BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 792| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONSENT Bill No: AB 792 Author: Chiu (D) Introduced:2/25/15 Vote: 21 SENATE BANKING & F.I. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/17/15 AYES: Block, Vidak, Galgiani, Hall, Hueso, Lara, Morrell ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/18/15 - See last page for vote SUBJECT: Board of directors: investment standards SOURCE: Nonprofit Organizations Committee of the Business Law Section of the California State Bar DIGEST: This bill provides that compliance by a nonprofit public benefit or nonprofit religious corporation with the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (UPMIFA), as specified, constitutes compliance with the investment standards applicable to these corporations. ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1)Establishes the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law (Corporations Code Sections 5110 et seq.) and Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law (Corporations Code Sections 9110 et seq.); provides that the boards of both types of corporations must meet specified standards in investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, and managing those corporations' investments; provides that nothing shall be construed to preclude the application of UPMIFA, if that act AB 792 Page 2 would otherwise be applicable, but states that nothing in the UPMIFA alters the status of governing boards, or the duties and liabilities of directors under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law or Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law (Corporations Code Sections 5240 and 9250). 2)Provides for the UPMIFA (Probate Code Section 15000 et seq.). The act applies the following standards to investments by persons responsible for managing and investing institutional funds (Probate Code Section 18503; similar standards apply to investments by persons responsible for managing endowment funds, pursuant to Probate Code Section 18504): a) In addition to complying with the duty of loyalty, each person responsible for managing and investing an institutional fund shall manage and invest the fund in good faith and with the care an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances. b) In managing and investing an institutional fund, an institution may incur only costs that are appropriate and reasonable in relation to the assets, the purposes of the institution, and the skills available to the institution, and shall make a reasonable effort to verify facts relevant to the management and investment of the fund. c) Except as otherwise provided by a gift instrument, those responsible for managing and investing an institutional fund must consider general economic conditions; the possible effect of inflation or deflation; the expected tax consequences, if any, of investment decisions or strategies; the role that each investment or course of action plays within the overall investment portfolio of the fund; the expected total return from income and the appreciation of investments; other resources of the institution; the needs of the institution and the fund to make distributions and to preserve capital; and an asset's special relationship or special value, if any, to the charitable purposes of the institution. This bill: AB 792 Page 3 1)Provides, under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, that compliance with the UPMIFA (Probate Code Section 18501 et seq.), if that act would be applicable, is deemed to represent compliance with the rules for investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, and managing a nonprofit public benefit corporation's investments. 2)Provides, under the Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law, that compliance with the UPMIFA, if that act would be applicable, is deemed to represent compliance with the rules for investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, and managing a nonprofit religious corporation's investments. Background AB 792 is sponsored by the Nonprofit Organizations Committee of the Business Law Section of the California State Bar to clarify the investment standards applicable to nonprofit public benefit and nonprofit religious corporations, and provide greater investment flexibility to these types of organizations. According to this bill's sponsor, the requirements imposed on California's nonprofit public benefit and nonprofit religious corporations with respect to the manner in which they are allowed to invest are confusing and unclear. For example, Corporations Code Sections 5240 and 9250 allow the application of UPMIFA, but they specifically subject the application of UPMIFA to Corporations Code requirements. This leads to a confusing interplay of rules, which causes most practitioners to advise clients to attempt to comply with both sets of rules, resulting in an overly conservative investment approach. As just one example, the sponsor cites the provision of Section 5240 that prohibits "speculation" for each individual investment, but fails to define what is meant by speculation. The prohibition against speculation in connection with individual investments is inconsistent with UPMIFA, which articulates a focus on the overall fund, rather than on specific investments, and which avoids use of the term speculation, but instead specifies a variety of factors that should be used when vetting an investment, including a consideration of the risk of the investment and the appropriateness of that risk to the AB 792 Page 4 institution. AB 792 allows compliance with UPMIFA to satisfy the requirements of the Corporations Code. The UPMIFA has been adopted by 49 states and the District of Columbia, and has been a part of California law since 2009. If AB 792 is enacted, nonprofits will be in a better position to avoid an overly conservative investment approach and improve returns. For example, reliance on the UPMIFA standards would allow investment in widely-used index funds across different asset classes. Related/Prior Legislation SB 1329 (Harman, Chapter 715, Statutes of 2008) adopted the UPMIFA. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No SUPPORT: (Verified6/18/15) Nonprofit Organizations Committee of the Business Law Section of the California State Bar (source) California Society of Association Executives League of California Community Foundations OPPOSITION: (Verified6/18/15) None received ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Nonprofit Organizations Committee of the Business Law Section of the California State Bar is sponsoring AB 792, and the League of California Community Foundations and California Society of Association Executives are supporting the bill. Supporters state, "Current state regulatory requirements as they relate to the investments of nonprofit public benefit and religious corporations have been AB 792 Page 5 confusing and unclear, causing nonprofits to adopt an overly conservative investment approach. AB 792 seeks to clarify those requirements by amending the Corporations Code to authorize nonprofits to utilize appropriate investments in accordance with the nationally recognized standards of UPMIFA. UPMIFA clearly 1) articulates a focus on the overall fund rather than a particular investment and 2) specifies a variety of factors, including a consideration of risk and the appropriateness thereof with respect to the institution. Under the UPMIFA standards, nonprofits would be in a better position to avoid an overly conservative investment approach and improve results." ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/18/15 AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins NO VOTE RECORDED: Kim, Mathis, Melendez Prepared by:Eileen Newhall / B. & F.I. / (916) 651-4102 6/18/15 11:33:14 **** END **** AB 792 Page 6