subscribe
back issues
reprints
contact us
Wealth in Perspective
Wealth Management
Thought Leaders
Money and Meaning
Passion Investments
Wealth Management Sourcebook
Multifamily Office 2008
Previous Issues Index
/ Home / Editorial / Thought Leaders / Profiles /
Visions & Revisions
Mutual Antipathy
Debra Ryono
07/01/2004


Mutual fund investors are at the mercy of their fund managers’ view of their fiduciary duty.
A fund director’s fiduciary duty has no teeth, and boards accordingly provide little or no protection for investors against fraud. We need legislation imposing a general fiduciary duty on fund directors to ensure that the funds they oversee could be a reasonable investment alternative, that the fees charged are reasonable, and that the funds’ affiliates are not abusing their relationship with the fund.

The light at the end of the tunnel appears to be an oncoming train. Reform is politically driven.
For 34 years, the SEC has abdicated its statutory duty to prosecute funds and directors for excessive fees. Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act, which was passed in 1970, provides that a fund director and fund manager shall have a fiduciary duty with respect to the fees charged by the fund manager, and tasks the commission with bringing actions against directors and fund managers who violate this duty. But the commission has never brought a case for excessive fees. The Mutual Fund Oversight Board would remedy this failure by promulgating and enforcing minimum standards of conduct.

Information about fees and conflicts of interest is available to investors, but they do not adequately understand it.
In what sense is information “available” if it is not understood? The concept of full disclosure must consider whether the disclosure is actually effective, and there is substantial evidence that, for large numbers of investors, disclosure rules are worse than ineffective—they are misleading. Consider, for example, the disclosure of outsized fund returns in fund ads in the late 1990s, which encouraged investors to chase short-term returns and led to substantial losses from 2000 to 2002. The SEC has done little to crack down on this abuse. Improved investor education and a stronger sense of individual responsibility are primary components for America’s financial security, but the SEC also has a responsibility to ensure that investors have the information they need to invest wisely.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | >>
Printer Friendly Version  Email a Friend


Related Articles
» Fund Follies
» Frank Assessments
» Pruning the Thicket
» Hybrid Hopes
» Whistling Down the Street of Tears
 
Get a FREE ISSUE and a FREE GIFT

Simply fill out this form to receive a complimentary issue of Worth and a FREE gift ("The top 25 Questions for Your Private Banker"). If you like the magazine, you’ll pay just $36 for 5 more issues (6 in all). If it’s not for you, you can return your invoice marked "cancel", and owe nothing. The FREE issue and FREE gift are yours to keep.
Name
Address
Canadian orders click here
International orders click here

Unsubscribe from subscription emails click here
 



Family Office Wealth Conference