SEC Sues Reserve Over Breaking the Buck

Federal securities regulators on Tuesday charged the two top executives of the Reserve Management Co. money market fund with fraudulently keeping secret the true precarious financial situation of their Primary Fund after Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleged that Chairman Bruce Bent Sr. and vice chairman and president Bruce Bent II failed “to provide key material facts to investors and trustees about the fund’s vulnerability as Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. sought bankruptcy protection” and as the $60-billion fund “broke the buck” when the value of its assets fell to $0.97 per invested dollar last fall.

“As we alleged in our complaint, the fund’s managers turned a blind eye to investors and the reality of the situation at hand before the fund broke the buck last September,” said SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro, in an SEC statement.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

In December, the staff of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement informed counsel to Reserve Management Company, Inc., of its intent to recommend that the SEC charge the firm with violations of certain provisions of federal securities laws (see “Reserve Management Could Face SEC Charges“).

The SEC alleged, in its complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan, that Reserve Management and the executives misrepresented when the company would provide the credit needed to protect the net asset value of the fund when it never intended to do that.The agency also said the company “significantly understated” the investor requests to withdraw from the fund and failed to provide the fund’s trustees with accurate information on the value of Lehman securities.

The SEC is seeking unspecified civil fines and restitution from Reserve Management and the two executives, as well as to expedite the distribution of the Primary Fund’s remaining assets to investors, and that the court release a significant amount of money that is currently being withheld from investors pending the outcome of numerous lawsuits against the fund, the trustees and other officers and directors of the Reserve entities. After the latest $2.3 billion distribution announced April 17, about $46 billion, or about 90% of fund assets, had been returned to investors, the company said last month.

After Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy protection on September 15, Reserve Management board declared its $785 million investment in the investment bank’s debt worthless. That triggered a rush of orders from institutional clients to pull money out, gutting the fund’s value as its managers were forced to sell assets amid sharply declining markets.

On September 16 Reserve Management announced the Primary Fund had “broken the buck” (see “Reserve Primary Fund Promises $20B in Shareholder Repayments“). The Treasury Department stepped in with a temporary program to guarantee money-market funds, but the Primary Fund didn’t qualify and had to liquidate (see “Treasury Extends Money-Market Guarantee Program“).

Reserve Management has been charged by Ameriprise Financial of tipping off certain institutional investors of its Lehman Brothers investment prior to its Primary Fund shares dropping to below $1 in value (see “Lawsuits Spring up from Lehman Brothers Fall’).

Workers Might Have Wrong Idea about Target-Date Funds

A recent study found that workers have misconceptions about target-date funds.

It is no secret that target-date funds were created for those that didn’t want to understand investing. However, a recent study by Envestnet suggests that workers might have large misunderstandings about target-date funds—such as that target-date funds are guaranteed.

Only 16% of participants surveyed by Envestnet said they had heard of target-date funds prior to reading the description, and 63% of that group incorrectly described them, according to the study. A couple of definitions included: “funds that will be made available for release for use on a specified date;” and “a [financial] instrument which is due for maturity at a set date in the future, by which date the amounts invested in the instrument are planned to have accumulated a certain amount gain.’

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

About half of the respondents said they are neither likely nor unlikely to invest in target-date fund, and 21% said they are likely to.

Target-Date Promises

About 40% of respondents somewhat or strongly agree that investing in target-date funds means that they will earn a guaranteed return. Furthermore, 23% of respondents agree somewhat or strongly that there is little or no chance of losing money before the target-date. About the same number feel the same about losing money after the target-date.

Almost half agreed that investing in a target-date fund means they “can stop worrying about investment and savings decisions and leave everything up to an investment professional.” And almost 30% agree target-date funds mean they can save less money and still meet their retirement goals.

When it comes to the risk of investing in target-date funds, respondents tended not to see a huge difference among fund companies. Respondents said the risk levels of funds with the same target date are slightly similar (46%) or very similar (38%). When compared to investing in stock mutual funds, more than half (52%) of respondents said they are equally likely to lose money in target-date funds in a one-year period; 28% feel they are less likely.

When asked what task is most important when investing in target-date funds, about 28% say it is “picking the right retirement date.” The second largest percentage chose asset allocation as a priority (26.7%); followed by choosing funds with the best historical returns (22.3%); and picking the fund with the lowest expenses (15.1%). The last on the list—cited by only 8% of people as a first priority—was “selecting a savings rate.”

Envestnet surveyed 251 individuals aged 25 to 70 and employed now or in the past year.

«