The Labor Department last week let a Hawaii pension plan sell land to its own sponsor's subsidiary, at a floor of 16,247,000 dollars.
It justified the sale by finding that 16,247,000 would likely beat the 14,770,000 the plan gets by holding on.
16,247,000 is 14,770,000 times 1.1, to the dollar. The floor was built that way, as ten percent above the appraised investment value, and the appraised investment value is 14,770,000.
So the finding reduces to 1.1 times a number exceeding that number. The Department presents it as what the 2024 appraisal shows.
The definition is worse than the arithmetic. Investment value, the exemption says, is the value of a property to a particular investor, and the appraiser reached this one by counting what the parcel is worth to Straub because Straub owns the parcel next door. The plan does not own the parcel next door. A buyer specific premium is standing in for what continued ownership is worth to the seller.
The pensioners are probably fine. Fair market value came in at 13,030,000, the Department pushed the price to 14,770,000, then backed a further ten percent, and the floor is restruck against a fresh appraisal on the day of sale. The plan is getting roughly 25 percent over market.
Which is what makes it worth saying out loud. A transaction can be good for everyone in it and the reasoning offered to justify it can still be circular, and the reasoning is what the next applicant cites.
65 written comments came in from individuals, and one from the Hawai'i Nurses' Association, OPEIU Local 50. The vast majority asked for a hearing. The Department declined to hold one.
This is how conflicted transaction law gets made in America. Not in litigation, where a judge tests the logic, but in an exemption process where the applicant proposes the valuation method, the agency negotiates the number upward until it is comfortable, and the comparison that justifies the deal is assembled after the price is agreed. Nobody in that room has any reason whatsoever to ask whether the test was capable of failing.
Show more
The Senate should bring the Clarity Act to the floor and finish it.
Regardless of the outcome, this industry will keep building, and the only question is whether it builds inside a clear framework or around one.
Rules that strengthen consumer protection, market integrity, and financial stability serve everyone, and every week of delay is another week without them.
Let’s get this done as soon as possible.
Show more