Ruling may benefit fund shareholders in the long run

The Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Jones v. Harris may seem to be a setback for mutual fund shareholders who think that the fees charged by many fund companies are too high.
APR 11, 2010
By  MFXFeeder
The Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Jones v. Harris may seem to be a setback for mutual fund shareholders who think that the fees charged by many fund companies are too high. But the decision, announced March 30, in the long run might lead to better governance by mutual fund directors, and possibly even to lower mutual fund fees. The case arose out of a suit brought by three shareholders in the Oakmark family of funds, which are managed by Harris Associates LP. The claim was that Harris Associates had breached its fiduciary duty by charging individual shareholders higher fees than institutional shareholders. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to Harris Associates, applying principles laid down in 1982 in the so-called Gartenberg decision from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In the Gartenberg decision, the court said that to be guilty of a violation, the fund adviser must charge fees that are so disproportionately large that “they bear no reasonable relationship to the services rendered,” and could not have been negotiated at arm's length. The plaintiffs argued that to determine if a violation had occurred, the fees charged by an adviser to mutual fund shareholders should be compared with those it charged to institutional clients. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the plaintiffs' argument and reaffirmed the Gartenberg standard, saying that it had provided a workable standard for almost three decades. However, the court did rule that a comparison of the fees charged to individual and institutional shareholders may be considered but that courts must be wary of “inapt comparisons” because of the differences in services provided. It was also wary of comparisons of fees charged by other fund companies. Where the Supreme Court's decision may benefit mutual fund shareholders in the long run lies in its deference to decisions made by fund directors. “[If] the disinterested directors considered all the relevant factors,” the decision said, “their decision to approve a particular fee agreement is entitled to considerable weight, even if the court might weigh the factors differently. “In contrast,” the decision continued, “where the board's process was deficient or the adviser withheld important information, the court must take a more rigorous look at the outcome.” These two paragraphs seem to hold mutual fund boards of directors to high standards of objectivity and independence. They will have to demonstrate that the process they used in approving fees structures was logical and thorough. These standards no doubt will apply to all decisions made by fund boards, including decisions on whether to retain particular advisers for funds after periods of underperformance. In short, the Supreme Court has subtly reminded fund directors that they serve the interests of the fund shareholders, not the fund company that appointed the directors. In addition, it reminded fund advisers that they must provide the directors with all the relevant information they need to represent the shareholders properly. Should financial advisers fail to do so, fund shareholders may prevail in litigation. Jones v. Harris, though a loss for the plaintiffs, might well result in a long-term win for all mutual fund shareholders, if, as seems likely, it leads fund directors to exercise their independence more fully, and this leads to better fund governance and perhaps lower fees.

Latest News

SEC bars ex-broker who sold clients phony private equity fund
SEC bars ex-broker who sold clients phony private equity fund

Rajesh Markan earlier this year pleaded guilty to one count of criminal fraud related to his sale of fake investments to 10 clients totaling $2.9 million.

The key to attracting and retaining the next generation of advisors? Client-focused training
The key to attracting and retaining the next generation of advisors? Client-focused training

From building trust to steering through emotions and responding to client challenges, new advisors need human skills to shape the future of the advice industry.

Chuck Roberts, ex-star at Stifel, barred from the securities industry
Chuck Roberts, ex-star at Stifel, barred from the securities industry

"The outcome is correct, but it's disappointing that FINRA had ample opportunity to investigate the merits of clients' allegations in these claims, including the testimony in the three investor arbitrations with hearings," Jeff Erez, a plaintiff's attorney representing a large portion of the Stifel clients, said.

SEC to weigh ‘innovation exception’ tied to crypto, Atkins says
SEC to weigh ‘innovation exception’ tied to crypto, Atkins says

Chair also praised the passage of stablecoin legislation this week.

Brooklyn-based Maridea snaps up former LPL affiliate to expand in the Midwest
Brooklyn-based Maridea snaps up former LPL affiliate to expand in the Midwest

Maridea Wealth Management's deal in Chicago, Illinois is its first after securing a strategic investment in April.

SPONSORED How advisors can build for high-net-worth complexity

Orion's Tom Wilson on delivering coordinated, high-touch service in a world where returns alone no longer set you apart.

SPONSORED RILAs bring stability, growth during volatile markets

Barely a decade old, registered index-linked annuities have quickly surged in popularity, thanks to their unique blend of protection and growth potential—an appealing option for investors looking to chart a steadier course through today's choppy market waters, says Myles Lambert, Brighthouse Financial.