Prudential Accuses SSgA of ‘Misrepresented’ Investment Strategies

The Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity Co. (PRIAC) on Monday filed suit against State Street Global Advisors (SSgA) over losses in SSgA-managed funds for which PRIAC claims the investment strategies were misrepresented.

The suit by PRIAC, a Prudential Financial subsidiary, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in PRIAC’s fiduciary capacity for certain of its defined benefit and defined contribution clients, according to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing. Also named in the filing as a defendant is State Street Bank and Trust Company (State Street).

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal today, Prudential said the losses were suffered in accounts held by 28,000 individuals in 165 retirement plans that it markets.

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

The SEC filing says the suit seeks restitution of losses attributable to funds using what PRIAC contends were misrepresented money management strategies that “failed to exercise the standard of care of a prudent investment manager.”

The filing did not give details about the alleged misrepresentations.

The report in the Wall Street Journal said that Prudential had placed clients in State Street’s Intermediate Bond Fund and Government Credit Bond Fund, both of which had been marketed as investments that would provide “stable, predictable returns” in line with an index of U.S. government and corporate bonds. However, according to the Wall Street Journal report, Prudential says that State Street changed its investment strategy over the summer without notification and devoted a large portion of the funds’ investments into financial instruments that included “asset-based securities that overwhelmingly derived their value” from home-equity loans, mortgage-backed securities swaps, and derivatives. Further, the report says that SSgA recently informed Prudential it held a position in “a synthetic index whose returns are linked to 20 subprime U.S. mortgage pools.”

The filing said “PRIAC also intends to vigorously pursue any other available remedies against SSgA and State Street in respect of this matter,” but did not elaborate on what other steps it might take.

Prudential is taking an approximately $80 million pre-tax charge against its third-quarter earnings to cover payments to affected plan clients who suffered losses from the SSgA funds and who authorize PRIAC to represent them in the suit, according to the document.

The charge, PRIAC asserted, is “in order to protect the interests of the affected plans and their participants while PRIAC pursues these remedies.”

Hannah Grove, a State Street spokeswoman, told the Wall Street Journal that the company was “extremely disappointed” by Prudential’s actions and that the firm intends “to vigorously defend ourselves. The recent market conditions and lack of liquidity were unprecedented,” she said, according to the paper; “An unfortunate result of such market events is that some funds lost value.”

House Panel Sets Hearing on Miller Fee Disclosure Bill

The U.S. House Education and Labor Committee will hold a hearing Thursday to discuss a proposal requiring greater 401(k) fee disclosure by plan sponsors and providers.

The 401(k) Fair Disclosure for Retirement Security Act of 2007 was proposed by Representative George Miller (D-California), the committee’s chairman, in July (See Fee Disclosure Legislation Introduced in House). At a committee meeting in March, Miller said that workers are “simply not in a position to compare plans” and that improving “401(k) transparency is just the beginning of our efforts to ensure that all American have access to a secure retirement.”

Pension industry groups soon weighed in, most of which criticized Miller’s plan as burdensome on plan sponsors with too little real benefit to plan participants, some even arguing that too much disclosure could actually thwart retirement savings efforts.

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

A SPARK Institute analysismost recently suggested that fee information is arguably not the most important point participants should consider when they are making investment decisions and also suggested that an over-emphasis on fees and expenses could actually lead to poor investment decisions (See SPARK Says Fee Disclosure Proposal Too Burdensome).

«