Posts Tagged ‘OHA Investments’

Native Hawaiian Trust Fund Update

Friday, August 15th, 2003

TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

August 2003 Ka Wai Ola Article

`Ano`ai kakou…  In October of 2002, the Board of Trustees adopted the “Manager-of-Managers” approach to oversee OHA’s Native Hawaiian Trust Fund.  Basically, this means that an investment advisor would be hired to build a portfolio of the best investment managers and would share fiduciary responsibilities with the Board, or so we thought.

On January 16, 2003 the Board hired Goldman Sachs & Company and Frank Russell Company to serve as OHA’s two Manager-of-Managers.  I abstained from the vote because I questioned the hiring of Goldman Sachs.  What followed after that meeting can only be described as irresponsible on the part of the board chairman.

A contract drawn up by Goldman was signed by the administrative staff, with the board chair’s approval.  It gives Goldman full control over the assets that they manage and removes the Board’s direct oversight.  Also, the burden of liabilities was shifted to OHA.

Our past contracts specifically stated that OHA, it’s Trustees and employees would be protected from all actions, suits, claims, damages, and expenses that arise out of the contractor’s errors, omissions or acts.  Goldman’s contract has no such language.  OHA’s protection was further eroded when the budget committee chair rejected the recommendation of our investment policy consultant, who strongly advised the Board to hire a firm to monitor Goldman and Frank Russell.

According to the latest performance report, Goldman has been outperformed by Frank Russell in March, April, and May of this year.  Goldman made a total of $15,651,672 versus Frank Russell who made a total of $16,236,725 for a difference of $585,053.

The budget chair has pushed hard for Goldman since October of 2002, when he abruptly placed Goldman on the Board agenda for consideration, even though they missed the submittal deadline.  He continued to support them despite questions from Trustees over why other investment managers who missed the deadline were not considered.  He also dismissed the reports of serious indiscretions involving Goldman that were reported in the national media.

On February 9, 2003, a CBS’s 60-Minutes exposé reported that hundreds of former shareholders of Montana Power were suing Goldman, claiming that they were misled into transforming their power company into a telecom company.  They claim that Goldman brought Montana Power, once worth billions, to the brink of bankruptcy.

The plaintiff’s attorney said, “There would be memos in which Goldman Sachs would just keep pushing, ‘This has to be done now… The market for this can only get worse… They were definitely the driver.’”  He also stated that Montana Power’s CEO needed Goldman to pull off the deal and that it was Goldman that made most of the presentations to Montana Power’s board.

Goldman’s contract with Montana Power also required that, “Any advice provided by Goldman Sachs…is exclusively for the information of the board of directors and senior management of the company.”  The lawsuit claims that this basically means, “Don’t tell the shareholders.”

Goldman pocketed close to $20 million on the deal.  However, Montana Power employees lost their jobs, retirees lost their life savings, and Montana’s relatively low electric bills went through the roof.  Businesses that depended on the cheaper electricity were forced to shut down.  Goldman Sachs did not offer any comments for the report.

I distributed taped copies of the program to all Trustees and also asked Goldman for an explanation.  Unfortunately, since the case is still in court, they were not able to give me any details.

Finally, instead of continuing to invest only in different types of stocks, OHA should consider alternative investments such as natural gas or business ventures.

For example, Sealaska is a Native Alaskan owned corporation with over 16,500 shareholders.  In addition to financial markets, their principal investments are in forest products, telecommunications, entertainment, plastics, and minerals development.  For the past 30 years Sealaska has diversified through many businesses and has become a leading exporter and one of the strongest economic and political forces in Alaska. 

In order to keep the Trust in perpetuity for our beneficiaries, OHA must invest in land and other tangible investments as other Native peoples have done.  Mālama pono!

Let Us Pray for Guidance, Perseverance and Tolerance

Sunday, December 15th, 2002

By Trustee Rowena Akana
December 2002

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA

Mele Kalikimaka me ka hou’oli makahiki hou to everyone, and a Big Mahalo to everyone who supported me in the November elections.

As we move forward in the new millennium with two new members on the OHA Board we look optimistically for change both in the leadership and in OHA’s direction for the future. At the writing of this article no one has been chosen for the chairmanship as yet. It is unfortunate that new members do not get to know other members of the board before they choose a chair. It has happened time and time again that while people promise anything to get the position, once they get it, nothing changes and the chair’s position becomes one of power and control.

Let me recap what has taken place in the last eight months. OHA lost the interim revenue bill at the Legislature, Act 304 was not revisited by the legislature; OHA lost almost $100 million in our investments, mostly because of inattention to business and a lack of concern by both the chairman of the board and the chairman of finance. While everyone lost money on the stock market this year, we were given many opportunities to bail out of some of our investments and reinvest in real estate and other more tangible investments. Instead, this leadership did nothing despite the urging of at least two trustees. At no time were any emergency meetings called to discuss OHA’s financial crises, nor were any meetings called to address the many legal challenges facing OHA.

The board never met to discuss any planning for the future, given the fact that we now were faced with no income and we were still funding operations and programs using our trust assets for the first time in OHA’s history.

Now, after all this, you would think that the past leadership would be ashamed to ask for the leadership again. But that is not the case. Here we go again. What is scary is it only takes five votes….four old guys and one new uninformed well meaning person who wants to make OHA look unified. After a few months, the honeymoon will be over when that new person realizes that he has been duped and the leadership is incapable of leading and they find themselves in “F” troop instead.

So, what is the answer? The answer is do not choose a leader right away. Have a committee-of-the-whole with a new chair for every meeting for three months and the person who can build consensus among the trustees will win the prize. We certainly must try something new, nothing so far has worked. Wish us luck with a new process because there must be some serious effort put into the tasks that lay ahead. Example: negotiations with the state on a ceded land settlement, interim revenue, addressing legal challenges, federal recognition and a transfer of entitlements.

“Through wisdom is a house built, and by understanding it is established and by knowledge shall the chambers be filled.” Proverbs 14:3-4

Have a great holiday season and God bless!