Forensic Expert Edward Siedle Responds to STRS Ohio Rebuttal of High Cost of Secrecy Investigative Report

From Edward Siedle

June 13, 2021

Forensic Expert Edward Siedle Responds to STRS Ohio Rebuttal of High Cost of Secrecy Investigative Report

As the nation's leading expert in pension forensics, I would have liked to conclude in my report released last week, The High Cost of Secrecy that the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio is professionally-managed and the retirement security of those who depend upon the pension is assured.

Unfortunately, I could not then and cannot now. Nothing the pension has said to rebut my findings is remotely persuasive. In my opinion, STRS insiders and their Wall Street helpers either don't know what they're doing or, worse still, are fully aware their actions are not in the best interests of stakeholders but simply don't care.

To recap:

There is only one reason to oppose transparency and embrace secrecy: Because you have something to hide.

STRS apparently believes it has plenty to hide. Over the past six months, the pension has failed to respond to the overwhelming majority of my requests for documents. Only the most mundane records have been released, in an effort to distract from the fact that all -- 100 percent -- of the critical investment documents I requested detailing widespread industry abuses and potential violations of law have been withheld.

STRS disingenuously claims to have provided more than 800 documents and 22,000 pages in response to my records requests. In the words of economist and newly-elected STRS board member, Dr. Rudy Fichtenbaum:

Claiming that you are being transparent by counting pages is absurd. Transparency is not merely about the quantity of information it is also about the quality of information.

Since commencement of my investigation, one board member I interviewed has resigned and two others have openly expressed their own frustrations obtaining information from the secretive pension. STRS isn't even transparent with its own board!

There is only one reason to delay statutorily-mandated fiduciary audits year-after-year: Because you have no intention of curing the longstanding deficiencies you know the audits will expose.

There is only one reason to refuse to fully disclose all investment costs: Because the all-in fees the pension pays Wall Street are unjustifiable and far too high.

How to defend paying Wall Street $143 million for doing nothing?

Keep it secret.

There is only one reason to use bogus "actual" performance so-called "benchmarks" for the riskiest investments and mystery custom peer group comparisons: Because the true investment performance results are dismal.

There is only one reason to misrepresent to stakeholders that GIPS compliance verification for a pension which invests heavily in alternatives (that are not themselves GIPS compliant) provides any meaningful benefit: Because GIPS compliance verification presents some perceived public relations advantage to a pension widely distrusted. That is, to STRS, the appearance of integrity is more important than diligent oversight of investments.

There should be no reason to ignore external investment consultant conflicts of interest that may have cost STRS over $1 billion annually or approximately $20 billion over a ten-year period -- an amount nearly equal to the under-funding of the pension. Yet -- despite specific warnings dating back to 2006 -- compliance with conflicts of interest safeguards has never been enforced at STRS. You have paid the price -- your COLA slashed and then outright eliminated -- for this willful neglect.

You deserve better. 

Later this week I will release my recommendations for action to hold those responsible for the mismanagement and billions in losses accountable. If your retirement security is important to you, prepare to join with others to take action.

Edward Siedle is a former SEC attorney, investment banking and securities industry professional, and longtime Forbes writer. He is the nation's leading expert in forensic investigations of money managers and pensions, focusing upon excessive and hidden investment fees and risks, conflicts of interest and wrongdoing. He was named as one of the 40 most influential people in the U.S. pension debate by Institutional Investor Magazine for 2014 and 2015.