ArtT5 (Illinois)
Posts: 84
Posts: 84
Posted:
Syndicated columnist Benny Kass responded to a question about investing reserve accounts in his most recent column:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/sc-housing-0721-qa-benny-kass-consumer-20160721-column.html
He seems to be saying any investment that could produce a loss that isn't guaranteed by the government is off limits. I disagree. Here's what I wrote in an email to Mr. Kass:
-----
An association board has a fiduciary duty to manage these funds prudently, and protection of principal would be one of the main objectives. Yet a fiduciary is also charged with obtaining a reasonable rate of return, and does not need the permission of beneficiaries to take reasonable risk in pursuit of such returns. The level of risk that is reasonable depends on circumstances, but the law has never required fiduciaries to take zero risk, particularly with money that is invested for long periods of time, as may be the case with reserve funds. In fact, taking zero risk over an extended period of time, when prudent alternatives that offer an expectation of higher returns are available, could be as damaging in the long run, and as much a breach of fiduciary duty, as taking too much risk.
There may be states where local law prohibits an association board from taking any risk with reserve funds, and there may be associations with governing documents that prohibit such risk. Furthermore, as a practical matter, associations have to deal with what may be a very low level of tolerance for investment risk among their members. Yet a categorical statement that associations can never expose reserve funds to even a modest level of risk is not correct.
-----
Thoughts, anyone?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/sc-housing-0721-qa-benny-kass-consumer-20160721-column.html
He seems to be saying any investment that could produce a loss that isn't guaranteed by the government is off limits. I disagree. Here's what I wrote in an email to Mr. Kass:
-----
An association board has a fiduciary duty to manage these funds prudently, and protection of principal would be one of the main objectives. Yet a fiduciary is also charged with obtaining a reasonable rate of return, and does not need the permission of beneficiaries to take reasonable risk in pursuit of such returns. The level of risk that is reasonable depends on circumstances, but the law has never required fiduciaries to take zero risk, particularly with money that is invested for long periods of time, as may be the case with reserve funds. In fact, taking zero risk over an extended period of time, when prudent alternatives that offer an expectation of higher returns are available, could be as damaging in the long run, and as much a breach of fiduciary duty, as taking too much risk.
There may be states where local law prohibits an association board from taking any risk with reserve funds, and there may be associations with governing documents that prohibit such risk. Furthermore, as a practical matter, associations have to deal with what may be a very low level of tolerance for investment risk among their members. Yet a categorical statement that associations can never expose reserve funds to even a modest level of risk is not correct.
-----
Thoughts, anyone?