SOFT DOLLARING

See: soft dollars, soft money Another reason managers are interested in controlling client commissions deserves special attention. "Soft dollaring" has got to be one of the most misunderstood and controversial practices in the money management business. The very term "soft dollars" suggests something shady and conjures up images of money exchanging hands in dark alleyways. Among laymen, soft dollars may be confused with "soft money" political contributions. There is a thin connection between "soft dollars" and "soft money." Since brokerage firms are not subject to the same rules pertaining to political contributions as municipal underwriting firms, large "soft money" contributions from owners of brokerage firms do find their way into politicians' coffers more easily than contributions from underwriters. However, it is important to not confuse the two terms. So what is "soft dollaring?" Soft dollaring is the practice whereby money managers use client brokerage commissions to purchase investment research. When a manager pays for products or services with his own money, directly from the research provider, this is referred to as "hard dollars." Payment with client commissions, financed through a brokerage firm, is referred to as "soft dollars." Through soft dollar arrangements money managers are permitted to shift an expense related to the management of assets they would otherwise have to bear, onto their clients. The amount of this research expense the money management industry transfers onto its clients is in the billions annually. As a result, any analysis of the economics of the money management industry should include the effects of soft dollaring, however, we are unaware of any that has. In the institutional marketplace, strange as it may seem, it is possible for a money manager to profit more from soft dollars than from the negotiated asset management fee he receives. The general rule under the federal and state securities laws is that a fiduciary, the money manager, cannot use client assets for his own benefit or the benefit of other clients. To simplify matters greatly, soft dollaring is a legally prescribed exception to this rule. Congress, the SEC and other regulators have agreed that as long as the research purchased assists the manager in making investment decisions, the clients benefit and its legally acceptable. A tremendous amount of strained analysis has gone into the precise policies and procedures that managers must follow in purchasing research with client commission dollars. Over the years a distinction has been made between "proprietary" research or in-house research distributed to brokerage customers without a price tag attached and "independent third-party" research or research written by a third party and sold to managers at a stated price. Third party research has been most frequently criticized because its cost is separately stated and the benefit to managers most obvious. In this latter case, a breach of fiduciary duty seems most glaring. However, it is well known that proprietary research, offered for "free, " is produced to stimulate sales of dealer inventory. So presumably this research lacks credibility and is less beneficial to clients. There have been distinctions drawn between products and services, such as computers, which are "mixed-use, " i.e., which may serve dual purposes, providing both research and administrative uses. An adviser must make a reasonable allocation of the cost of the product according to its uses, the SEC has said. Some portion must be paid for with "hard" dollars and the other with "soft." There are several articles in our Library of Articles that describe soft dollar practices, rule changes and our proposal to Chairman Levitt to reform the soft dollar business. The issue that soft dollaring raises is: when is it acceptable for a manager to benefit from his client's commissions? For purposes of this article we would like to introduce a new and more useful perspective for pensions in their analysis of soft dollars or any other brokerage issue. That is, all brokerage commissions controlled by managers, benefit managers in some way. Brokerage decision-making by managers rarely, if ever, is simply based upon what firm can execute the trade at the best price. Brokerage is a commodity. Almost all brokerage firms offer reasonably competent, "best execution" services. If they didn't, they'd get sued and soon be out of business. Most savvy brokerage marketers don't even try to differentiate their firms with long-winded explanations about best-execution capabilities. Best execution is a given and impossible to prove. If you want to understand how your money manager allocates brokerage, study his business as a whole, including his marketing and affiliates-not just the investment process.