10.01.2013 Views

eastern district of wisconsin milwaukee county, employee

eastern district of wisconsin milwaukee county, employee

eastern district of wisconsin milwaukee county, employee

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Mercer here was responding to a request from County Executive Ament, who had wanted to<br />

know “what's the impact <strong>of</strong> these things going to be, you know, over the next five – five years or<br />

so if the plan has zero percentage increase or if it earns five percent or ten percent. I mean what<br />

– how is that going to impact the dollar amount that we have to contribute.” 64<br />

But Mercer’s analysis is qualified by an express caveat – that “past performance is not a<br />

guarantee <strong>of</strong> future results,” because “interim volatility is not only a probability, but almost a<br />

certainty.” This is the precise type <strong>of</strong> caveat that is commonplace in investment performance<br />

reporting by portfolio managers. Indeed, it is a caveat that the Plaintiffs would have been<br />

familiar with, as shown in the Pension Board’s standard contract with its portfolio managers,<br />

which has for many years included the following language: “The Board recognizes that risk is<br />

inherent in any investment in securities and that the Manager cannot guarantee any level <strong>of</strong><br />

return on the Assets.” This investment manager contract is a thirteen-page document with<br />

recitals and specific agreements detailed, signed by the parties. 65 Yet, Plaintiffs are strangely<br />

(and unreasonably) interpreting as a “guarantee” <strong>of</strong> future investment results a two-page letter<br />

from Mercer that says in very common language that it is “not a guarantee <strong>of</strong> future results.”<br />

But, <strong>of</strong> course, neither Ament nor Dobbert have testified that they realistically viewed<br />

Soderstrom’s letter as a “guarantee” <strong>of</strong> anything, or relied on it as such. In his deposition,<br />

Ament testified as follows:<br />

Q Okay. My question was really at this time did you believe<br />

that Mercer was somehow guaranteeing that performance?<br />

64 PFF, 129. Three days earlier, Mercer had provided Dobbert a letter attaching multiple charts showing the<br />

County’s projected contribution if, over a five-year period, the ERS earned 0%, 5%, 8.5% or 12% investment<br />

returns. PFF, 130.<br />

65 PFF, 131. Reports from ERS investment managers also routinely contain disclaimers stating that “[p]ast<br />

performance does not guarantee future results, which will vary.” PFF, 132.<br />

QBACTIVE\6280487.1 29<br />

Case 2:06-cv-00372-CNC Filed 06/09/2008 Page 29 <strong>of</strong> 52 Document 110

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!