Archive for November, 2009
America’s Largest Qualified Plan Check Processor to Launch South Dakota Trust Company
Posted by Jerry Cooper in News on November 27, 2009
PIERRE, SD., Nov 27 – PenChecks, Inc. a Southern California-based retirement plan servicing firm was granted a trust charter on November 9th in South Dakota, according to a report recently released by the South Dakota Division of Banking.
PenChecks, Inc., according to its website, is the nation’s largest qualified plan benefit distribution processing organization. It offers “a state-of-the-art, technology-based, affordable, professional and convenient solutions for plan sponsors, institutions and third-party administrators.”
Catherine Macleod, a qualified plan industry specialist told The Trust Advisor Blog, that PenChecks is one of the most recognized names in the retirement plan industry. Most firms such as third party administrators (TPAs) and qualified plan sponsors, like mutual fund companies, use PenChecks for benefit check processing and tax return preparation–similar to the way payroll processing companies work in the payroll industry like ADP and others.
Macleod added, most of their clients either use bank trustees or self-trustee. It makes perfect sense that PenChecks would start its own trust company because many of its clients cannot afford the cost increases that bank’s third-party trustees are charging for serving as trustee for qualified plans. As risks go up in the qualified plan, so do trustee fees, to compensate for the potential losses and claims.
She added, PenChecks will probably find a market for its trust company in two places. The first place would be mutual fund companies that do not want to serve as their own trustee and do not wish to pay the high fees requested by banks.
Its second market would likely be companies that have been serving as their own trustee for their plans who are likely to grow and do not want or feel comfortable serving as trustee themselves. In this case they would likely go to a PenChecks Trust Company for a lower cost all‑in‑one solution.
PenChecks is another example of an integrated growth strategy by a wealth management provider or service organization that believes it can do a better job, and charge less to serve its own client base, rather than outsourcing trustee work to a bank or independent trust company.
PenChecks Trust Company of America is the sixth public trust company to be opened this year in South Dakota; others include First Lawyers Trust Company which was recently approved and Dominion Trust Company which became licensed and operational in July.
As more firms recognize that clients perform an all‑in‑one solution for financial needs more diversified financial and wealth management organizations will be launching their own trust companies in coming months.
Jerry Cooper, senior editor, The Trust Advisor Blog.
Understand and Manage Digital Property
Posted by Steven Maimes in News, Practice Management on November 20, 2009
Who has rights to digital property after death or incapacitation? Why is it important to consider digital property in estate plans?
In our blog post from October, we discussed the importance of understanding and managing genetic property. Another current topic for estate planners and individuals is to understand and manage digital property.
Recently, a great deal of attention has been given to the digital life after death – especially gaining access to a deceased person’s email accounts. We have entered into an age where digital storage is replacing physical document storage. In the future, more important property will be created, revised, and stored digitally. And as more people move important components of their lives onto the computer (from photos to legal documents, medical records and beyond), it becomes necessary to devise a safe and secure method for a deceased or otherwise incapacitated person’s loved ones to access digital property. A recent article from The Wall Street Journal suggests everyone establish a separate plan to deal with online property issues when they die or become incapacitated.
What is Digital Property?
Digital property includes any digital material or data owned by an individual including text, photos, audio and video. It includes data stored on a personal computer or storage device as well as data stored on a remote server (such as email and data files).
When understanding digital property, it is important to distinguish if the property is personal, has a monetary value or belongs to someone else.
- Digital Personal Property. Includes digital documents and personal files. Examples are numerous and include: emails, photos, music, videos, medical records, vital documents, legal or financial papers, genealogy records, journals, etc.
- Digital Property with Monetary Value. Includes digital property that is owned and has monetary value like websites or blogs. It includes manuscripts, art, music, photographs, eBooks and digital intellectual property. It also includes online bank accounts, such as PayPal, and online accounts or services with credit balances. Website domain names are sometimes valuable – they are leased and, if not renewed, are lost. Social media accounts/profiles (such as Facebook, MySpace and iTunes) can be considered pseudo-intellectual property and may have monetary value.
- Digital Business Property. Includes digital property owned by a company. Digital business property can also include business lists of friends/followers on social media sites like Facebook.
Estate Planning Guidelines
Most estate planners and individuals are doing little or nothing to address the disposition of digital property. It is important to understand and manage digital property and consider adding it to one’s estate plan.
Many of us have various Internet accounts for email, data storage and social media. Examples include Yahoo!, Gmail, Hotmail, Facebook and MySpace. A list of some of the popular Internet service companies and how they handle death of an account holder is below in the reference section.
We also have requested that financial records and statements be sent to us electronically instead of by paper. We have scheduled automatic electronic bill payments for loans, utilities, insurance, website hosting, etc. This account information needs to be accounted for after death and may be necessary to pay bills and identify property.
Digital property needs to be clearly documented in a will or trust and these documents may be needed to identify and distribute property to beneficiaries. Otherwise, accessing their online accounts can be extremely problematic and may require a court order. Therefore, account logins and passwords need to be stored in a safe place or held by an attorney, family member or trusted friend.
If the online account owner becomes incapacitated someone can be named as an attorney-in-fact with financial power to access the accounts.
To help the family/beneficiaries after death, a trusted technology-savvy person may be the right person to “clean-up” multiple online accounts and computers – such as delete secret emails, trash appropriate files, clear computer caches, and create an inventory.
Wills. Be cautious when entering detailed account information into a will. When a will is admitted to probate court, it becomes public record and can be viewed by anyone desiring access. Be specific if you want certain people to have access or be denied access to your online digital property.
Trusts. A trust agreement may be a more desirable place to document account information because these documents are designed to avoid the probate process and do not become part of the public record. It is possible to create a specific “digital asset trust” to address digital property. The trust can be the owner of digital property and will survive death, thus allowing others to access the information.
Businesses. If digital property belongs to a business, passing it on to someone should be clearly spelled out in a business plan. For online accounts, it may be best to title the account in the business name.
Legal Considerations
Digital property, like any other property, is subject to state laws concerning succession and distribution. Caution should be taken when accessing online accounts that deal with financial property such as online banking, online brokerage accounts or PayPal. Even though someone may have access to a financial account, they may not be the beneficiary of the underlying financial property. Never assume that naming a beneficiary with a third party beneficiary service will allow a digital asset to pass out of the estate. Depending on state law, accessing an account without legal permission could constitute a criminal offense.
Internet accounts are governed by contracts between individuals and service providers. This is sometimes referred to as the “terms of service” and is the agreement in small print that we agree to when we open an online account. Digital rights associated with Internet accounts are not actual property; they are licenses and these licenses generally expire upon death. Service providers do not always uphold the “letter” of the agreement – but attorneys insist that the agreement exists. It is important to understand these conditions when storing valuable property.
What to do with Digital Property while living
Here is what individuals/clients can do now:
- List your digital property. Create a document and note if the property is personal or has monetary value. Other details can be included. For example account usernames and passwords, specific instruction about each account, and other details (such as whether certain documents or correspondence should be deleted). Update this list quarterly. (see graphic example below)
- Define your wishes. Choose who will have access to the property.
- Choose someone to execute your wishes. Provide access and control to that person including account usernames and passwords.
Reference Section
Popular Internet Service Companies. Here is a list of some of the popular Internet service companies and how they handle death of an account holder. Remember, policies vary from company to company and are constantly being revised. Usually email providers will give up the deceased’s password on receipt of a death certificate from the family.
- Yahoo! Next of kin is not allowed to access the email account of a deceased account owner unless the deceased account owner specifically stated otherwise in his or her will. Next of kin can ask for the account to be closed.
- Gmail / Google. Next of kin (or executor) can apply for access to a deceased user’s email account by proving their identity and providing the account owner’s death certificate with the additional requirement of providing proof of email correspondence between the next of kin and the account owner. Gmail does not delete the deceased user’s account, but allows the next of kin to choose to do so after gaining access to it.
- Hotmail / Microsoft. Next of kin can access the email account by proving their identity and providing the account owner’s death certificate. The next of kin should act quickly because an account inactive for 270 days will be deleted.
- Facebook. Facebook has a policy called memorialization that applies to the profiles of deceased users. Once the user’s death is confirmed, their profile is frozen in time and sensitive information removed. Only confirmed friends can see the profile or locate it in search.
- MySpace. Accounts are handled on a case-by-case basis.
Advisor Managed Common Trust Fund Accounts Disappear as Fiduciaries Fear Risk
Posted by Jerry Cooper in News on November 13, 2009
Trust Advisor Survey: Surge in ERISA lawsuits, 2008 Advisor Performance Prompts Trustees to Turn Down New CTF Business; Regardless of Risk Compelling Benefits Remain
Exclusive Report
Common trust funds aren’t so common anymore. Wall Street’s on‐again off‐again love affair with common fund pooling arrangements appears to be on the rocks (at least for the time being), according to research conducted by The Trust Advisor Blog since the beginning of the year.
Chicago‐based Northern Trust, known to be a CTF platform provider of third‐party hosting arrangements for RIAs, reported “they no longer offer their platform for managers,” said Anna Jamroz of Northern Trust’s Global Fund Services group. Several other major banks have also ended the practice of permitting third‐party investment advisors to direct the portfolios held in common trust fund accounts.
These arrangements permit the CTF’s to re‐create mutual fund portfolios. Typically, this helps investors by lowering operating costs. Common fund accounts don’t require the expensive operating costs of a mutual fund such as printing, compliance, call centers, etc. All of this translates into lower expense ratios which benefit investors. Both Morningstar and Lipper maintain databases of over 1,000 funds for the purpose of tracking performance. Most of these CTF’s are hosted by banks or trust companies that also serve as investment advisor to the fund.
The history of common trust funds, or CTF’s, dates back to the Jules Verne era and they are almost as old as Wall Street itself. In simple terms, these arrangements permit the comingling or pooling of investors’ money into one account (known as a common fund) for the purpose of creating a single investment.
In other words, they are much like a mutual fund. However, CTF’s are not required to be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and they are not considered to be a security under state and federal securities laws. They are regulated under OCC Regulation 9 (12 CFR 9.18) and are supervised by state or federal bank regulators.
Just 16 months ago, collective funds were the darlings of Wall Street. They were featured in a July 24 article in The Wall Street Journal, “‘Collective Funds’ Gain Traction in 401(k)”. The WSJ reported “collective funds pool investors’ assets and invest in stocks, bonds and other securities. The chief difference: Collective funds are typically available only in retirement plans. Because they aren’t sold directly to the general public, they generally aren’t regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.” The story added, “Collective funds tend to be substantially cheaper than mutual funds, largely because they don’t have to comply with SEC regulations or market to retail customers. That’s driving 401(k) plans to embrace these products, which are offered by big fund providers like Fidelity Investments, Vanguard Group and Charles Schwab Corp.”
Risky Third Party Arrangements
In a typical CTF setup, there is a trust and a trustee. The investors are called participants which are similar to shareholders. But because of the very nature of the arrangement as a trust, the trustee maintains full fiduciary responsibility. This includes responsibility for the profit or loss of the fund. The trustee cannot unload, delegate or bifurcate investment responsibility to a third party investment advisor without liability. In other words, the trustee is liable and responsible for the investment decisions of the advisor. If the common trust fund loses money, the trustee may be on the hook to make the investor whole in the event of a claim against the fund for a recovery.
All of this makes trustees very nervous when it comes to serving as trustee of a CTF managed by an investment advisor whose track record may have sustained losses. Since most advisors sustained double‐digit losses last year, it’s easy to see why trustees are scared.
In recent years, trustees have prided themselves on opting into roles that expressly limit their liability. These include directed trusts which permit the trustee to bear no responsibility for investment decisions as long as a directed trust is properly constructed and administered.
The Next Bull Market Scenario
A serious market recovery, renewed investor confidence and a boost in retirement wealth may spark another round of CTF mania in the coming years. If it does, there are mutual benefits for both the investor and the provider.
For the investor: he gains the ability to participate in fractional shares of managed accounts normally reserved for ultra‐high net worth investors who are prepared to put in $3 million to $4 million. With a common trust fund, an investor with as little as $100,000 or $200,000 can buy a share of a managed account and participate in the strategy and the gains (or losses) of a best‐of‐breed advisor.
Models that Work Now
According to reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Westwood Trust‐owner Westwood Holdings Group (WHG) of Dallas, TX hosts multiple common trust fund accounts. In this case, Westwood is also an investment advisor and also owns a trust company. This all‐in‐one arrangement does not put the responsibility of third‐party risk on its shoulders since the parent/owner is familiar with the strategy of the advisor and owns the trust company.
In a situation where the investment advisor owns a bank or trust company, CTF’s can make a lot of sense. Since there is no outsourcing of risk, the advisor feels comfortable about its strategy and therefore is willing to accept the additional responsibility associated with maintaining the CTF account.
In another scenario, Davidson Trust of Montana is a combined trust company and investment advisory firm which offers its customer CTF accounts of pre‐approved and selected portfolios. I spoke to Davidson Trust Vice President Dennis West, who told me that their CTF accounts are popular with their investors. The firm has six different portfolios to choose from. Although the loads are somewhat heavy for smaller accounts of $1 million or less, the fees become lower when you leave Davidson more funds to work with. For more information, you can reach Dennis West at 1‐888‐389‐8001.
As more investment advisory firms begin to integrate trust operations, it makes more sense to also host common trust funds for these purposes. Given the compelling benefits these arrangements can yield investor savings and an ability to get into a fund with a best‐of‐breed strategy for a lower entry charge.
Jerry Cooper, senior editor, The Trust Advisor Blog. Steven Maimes contributed to the research.
Can Launching a Mutual Fund Help an Advisor Boost Managed Assets?
Posted by Jerry Cooper in News, Practice Management, Sales and Marketing on November 6, 2009
Start-up Guru Jeff Provence Offers Tips on What an Advisor Must Know Before Getting Started
Within the next few months wealth managers and advisors will consider new ideas and strategies for attracting new clients for 2010 and beyond. Many will turn to campaigns such as direct mail, email marketing, sponsoring sporting events, and cultivating referrals. However, others whose clients may have been more deeply impacted by the crunch of the meltdown will consider recovery of lost business by moving downstream by attracting smaller investors.
In this report, The Trust Advisor found that advisors can:
- Can Start a Mutual Fund for as Little as $35,000
- Begin to be Profitable with $8 million in the Fund
- Buy the Management Rights of an Existing $10 million Fund for $350,000
For my report, we interviewed key players in the field who offer proven perspectives on this traditional strategy. This included: a firm that specializes in turnkey operations; a successful advisor who launched his own fund in 2004; and a valuation specialist who offers his own unique viewpoint on whether to start a fund from scratch or simply acquire one.
Mutual funds are part of America’s investment fund marketplace. The landscape includes SEC unregistered funds, such as hedge funds and private placements. It also includes common trust funds, a $3 trillion market alone which The Trust Advisor will cover next week. But, our focus this week is becoming part of the 8500 SEC registered funds or better known as mutual funds consisting of a $12 trillion target marketplace.
The benefits of starting a mutual fund are compelling:
- Attract Smaller Investors. Private-managed accounts cater to large investors. The cost of keeping small investors is prohibitive. By launching a fund an investor can participate in the strategies of the advisor for amounts as low as $5,000.
- Easier Target Market to Reach. Investors are hard to reach. The cost of marketing directly to the client or the investor is heavy and requires building a longstanding relationship. By selling to an advisor you reach the investor directly. You reach the investor through the advisor which builds brand awareness and loyalty to a potential fund family.
- Lower Marketing Costs. Advisors can be reached through wholesalers or through direct email marketing which permits the creation of marketing channels that are reasonable and economical and paid for out of the load of the mutual fund. The spin-off potential of building those distribution channels can be significant.
- Cross-Selling Opportunities. Once a mutual fund or a family is created, an advisor can harvest its mutual fund client base for other products or services and provide unique ways to involve the advisor in the process.
- Low Start-up Cost. Start-up costs can run as low as $35,000 and can yield asset bases of $50 million or more after several years.
The Investment Company Institute or ICI is the industry association. The ICI publishes industry statistics and provides a great deal of investor education.
I interviewed Jeff Provence who runs Premier Fund Solutions, Inc near San Diego California. He isn’t your typical fund consultant. He set out 11 years ago to offer advisors a turnkey service for those who are interested in launching a mutual fund. Provence has built a string of successes that has helped advisors bring more than 20 mutual funds to market from around the country.
Provence says that beginners should keep it simple. He says that the Investment Company Act of 1940 provides for a straight and simple way to adapt any core strategy and turn it into a mutual fund capable of bringing in small to medium size investors. Core strategies include large cap, small cap, medium cap, growth or value-oriented approaches.
Since all purchases and sales of securities in a mutual fund are done on a cash basis and all securities are typically held with a bank custodian, there is no leverage involved. He says borrowing can be involved but it must work outside the account using special arrangements.
Provence adds that mutual funds that tend to do best adopt strategies that appeal to large mass audiences. Strategies that most investors can’t understand like options and going short appeal to smaller audiences and therefore are less likely to attract investors. Provence says that an advisor should have a well-defined action plan and a strong sense of the costs to support the structure. I asked him what amount of assets under management an advisor must have in order to consider transitioning some of his existing investors into a fund.
Surprisingly, he says it takes only $7.5 million of assets under management with a load of 175 basis points or 1.75 percent to break even. After that a fund can be made profitable. Therefore an advisor with at least $100 million of assets under management can clearly begin their own mutual fund simply by arranging a transition effort to the fund with a minimum start-up of $8 million.
Provence charges between $35,000 and $40,000 to go through the process. This includes filing the prospectus with the SEC, going through the legals, setting up the policies and procedures, writing the prospectus and arranging for the accounting and custody. That fee includes the attorney’s fees. U.S. Bank Fund Services told us this week they charge between $60,000 and $100,000 for the same service. Provence says that you can expect the ongoing maintenance costs to run between $120,000 to $125,000 minimum on an annual basis to launch a fund. More details are available on his website: http://www.pfsfunds.com.
Satisfied Client
One of Provence’s successful and outspoken clients is Canadian-born Paul Frank. Frank is the solo operator of New York based ETF Market Opportunity Fund, “ETFOX.” ETFOX is a fund of ETF funds. Frank launched the fund in 2004 with mere token investors of $100,000 and after six years has grown it to $58.9 million. His performance and handling of his large growth cap fund has earned him a 4‑star Morningstar rating.
Given that most funds lost 30 percent or more of their value in 2008, his ETFOX’s lackluster performance last year put him at the top of his group, permitting him to retain his champion rating. Frank’s pragmatism seems to strike a chord with the industry in that, in spite of the fact that he only lost 23 percent last year in fund value, he is in a category called “one of the least of the losers.”
Frank says that this is not a business where if you build it they will come. “It will take hard work and cultivation in order to bring the business in.”
Morningstar has a three-year performance requirement in order to get rated on its service. Frank added that just because you are on Morningstar or Lipper doesn’t mean that investors will come to you. You need to go out there “and bring in the investors”.
To do that he has his fund listed on Schwab’s platform which charges him 40 basis points out of his operating expense just for Schwab to handle his transactions. Given that his management fee is 175 basis points; his no-load fund still makes money in spite of what he pays distributors. In addition he has recently hired a group of wholesalers to promote the fund to advisors. They too are paid fees out of the load, which can eat up some of the profits.
Launch #2
Frank has done so well that he has retained Jeff Provence once again to establish an international fund which is set to launch in January. Given ETFOX’s success he feels reasonably confident that his international fund will be a success. But he adds, “no one knows for sure until the check has clears the bank.”
He encourages others to get involved in it, but suggests they make certain that they have thought the process with care. He recommends that advisors contact somebody like Provence who can put all the pieces together.
Are Acquisitions Better?
I asked Frank whether it would have been better to have acquired a fund rather than start his own. He said that if you’re starting from scratch it’s probably better to start your own because the cost of acquisition may be prohibitive. He says that in today’s market the cost to acquire the management rights to a mutual fund can run two to three times the fund’s gross revenue. It can also depend on the fund’s performance. He adds, “if the fund had a poor track record it would not get a great price.”
Frank’s estimates as to what a fund might go for in the open market were corroborated by both Provence and an executive at U.S. Bank Fund Services. For example, the fund with $10 million of shareholder assets which has a mediocre growth record would probably sell at a multiple of two times gross earnings. For example, if the load is 175 basis points or 1.75 percent, then the value of the fund if bought or sold by another management company would be 175 basis points multiplied by the asset base of $10 million, which comes to $350,000.
I spoke to Jon C. Walls, a financial analyst and former Lehman Brothers’ investment banker, about whether it would be advisable to start one’s own or buy a fund with these low valuation multiples caused by a depressed market.
Walls said that if a relatively small fund were offered with approximately $10 million under management for two times an expense ratio of 175 basis points, it could make more economic sense to buy a fund than to start your own. The value of being able to control a $10 million asset base and the requisite fund management infrastructure all while avoiding the hurdles of a start‐up for a mere $350,000 is compelling and reasonable, assuming the fund is of a reasonable quality and the investor base can be retained.
Fund management company transactions are difficult to find on the Internet or from most reporting services. SNL Financial, which tracks these transactions, has reported about 15 transactions in the last year. There is no comparable sales history. It essentially is a workout process when it comes to determining how much to pay for a mutual fund management rights, based on the principle of multiples of gross revenue of the acquiring fund.
Philadelphia Fund Moves to Dallas
Shareholders today (November 6) of the Philadelphia Fund (PHILX) have approved the acquisition of their fund into Dallas based Westwood Group’s WHG Large Cap Value Institutional Fund (WHGLX). The transaction will be able to boost the Westwood’s fund’s $131.3 million asset base by $53.6 million immediately. Although the specific terms and conditions of the merger were not disclosed in the proxy statements, industry experts believe that Westwood may have paid as much as $2 million in WHG stock for the fund.
As a growth strategy for most advisory firms launching a mutual fund or a series of them, this seems a logical action. It’s actually hard to find a wealth management organization with a $1 billion AUM that does not have one or two mutual fund properties under its roof. Benefits include increasing the shareholder base so that investors will now appreciate the advisor and his other strategies while making the adviser aware of the brand name. Plus there is the referral potential of having smaller investors taking notice of the name of the fund family.
Jerry Cooper, senior editor, The Trust Advisor Blog. Steven Maimes contributed to the research.




