3 ms·
There has been a series of recent lawsuits that have required pension funds to perform proper due diligence when selecting management for retirement funds. (E.
by mturmon 12y ago
There has been a series of recent lawsuits that have required pension funds to perform proper due diligence when selecting management for retirement funds. (E.g., http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-20/lockheed-agrees-to-pay-62-million-to-end-pension-fees-lawsuit http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-20/lockheed-a... and http://www.retirementtownhall.com/?p=6763 http://www.retirementtownhall.com/?p=6763)
The possibility for kickbacks (or just complacency) when the ones selecting the fund managers do not necessarily have significant funds under management is evident.
One side effect has been the inclusion of a greater buffet of options for retirement funds offerings from employers.
This news story seems to be another side-effect, in which people start to realize how large these fees had been in some cases.
- cmdkeen 12y agoPension funds these days do an awful lot of work to decide how to invest, and who to invest with. They send out RFIs which an awful lot of due diligence questions, have access to independent consultants to advise on active/passive strategies etc. Active managers compete for business, and retaining clients even when performance is good is not easy. One of the key differentiators isn't just performance but client service - if you're investing $40bn of other people's pensions then you want to get good answers from your active investors about their thinking, where they see things going, risks, performance etc. Oh and the best active managers charge relatively low fees, it is very much not a case of "you get what you pay for" - low fees and high assets under management is a much better money making model for everyone.