proper scope of the fiduciary duty that investment advisers owe to fund shareholders with respect to their compensation.

In the end, I do not think the ruling will have much impact on consumers. No plaintiff has succeeded on a § 36(b) claim against a fund advisor. But it is likely to have an impact on compliance and governance programs.

References: