From: Minister of Finance / Ministre des Finances <minister-ministre@fin.gc.ca>
Date: Wed, May 13, 2026 at 4:50 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: Rep. Thomas Massie: Battling the Treachery of Trump’s Republican Party
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your comments.
Le ministère des Finances Canada accuse réception de votre courriel.
Nous vous assurons que vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
Donald Trump LIVE | Cabinet Stunned as Trump Moves to Elevate Elon Musk | Trump | Elon Musk
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 13, 2026 at 4:46 PM
Subject: Rep. Thomas Massie: Battling the Treachery of Trump’s Republican Party
To: <press@thomasmassie.com>
Cc: <minister-ministre@fin.gc.ca>, <Roger.Sobotkiewicz@gov.sk.ca>, <Fred.Pretorius@yukon.ca>, <David.Harrison@novascotia.ca>, <INQUIRIES@osc.gov.on.ca>, <pm@pm.gc.ca>, <Michael.Duheme@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, <twolabradors@shaw.ca>, <John.Williamson@parl.gc.ca>
Washington, D.C. Office
Rep. Thomas Massie: Battling the Treachery of Trump’s Republican Party, AIPAC, and the Epstein Class
Call my office anytime: (859) 363-5836
Please direct press inquiries to press@thomasmassie.com .
Media Page : https://www.thomasmassie.com/media
To contribute by mail, please send a personal check made payable to “Thomas Massie for Congress” to:
Thomas Massie for Congress
PO Box 72821
Newport, KY 41072
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 1:49 PM
Subject: 617 954 4225 RE Robert Pozen Former executive chairman of MFS Investment Management
To: <Leadership@mfs.com>, <kimc714@mit.edu>
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 Time: 10:00 AM
Topic
Witnesses
Witness Panel 1
-
Mr.
William H.
Donaldson
ChairmanSecurities and Exchange Commission
Witness Panel 2
-
Mr.
Matthew P.
Fink
PresidentInvestment Company Institute
-
Mr.
Marc
Lackritz
PresidentSecurities Industry Association
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry
Date: Thursday, November 20, 2003 Time: 02:00 PM
Topic
Witnesses
Witness Panel 1
-
Mr.
Stephen M.
Cutler
Director - Division of EnforcementSecurities and Exchange Commission
-
Mr.
Robert
Glauber
Chairman and CEONational Association of Securities Dealers
-
Eliot
Spitzer
Attorney GeneralState of New York
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry: Understanding the Fund Industry from the Investor’s Perspective
Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Time: 10:00 AM
Topic
Witnesses
Witness Panel 1
-
Mr.
Tim
Berry
TreasurerState of Indiana
-
Honorable
Gary
Gensler
ChairmanU.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
-
Mr.
James K.
Glassman
Resident FellowAmerican Enterprise Institute
-
Mr.
Don
Phillips
Managing DirectorMorningstar, Inc
-
Mr.
Jim
Riepe
Vice Chairman of the Board of DirectorsT. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry: Fund Operations and Governance.
Date: Thursday, February 26, 2004 Time: 02:00 PM
Topic
Witnesses
Witness Panel 1
-
Mr.
Jack
Bogle
FounderThe Vanguard Group
-
Ms.
Mellody
Hobson
PresidentAriel Capital Management
-
Mr.
David
Pottruck
President, Chief Executive Officer and a member of the Board of DirectorsCharles Schwab
-
Mr.
David
Ruder
Former ChairmenU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry: The Regulatory Landscape
Date: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 Time: 10:00 AM
Topic
Witnesses
Witness Panel 1
-
Ms.
Lori
Richards
Director, Office of Compliance, Inspections, and ExaminationsSecurities and Exchange Commission
-
Mr.
Paul
Roye
Director, Division of Investment ManagementSecurities and Exchange Commission
-
Ms.
Mary
Schapiro
Vice Chairman of NASD and President of NASD Regulatory Policy & OversightNational Association of Securities Dealers
-
Honorable
David M.
Walker
Comptroller General of the United States
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry: Fund Operations and Governance
Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 Time: 10:00 AM
Topic
Witnesses
Witness Panel 1
-
Professor
Mercer
Bullard
Associate Professor of LawUniversity of Mississippi School of Law
-
Mr.
William D
Lutz
Professor of EnglishRutgers University
-
Mr.
Robert
Pozen
Non-Executive ChairmanMassachusetts Financial Services Co.
-
Ms.
Barbara
Roper
Director of Investor ProtectionConsumer Federation of America
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry: Fund Costs and Distribution Practices
Date: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 Time: 02:30 PM
Topic
Witnesses
Witness Panel 1
-
Honorable
Daniel K.
Akaka (D-HI)
United States Senator
-
Honorable
Susan
Collins (R-ME)
United States Senator
-
Honorable
Peter
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
United States Senator
-
Honorable
Carl
Levin (D-MI)
United States Senator
Witness Panel 2
-
Mr.
Paul G.
Haaga, Jr.
Executive Vice President and Director of Capitol Research and Management Company, and Chairman of the Investment Company Institute
-
Mr.
Chet
Helck
President and Chief Operating OfficerRaymond James Financial
-
Mr.
Thomas
Putnam
Founder and CEOFenimore Asset Management
-
Mr.
Edward
Siedle
Founder and PresidentThe Benchmark Companies
-
Mr.
Mark
Treanor
General Counsel and Head of Legal DepartmentWachovia Corporation
Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry: The SEC's Perspective
Date: Thursday, April 8, 2004 Time: 10:00 AM
Topic
Witnesses
Witness Panel 1
-
Mr.
William H.
Donaldson
ChairmanSecurities and Exchange Commission
archive.today webpage capture | Saved from | |
| 6 Jul 2025 17:01:34 UTC | ||
| All snapshots | from host www.govinfo.gov | |
WASHINGTON :
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800
Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001
97–186 PDF 2004
S. HRG . 108–711
REVIEW OF CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS
AND REGULATORY ACTIONS REGARDING
THE MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST AND SECOND SESSION
ON
INVESTIGATIONS AND REGULATORY ACTIONS REGARDING THE
MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY AND INVESTORS’ PROTECTION
NOVEMBER 18, 20, 2003, FEBRUARY 25, 26, MARCH 2, 10, 23, 31, AND
APRIL 8, 2004
Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
REVIEW OF CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS
AND REGULATORY ACTIONS REGARDING
THE MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met at 10 a.m. in room SD–538 of the Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Senator Richard C. Shelby (Chairman of
the Committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RICHARD C. SHELBY
Chairman SHELBY. The hearing shall come to order.
This hearing is part of the Committee’s ongoing oversight of the
mutual fund industry. Today, the Committee will review current
investigations and enforcement proceedings and examine regu-
latory actions taken to date in order to fully inform and guide the
Banking Committee’s consideration of possible legislative reform.
On September 30, 2003, this Committee first examined the scope
of problems confronting the mutual fund industry. At that time,
Chairman Donaldson testified about the SEC’s ongoing enforce-
ment actions and described the SEC’s regulatory blueprint for
adopting new regulations aimed at improving the transparency of
fund operations and stopping abusive trading practices. Since
Chairman Donaldson’s testimony, we have learned that improper
fund trading practices are a widespread problem that fund insiders,
brokers, and privileged clients have profited from at the expense of
average investors.
In early September, New York Attorney General Spitzer uncov-
ered arrangements through which brokers facilitated improper
trades for their clients in certain prominent mutual funds in ex-
change for large, fee generating investments. Since this initial set-
tlement, we have learned the extent to which both intermediaries,
such as brokers, and fund executives have engaged in illicit trading
activities. We have read about the backhanded ways by which the
brokers colluded with their customers to disguise improper trade
orders to make them appear legitimate, thus evading detection by
mutual fund policing systems.
Even in situations where mutual funds attempted to halt im-
proper trading activity, certain brokers created fictitious names
and account numbers to fool fund compliance officers and to con-
tinue trading. Recent investigations have also revealed that mutual
fund executives and portfolio managers have actively engaged in
improper trading activity. And these allegations are particularly
troubling because fund executives and portfolio managers have
represented themselves as protecting client assets, but they failed
by either knowingly permitting improper trading by brokers or
actively engaging in illegal trading activities themselves.
Such practices may not only violate prospectus disclosures, but
also violate the fiduciary duties that funds owe to their share-
holders—the duties to treat all shareholders equitably and to pro-
tect shareholder interests. Further, regulators have indicated that
they may soon file charges against funds that have selectively
disclosed portfolio information to certain privileged investors and
fund executives that may have engaged in illegal insider trading by
acting on the basis of nonpublic information.
As this Committee made clear during Chairman William H.
Donaldson’s September 30 appearance here, a regulatory response
to improper trading activities is just one of the many actions that
the SEC must take to address the many troubling issues that have
come to light in the mutual fund industry. This Committee remains
concerned with the transparency of fund operations and ensuring
that investors can learn how their fund is being managed. It has
become very, very apparent that many of the questionable fund
practices that are now being examined are not just the result of a
few bad actors, but are longstanding industry practices that have
largely gone unregulated and not well disclosed to, or understood
by, most investors.
Therefore, this Committee must take a comprehensive look, I be-
lieve, at the industry to determine if the industry’s operations and
practices are consistent with investors’ interests and the greater
interests of the market. It may be that we must consider possible
realignment of interests to ensure that mutual funds are operating
as efficiently and fairly as the market and investors demand. We
will examine fund disclosure practices regarding fees, trading costs,
sales commissions, and portfolio holdings. So, we will continue to
question the conflicts of interest surrounding the relationship be-
tween the investment adviser and the fund and how potential
changes to fund governance and disclosure practices may minimize
these conflicts.
We will also focus on fund sales practices to ensure that brokers
sell suitable investments to their clients, provide adequate disclo-
sure of any sales incentives, and give clients any breakpoint dis-
counts to which they are entitled.
Chairman Donaldson has told this Committee that the SEC has
the necessary statutory authority to reform the mutual fund indus-
try and is in the process of conducting a comprehensive rulemak-
ing. As we have learned in other contexts, however, additional reg-
ulation is not the only answer. Late trading is clearly illegal and
market timing is actively deterred and policed. Despite prohibitions
and warnings, these activities continued unabated because of the
inadequate compliance and enforcement regimes at the SEC, the
mutual funds and the brokers. Whether due to a lack of resources
or other pressing priorities, mutual fund abuses simply did not re-
ceive adequate attention from the SEC. Although recent enforce-
ment actions indicate that priorities have changed, we need to
and halt future fund abuses.
Vigorous enforcement remains the key to restoring integrity to
the fund industry, and Attorney General Spitzer’s timely actions
once again demonstrate, I believe, the significant role that States
play in prosecuting fraud and abuse in the securities markets. Re-
gardless of the number of rules or amount of resources, it would
be impractical to expect the SEC to detect every single fraud and
manipulation in the fund industry. Therefore, the mutual funds
and the brokerage houses themselves must proactively adopt new
compliance measures to detect fraud and abuse. For many years,
participants in the mutual fund industry maintain industry ‘‘best
practices.’’ These practices, however, have clearly proven to be in-
adequate as brokers and funds have disregarded conflicts of inter-
est and colluded at the expense of investors without detection.
Although funds and brokers owe different types of duties to their
investors, both groups have an obligation to refrain from knowingly
ignoring their clients’ interests and profiting at their expense.
With over 95 million investors and $7 trillion—yes, $7 trillion—
in assets, mutual funds have always been perceived as the safe
investment option for average investors. America has become a Na-
tion of investors, but there is no doubt that recent revelations
about mutual funds have caused very many to question the per-
ceived fairness of the industry. Many are surprised to learn that
the mutual fund industry is plagued by the same conflict that was
at the root of the Enron scandal and the global settlement—one set
of profitable rules for insiders and another costly set for average
investors.
Beyond the legal concepts of fiduciary duties and transparency,
there is a more fundamental principle that should underlie the
operation of the mutual fund industry and our securities markets
in general.
This principle is that securities firms and mutual funds should
not neglect investors’ interests and knowingly profit at their ex-
pense. Until firms can demonstrate an ability to abide by this
ideal, investors will not trust the markets, nor should they. In our
own way, Congress, the SEC and regulators, and industry partici-
pants must collectively work to reform the mutual fund industry in
order to restore investor confidence. I believe, we must reassure in-
vestors that mutual funds are a vehicle in which they can safely
invest their money and not fall victim to financial schemes. The
mutual fund industry is simply too important to too many Ameri-
cans to do otherwise.
Examining the mutual fund industry is a priority for this Com-
mittee, and I look forward to working with my fellow Committee
Members, especially Senators Enzi, Dodd, and Corzine, all of whom
have already expressed significant interest in this issue.
Our first witness today is Chairman Bill Donaldson, and on the
second panel we will hear from Matthew Fink, President of the In-
vestment Company Institute, and Marc Lackritz, President of the
Securities Industry Association.
Now, I will call on my Members.
Senator Sarbanes.
Chairman
MFS Investment Management
and
Visiting Professor
Harvard Law School
“REVIEW OF CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS AND REGULATORY ACTIONS
REGARDING THE MUTUAL FUND INDUSTRY:
FUND OPERATIONS AND GOVERNANCE”
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
Committee for this opportunity to present my views on appropriate reforms for the mutual fund
industry.
My name is Robert C. Pozen and I am from Boston, Massachusetts. I am currently
Chairman of MFS Investment Management, which manages approximately $140 billion for
approximately 370 accounts including over 100 mutual funds serving approximately six million
investors. I am also a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and author of the textbook The
Mutual Fund Business (2 ed. Houghton Mifflin 2001).
I commend the Committee for engaging in a deliberative and broad-ranging review of the
operations and regulation of the mutual fund industry. While I welcome questions about any
aspect of the fund industry, I will limit my testimony today to three areas where I believe that MFS is helping to set important new standards for the fund industry:
The current system of paying for goods and services with “soft dollars”, taken out of
brokerage commissions, is detrimental to mutual fund shareholders. The use of “soft dollar”
payments makes it virtually impossible for a fund manager to ascertain the true costs of executing trades because execution costs are bundled together with the costs of other goods and services such as research reports and Bloomberg terminals. If these costs were unbundled, then fund managers could pay cash out of their own pockets for independent research or market data, and could negotiate for lower execution prices for fund shareholders.
broker on Wall Street, the trader pays five cents a share for execution plus a broad range of
goods or services from the executing broker or third parties: e.g., securities research, market data and brokerage allocations to promote fund sales. These goods and services are paid in “soft dollars”: that is, they are bundled into the five cents per share charge in a non- transparent
1 of 6
be required to pay five cents per share by the full-service broker.
In other words, it is almost impossible to obtain a price discount from a full-service
Wall Street firm for executing a large fund trade. However, that firm is willing to provide an in-kind
discount in the form of soft dollars that can be used to purchase various goods or services. This is
more than a technical pricing oddity. The key point is this: a price discount on the trade (for
example, from five cents to three cents per share) would go directly to the mutual fund and its
shareholders. In-kind services like market data services go directly to the fund management
company and only indirectly to the mutual fund and its shareholders.
MFS has already eliminated the use of “soft dollars” to promote sales of mutual fund
shares. Since January 1, 2004, MFS has been paying cash out of its own pocket to broker-
dealers to promote fund sales. While the SEC has proposed a rule to this effect, MFS has
switched from soft dollars to cash to promote fund sales regardless of whether and when the SEC
adopts its rule.
More dramatically, earlier this month MFS decided to stop using soft dollars to pay for
third-party research1 and market data. Again MFS will pay cash out of its own pocket for these
items. MFS estimates that this decision will cost the management company $10 to $15 million per
year. Yet MFS has agreed not to raise its advisory fees for its funds over the next five years.
Why is MFS willing to take the lead on getting off the addiction to soft dollars and moving to the healthy environment of price discounts?
1 We are not stopping the use of “soft dollars” for proprietary research and other services. Only recently has the SEC issued a concept release on accounting for all the elements of a bundled commission. SEC Release IC-26313 (Dec. 19, 2003).
2 of 6
MFS will issue an individualized quarterly statement, rather than a general listing of fund expenses in basis points, which will show each fund shareholder a reasonable estimate of his or her actual fund expenses in dollar terms.
various categories of fund expenses in basis points. The table might say, for instance:
Advisory Fee 53 bp
Transfer Agency Fee 10 bp
Other Fees 2 bp
12 b-1 Fee 25 bp
Total Expenses 90 bp
Nevertheless, some critics have argued that mutual fund investors need customized
expense statements. By that, these critics mean the actual expenses paid by a shareholder in
period. For example, we would have to compute the exact expenses of a shareholder who held
Fund A from January 15 until March 31 without reinvesting fund dividends; another shareholder
who held Fund B for the whole year and reinvested all fund dividends; and yet another
shareholder who held Fund C from February 1 until June 15 as well as from August 22 until
December 11 (during both periods, assuming no record date for fund dividends occurred).
This type of customized expense statement would, in my opinion, involve enormous
computer programming costs. The program would have to track the holdings of every fund
shareholder on a daily basis, take into account whether a fund dividend was reinvested or paid
out to the shareholder, and apply monthly basis point charges to fund balances reflecting monthly
appreciation or depreciation of fund assets. Of course, these large computer costs would
ultimately be passed on to fund shareholders.
At MFS, we will provide every fund shareholder with an estimate of his or her actual
expenses on their quarterly statements.2 We can do this at an affordable cost by making one
reasonable assumption—that the fund holdings of the shareholder at the end of the quarter were
the same throughout the quarter. Although this is a simplifying assumption, it produces a good
estimate of actual fund expenses since most shareholders do not switch funds during a quarter.
Indeed, this assumption will often lead to a slightly higher estimate of individualized expenses
than the actual amount because some shareholders will buy the fund during the quarter and other
shareholders will reinvest fund dividends during the quarter.
In addition, MFS will send its shareholders in every fund’s semi-annual report the
total amount of brokerage commissions paid by the fund during the relevant period as well as the
fund’s average commission rate per share (for example, 4.83 cents per share on average). But
this information on brokerage commissions should be separated from the fund expense table
because all the other items in the table are ordinary expenses expressed in basis points. By
contrast, brokerage commissions are a capital expense added to the tax basis of the securities
held by the fund, and brokerage commissions are expressed in cents per share.
2 These individualized expenses will not include brokerage costs because they are capitalized in the cost of the portfolio
security.
4 of 6
The mutual fund industry has a unique governance structure: the fund is a separate entity from its external manager. The independent directors of the fund must annually approve the
terms and conditions of the fund’s contract with its external manager. Of course, the independent directors usually reappoint the management company. In an industrial company, how often do the directors throw out the whole management team? But the independent directors of most mutual funds, in my experience, do represent fund shareholders by negotiating for contract terms and monitoring potential conflicts of interest.
industry. To begin with, over 75% of the board is comprised of independent directors, who elect their own independent chairman. The chairman leads the executive sessions of independent directors, which occur before or after every board meeting. The independent chairman also helps set the board’s agenda for each meeting. A lead independent director could definitely take charge of the executive sessions and a lead director could also help set the board’s agenda. Thus, it
does not matter which title is employed; the key is to insure that a senior independent director
plays these two functions.
In many boards, the independent directors have their own independent counsel, as
the MFS boards do. But the independent directors of the MFS funds are going one step further by
appointing their own compliance officer. This officer will monitor all compliance activities by MFS
as well as supervise the fund’s own activities, and will report regularly to the Compliance
Committee of the Board (which itself is composed solely of independent directors).
On the management company side, MFS is the only company I know of that has a
non-executive chairman reporting to the independent directors of the MFS funds. This is a new
position designed to assure that the management company is fully accountable to the funds’
independent directors.
Finally, MFS as a management company has established the new position of Executive Vice President for Regulatory Affairs, and filled the position with a distinguished industry veteran. In addition, MFS has hired a distinguished law firm partner as its new general
5 of 6
This high profile position within MFS is more than symbolic; it represents the great significance
given by MFS to these regulatory functions. While these functions are performed in most fund
management companies, it is rare to see the person in charge of these functions having the title of executive vice president and serving on the executive committee of the firm.
Conclusions
In summary, MFS is trying to establish standards of best practices in three important
areas to fund shareholders:
proposing and adopting a myriad of rules on disclosure requirements and substantive prohibitions or the fund industry—which overlap to a degree with the efforts of the fund management firms.
Because the SEC and the management firms are making such serious efforts to develop
higher behavioral norms for the mutual fund industry, it might be useful for Congress to monitor these efforts before finalizing a bill on mutual fund reforms. These are complex issues that may be better suited to an evolutionary process, led by an expert public agency with the flexibility to address the changing legal and factual environment.
to answer any questions the Chairman or Committee Members might have.
Robert C. Pozen
- Former president of Fidelity Investments and executive chairman of MFS Investment Management
- Expert who has made hundreds of appearances to companies, television audiences and leaders around the world
- Writer for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the Harvard Business Review, and more around the globe
Support Staff
Kimberly Crumpton
Get in Touch
- Building E62-483
- bobpozen@mit.edu
- (617) 715-4813
- (617) 258-6855
From: OSC General Inquiries <INQUIRIES@osc.gov.on.ca>
Date: Wed, May 13, 2026 at 4:50 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: Rep. Thomas Massie: Battling the Treachery of Trump’s Republican Party
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this communication in error, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately and delete the original without making a copy or disclosing its contents.
Le présent message s'adresse exclusivement à son destinataire et peut contenir des renseignements privilégiés et confidentiels. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire de ce document ou si vous l'avez reçu par erreur, vous êtes par la présente avisé qu'il est strictement interdit de le divulguer ou de l'utiliser sans autorisation. Veuillez en avertir l'expéditeur immédiatement et détruire le message original sans le copier ou en révéler le contenu. .
Ontario Securities Commission
No comments:
Post a Comment