Please Note: Blog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors.

QPAM And INHAM Compliance Audit Information For Hedge Funds


If you missed the September 10, 2013 webinar entitled "ERISA Assets: QPAM and INHAM Audit Legal Requirements and Best Practices - Navigating DOL Rules for Pension Asset Management Compliance," click to access the slides. Produced as a Strafford Continuing Legal Education webinar and featuring ERISA attorney Howard Seyfarth, auditor Virginia Bartlett and investment compliance expert Dr. Susan Mangiero, the 90-minute program included important take away points for hedge funds that manage their own ERISA plans in such a way as to require a compliance audit each year.

With its focus on prohibited transaction and party in interest issues, a Qualified Professional Asset Manager ("QPAM") or In-House Asset Manager ("INHAM") compliance inspection team will need to review salient policies, procedures and transactions. Assessing ownership structure is likewise important. For a hedge fund with a complex structure that includes an offshore unit, it is critical for the compliance audit team to evaluate issues that include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Which entity is the legal counterparty to a trade;
  • Which entity has economic rights to an asset;
  • Whether policies and procedures for an offshore fund are materially different for the onshore fund;
  • The extent to which financial statements are consolidated for offshore and non-offshore entities; and
  • The degree to which trading with non-US counterparties that give rise to a conflict of interest is reflected in trading limits for the QPAM or INHAM on a consolidated basis.

More broadly, at a time when numerous institutional investors are undertaking additional due diligence of asset managers, a QPAM or INHAM may be able to use a compliance audit passing grade (if one applies) to demonstrate its commitment to good governance. However, a passing grade on a QPAM or INHAM compliance audit is not a substitute for a long list of action steps that, if taken, could demonstrate that robust ERISA fiduciary practices are in place. Moreover, a transaction(s) may be acceptable for purposes of a compliance audit related exemption but still be deemed imprudent for a particular ERISA plan. An ERISA plan portfolio may not be properly diversified or reflect excessive risk. This would not be good and could otherwise expose a plan sponsor to allegations of fiduciary breach.

Deficiencies are another factor. The compliance audit team is required to do more than check off a box. If there is an identified problem, as defined as a QPAM or INHAM non-compliance issue, the audit report must explain the nature of the non-compliance and what can be done to remedy the situation. It is up to the QPAM or INHAM to remedy non-compliance. Doing so could be costly. For example, if it is deemed that a transaction with a particular trading entity means that a QPAM or INHAM is out of compliance, it may have to sell a holding. Depending on market conditions, contractual terms of a trade and/or the availability of a replacement party, inter alia, the QPAM or INHAM (and by extension, its ERISA plan) could incur an exit cost. This in turn will lower the return on a particular trade to the ERISA plan. A better course of action is to be pro-active. Specifically, the QPAM or INHAM is best advised to do sufficient work ahead of time so that the chance of having to exit a position - and possibly incurring an exit cost - is low.

My strong recommendation is to take advantage of a QPAM or INHAM compliance audit by (a) pro-actively focusing on best practices and not just minimal compliance and (b) improving any problem areas, as needed.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.