Pension Plans: Additional Transparency and Other Actions Needed in Connection with Proxy Voting: GAO-04-749

Bovbjerg, Barbara D.
August 2004
GAO Reports;8/10/2004, p1
Government Document
In 1998, about 100 million Americans were covered in private pension plans with assets totaling about $4 trillion. The retirement security of plan participants can be affected by how certain issues are voted on during company stockholders meetings. Fiduciaries, having responsibility for voting on such issues on behalf of some plan participants (proxy voting), are to act solely in the interest of participants. Recent corporate scandals reveal that fiduciaries can be faced with conflicts of interest that could lead them to breach this duty. Because of the potential adverse effects such a breach may have on retirement plan assets, we were asked to describe (1) conflicts of interest in the proxy voting system, (2) actions taken to manage them, and (3) DOL's enforcement of proxy voting requirements. Conflicts of interest in proxy voting can occur because various business relationships exist, which can influence a fiduciary's vote. When a portion of a company's pension plan assets are invested in its own company stock, the internal proxy voter may be particularly vulnerable to conflicts of interest because management has an enhanced ability to directly influence their voting decisions. Although situations representing conflicts will occur, limited disclosure of proxy voting guidelines and votes may make proxy voting more vulnerable to such conflicts. Because of limited transparency, concerned parties do not have the information needed to raise questions regarding whether proxy votes were cast solely in the interest of plan participants and beneficiaries. Some plan fiduciaries and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have taken steps to help manage conflicts of interest in proxy voting. Specifically, some plans voluntarily maintain detailed proxy voting guidelines that give proxy voters clear direction on how to vote on certain issues. The SEC has imposed new proxy voting regulations on mutual funds and investment advisers, requiring that specific language be included in the fund's guidelines on how fiduciaries will handle conflicts of interest. Some plan fiduciaries voluntarily make their guidelines available to participants and the public. In addition, some plans voluntarily disclose some or all of their proxy votes to participants and the public. Some plans also voluntarily put additional procedures in place to protect proxy voters from conflicts of interest in order to avoid breaches of fiduciary duty. For example, some plan sponsors hire independent fiduciaries to manage employer stock in their pension plans and vote the proxies associated with those stock. Plans may also hire proxy-voting firms to cast proxies to ensure that they are made solely in the interest of participants and beneficiaries. DOL's enforcement of proxy voting requirements has been limited for several reasons. First, participant complaints about voting conflicts are infrequent, at least in part, because votes cast by a plan fiduciary or proxy voter generally are not disclosed; therefore, participants and others are not likely to have information they need to raise questions regarding whether a vote has been cast solely in their interest. Second, for DOL, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 presents legal challenges for bringing cases such that it is often difficult to obtain evidence that the fiduciary was influenced in his or her voting by something other than the sole interests of plan participants. Finally, even if such evidence existed, monetary damages are difficult to value and fines are difficult to impose. And, DOL has no statutory authority to impose a penalty without first assessing damages and securing a monetary recovery. In part, because of these challenges, DOL has devoted few resources to enforcing proxy voting by plans.


Related Articles

  • Employee Benefits Security Administration: Improvements Have Been Made to Pension Enforcement Program but Significant Challenges Remain: GAO-05-784T. Bovbjerg, Barbara D. // GAO Reports;6/9/2005, p1 

    Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to address public concerns over the mismanagement and abuse of private sector employee benefit plans by some plan sponsors and administrators. The Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)...

  • DEFINED BENEFIT PENSIONS: Plan Freezes Affect Millions of Participants and May Pose Retirement Income Challenges.  // GAO Reports;7/22/2008, preceding pi 

    The article presents a report to the Congressional Addresses of the Government Accountability Office in the U.S. on the impact of frozen plans on the participants of the defined benefit (DB) pensions. The implication on the effect of the plan freezes varies for sponsors, participants, and...

  • STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PENSION PLANS: Current Structure and Funded Status.  // GAO Reports;7/10/2008, p1 

    The article focuses on the study conducted by the U.S. Governmental Accountability Office regarding the current structure and funded status of state and local government pension plans. It found that the plans typically include a defined benefit plan with a supplemental voluntary savings plan and...

  • Private Pensions: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and Long-Term Budgetary Challenges: GAO-05-772T. Walker, David M. // GAO Reports;6/9/2005, p1 

    More than 34 million workers and retirees in over 29,000 single-employer defined benefit plans rely on a federal insurance program managed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) to protect their pension benefits. However, the single-employer insurance program's long-term viability is...

  • Pension relief conference could meet this week.  // AHA News;3/8/2004, Vol. 40 Issue 5, p1 

    Reports on a conference committee set to reconcile House and Senate bills on pension fund contributions of hospitals and other employers in March 2004. Goal of the conference; House conferees; Provision of the House and Senate bills for required deficit reduction contributions.

  • Military Personnel: Survivor Benefits for Servicemembers and Federal, State, and City Government Employees: GAO-04-814. Stewart, Derek // GAO Reports;7/15/2004, p1 

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 noted that it was the sense of the Congress that "the sacrifices made by the members of the Armed Forces are significant and are worthy of meaningful expressions of gratitude by the United States, especially in cases of sacrifice...

  • GAO Issues Report Highlighting Women's Retirement Challenges.  // Legal-Legislative Reporter;Dec2007, Vol. 41 Issue 12, p13 

    The article discusses a report issued by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) on October 11, 2007. The report addresses the issues faced by women regarding retirement income. Citing high poverty rates among elderly women aged 65 and over, the GAO report raised concerns on the...

  • FEDERAL PENSIONS: Judicial Survivors' Annuities System Costs. Sebastian, Steven J.; Applebaum, Joseph A. // GAO Reports;9/17/2008, preceding p1 

    The article presents the report of U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) about its review of Judicial Survivors' Annuities System (JSAS) costs. It identifies the fund contribution of the judges whether it reached at least 50% of the plan's costs during the 3-year period. It also aims to...

  • The X Factor. Polansky, Jay // Plan Sponsor;Sep2012, p3 

    The article discusses a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report which reveals that working women still confront retirement security challenges. From 1998 to 2009, women exceeded men in their likelihood of working for an employer that offered a pension plan. In 2010, 16% of women ages...


Read the Article

Other Topics