As a victim of both PBHG and Invesco/AIM, I have previous experience with the PBHG settlement to draw upon in commenting on Invesco's Proposed Distribution Plan.
The 35 page document is vague at best in continually referring to the "allocation algorithm". The explanation on pages 11-12 "payment calculation" is obtuse compared to PBHG methodology which showed enough basis for the calculation that if you knew the amount of your holdings by individual fund amount and dates
you could clearly calculate that you were owed settlement funds. Pbhg's plan even showed that the excessive trading actually benefited shareholders of some funds in some time periods.
Considering the long delays and the dependence as a victim on the wrongdoers to provide the correct information, the Invesco plan's vagueness is unsettling at best. There is far too much assumption that potential harmed shareholders will these YEARS later will be able to access this proposed plan, critique it in a timely way, somehow figure out that they are an intended beneficiary of the settlement fund based on the representations of said plan as approved, and then actively observe the process to a fair settlement of their individual case. For many a check will arrive and they will never understand why. The process since the settlement is lacking in accountability and is obtuse where it should be transparent.
On page 1 there is reference to the order that":shareholders harmed by market timing and/or late trading" are the beneficiaries. The payment calculation on pages 11-12 ignores late trading in its explanation of the calculation of how settlement funds will be distributed, and addresses only the identified excessive trading. More explanation is needed i.e. what factors were used, what assumptions were made, and what weight was given to the late trading? For example as a holder of Invesco Europe I feel I was more vulnerable to late trading because of simple geography/ time zones. Can someone point out to me in the "Proposed Distribution Plan" where this concern is addressed?
I object to steps 24 and 25 (page 27). It is not appropriate to return any portion of the settlement fund to the funds. As the identified victim and intended recipient of the settlement I charge it is not appropriate to put any part of the settlement into these mutual funds. A reasonable intended recipient of this settlement is likely to have, like me, totally removed themselves from allowing this company to manage anything for me. Steps 24 and 25 punish me (yes I realize the amount will likely be relatively small) for acting prudently.
Can anyone tell me where I access OTHER comments made to Invescos Proposed Distribution Plan - by mail or comment form or (like this one) email.
Robert F. Lawrence
|