The Jones v.
It is the latest in a growing number of articles that hint the case could be ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
The case was originally filed in 2004 by three investors in
Industry insiders believe the Supreme Court could provide guidance to fund boards on how to negotiate lower fees starting with no longer permitting former executives of an asset management firm to sit on a fund’s board after leaving the company two years prior as a so-called independent director. “You can’t have people who have a conflicted interest in negotiating the best possible fees for themselves or their former colleagues,” said Max H. Bazerman of
Second, the article notes, while fund companies do allow for free reduction breakpoints when a fund hits a certain asset level, those asset levels are very high and the breakpoints are very low. “Most breakpoints are meaningless rounding errors,” said Dan Calabria, former president of
Third, the information an investment advisor provides to a fund board either justifying current fees or asking for them to be raised is biased, some executives say. The court should require fund boards to review objective data alongside comparables for similar funds as well as index funds.
As The Journal puts it, “Fees will never fall in a world where management spins the data to its own benefit.”