Sign up today and take advantage of member-only content — the kind of timely, cutting edge industry insight that only Money Management Executive can deliver.
  • Exclusive Online Only Content
  • Free Daily Email News Alerts
  • Asset Management Blogs

Industry debates directors' multiple roles


No one in the mutual fund industry would fault Myron Scholes for serving as a mutual fund director at the same time his outside business interests are under scrutiny.

But, the Nobel prize winning economist whose prominence grew with the near failure and subsequent investigation of Long Term Capital Management last summer, is a notable exemplar of a controversial practice.

Scholes serves as an independent director on the boards of funds in three different mutual fund complexes: the Benham Group - part of the American Century Investments family of mutual funds - Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA) and Smith Breeden Mutual Funds.

Serving on the boards of more than one complex is a long-standing practice and does not violate any laws. But, some people in the industry question the practice, saying it produces conflicts of interest that should be avoided.

"No man can serve two masters," said John Bogle, senior chairman and founder of the Vanguard Group. The practice is "completely ridden with conflict of interest and is completely unacceptable."

Fund complexes are competing with one another to attract investors' dollars, Bogle and others said. And complexes also ultimately are competing with one another for investment ideas, Bogle said. That combination makes it virtually impossible for directors to work for funds in more than one complex, according to Bogle and others.

"Increasingly everybody is competing with everybody," said C. Meyrick Payne, a senior partner at Management Practice of New York, a consulting firm that provides services to fund boards.

Bogle suggested a hypothetical situation in which he simultaneously served as director of both Fidelity Investments and Vanguard funds.

"I think it would make you a laughingstock," Bogle said. "I think it would make the two organizations a laughingstock."

But directors frequently serve on the boards of more than one fund complex. Management Practice estimates that seven percent of directors serve on boards of more than one complex.

Attempts to reach Scholes for comment were unsuccessful. Officials at DFA, the Santa Monica, Calif. money management firm, did not return a call seeking comment.

Michael J. Giarla, president of Smith Breeden Associates of Chapel Hill, N.C. said he did not believe Scholes' multiple roles represented a conflict of interest. If anything, directors serving more than one fund complex broadens their experience, Giarla said.

"They've seen how different fund companies operate," Giarla said. "I think that experience benefits shareholders."

Serving on the boards of fund complexes which do not compete is one means of avoiding any conflicts of interest, according to mutual fund industry lawyers. Doug Paul, associate counsel for American Century, said that is the case for Scholes and American Century. Scholes' service on the boards of more than one fund complex has not posed a conflict because the American Century funds' distribution, which is retail oriented, varies from DFA and Smith Breeden funds, Paul said. There also are substantial differences in products, Paul said.

Indeed, there is an informal industry practice which discourages directors from serving on boards for competing complexes, according to mutual fund industry lawyers and executives. However, that guideline has become more difficult to apply today as once hard-and-fast distinctions between fund companies' products and distribution channels are breaking down, some of these lawyers and executives say.

Directors and their lawyers have developed systems to identify and monitor potential conflicts. Fund boards have codes of ethics to guard against conflicts. The lawyers who advise independent trustees have established internal procedures to monitor such circumstances, industry lawyers said.

There also are legal limits. If a fund director obtained confidential information from serving on one group of funds, the director is bound to keep that information confidential, fund industry lawyers said.

"You don't reveal confidences," said Kenneth E. Scott, a professor at Stanford University law school and a director for funds in both the Benham Group and Dresdner RCM Capital Funds.

Given the checks in the system, the concern about directors serving on more than one fund complex may arise more from a sensitivity to public perception than from a fear that trade secrets will be revealed. But, perception matters when it comes to fund directors. Fund industry assets have surpassed those of banks and fund directors increasingly find themselves defendants in litigation challenging everything from their independence to the adequacy of their oversight of mutual fund fees.

"Independent trustees are more under fire now than they were 10 or 15 years ago," said John Winthrop, an independent director for the Pioneer Funds. "We are in a goldfish bowl."