A Cleveland firm, which fact checks resumes for
employers, said incorrect start and stop dates for a
former job topped its list of “Top Ten Resume Lies.
Rounding out the list of dubious distinction put together
by Background Information Services was:
false and/or inflated salary history
inaccurate former positions or titles
exaggerated or false listing of
responsibilities at former job
false reason(s) for leaving job
false education Level (GPA) or inaccurate
graduation information
false Information pertaining to special
licenses/certifications acquired
non-existent awards and/or recognitions
phony graduation certificate/diploma
unexplained gaps between jobs
“This fact-stretching exercise is harmless when it
comes to forgetting what month you might have left a job,
but becomes detrimental when that job, in fact, never
existed in the first place,” said Background Information
Services president Jason Morris.
Based on results of Background Information Services
fact-checking and industry data, more than half (56%) of
resumes reviewed contain false or misleading data. More
than a third (34%) lied about the applicant’s experience,
education, and ability to perform essential functions on
the job.
About one in 10 claimed credit for a college degree
they didn’t earn, made up a past employer, or listed an
old job that existed only in their imagination. About the
same number misrepresented why they and an old boss
parted ways.
February 25, 2004 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - As
anticipated, the SEC has decided, by a 4-to-1 vote, to see
what the public thinks about a mandatory redemption fee on
quick, market-timing trades in mutual funds.
>If enacted, the SEC proposal would require that
funds charge a 2% fee on shares sold within five days of
purchase (see
SEC Ponders Five-Day Redemption Fee
).
Not that there isn’t concern about the proposal, even among
the SEC commissioners who agreed to put the idea out for
public comment yesterday.
In fact, SEC commissioner Paul Atkins was so convinced the
plan will hurt shareholders that he voted not to issue it
for public comment, calling the 2% a “simplistic solution.”
“The only winner here I see is the fund industry,” Atkins
complained.
>What isn’t totally clear at present is how such a
redemption fee might be levied on retirement plan
investors.
Frequently those trades are processed via an omnibus
arrangement, obscuring the individual trading details from
the fund company that would ostensibly be tracking and
assessing the charges.
The SEC dealt with this possibility in the new
proposal, noting that “Many funds today that impose
redemption fees do not impose them on shareholders who hold
their shares through financial intermediaries such as
broker-dealers and retirement plans”, the SEC said the
proposed rule would “require that funds obtain the
information they need to assess the redemption fee, and to
oversee the efforts of intermediaries to assess those fees
and remit them to the fund.”
>Perhaps more ominously for plan sponsors, the
proposal might also mean that a plan participant’s
regular payroll contribution, if followed by a routine
rebalancing transfer within five days, might trigger the
redemption fee on the perceived “quick” liquidation of
monies.
>According to Dow Jones, Atkins said it’s no surprise
that fund companies support redemption fees and predicted
they will “laugh all the way to the bank” as mandatory fees
boost fund assets and act as a disincentive for investors
to leave a fund.
Indeed, the Investment Company Institute, a mutual fund
trade industry group, was quick to lend its support to the
proposal – which largely mirrored one the ICI put forth
last Halloween (see
Mutual Fund Proposal No “Treat” for Retirement Plans
).
>SEC commissioner Cynthia Glassman also raised
reservations about the proposal, describing it as a
“band-aid” that won’t deter market timing trades that
generate big profits, making the 2% penalty the cost of
doing business.
Even SEC chief William Donaldson said he may have
reservations as well, but wants the SEC to get comment on
the plan before making any final decision.
>Money market mutual funds and exchange-traded funds
wouldn't be subject to early redemption fees under the SEC
proposal.
Additionally, the SEC has proposed several provisions
designed to prevent the redemption fee from affecting "most
ordinary redemption transactions by smaller investors,"
including:
The rule requires that a fund calculate the
redemption fee on shares held the longest period of time
first.
According to the SEC, this method will minimize the
likelihood that redemptions of part of a shareholder's
account will be assessed a redemption fee.
The rule would include a de minimis exception - the
fund would not be required to impose a redemption fee of
$50 or less.
According to the SEC, this means that a fund could
waive redemption fees on the redemption of $2,500 or less
in fund shares.
The rule would include an emergency exception that
would allow a shareholder not to pay a redemption fee in
the event of an unanticipated financial emergency, which
according to the SEC, means that at least $10,000 would
be available to a shareholder in a financial emergency
and no redemption fee would be charged.
>Another big exception would be given to funds geared
toward market timers, who clearly tell investors that they
permit market timing, which can impose costs on fund
investors. Paul Roye, director of the SEC's investment
management division, said the plan isn't meant to be a
cure-all but rather a supplement to fair-value pricing.
Fair Fare?
>The SEC also said that "The principal solution to
abusive market timing transactions is the accurate
calculation of net asset value each day, using current and
not stale prices."
The SEC reiterated a statement it made last December that
"the Investment Company Act of 1940 requires funds to
calculate their net asset value based on the "fair value"
of a portfolio security if the market quotes are
unavailable or unreliable."
>The SEC went on to note that, "though fair value
pricing can reduce the profits that market timers seek to
extract from mutual funds, it is subjective in nature."
Consequently, the agency believe that a redemption fee,
together with fair value pricing, can serve to "…reduce, if
not eliminate, the profits that market timers seek to
extract from the fund."
The SEC said the release for comments would solicit
information on how funds can more effectively implement
fair value pricing methods, and whether the SEC should
provide further guidance in this area.
Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted to
the Commission within 60 days of its publication in the
Federal Register.
However, changes won't become final without a second
vote by the SEC.