RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:14 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 70 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:51 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36390
BINGO! And the pieces of the puzzle falls into place. A law professor's op/ed in the NYT:

Consider how we 401(k) holders behave as investors. How many of us thought to sue Wells Fargo after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau revealed that the bank had created millions of fake credit card and bank accounts? Or to push our fund managers to do so for us? How many of us call up our fund managers after a quarter, a year or a decade in which we underperformed the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index to renegotiate our fees? Or even to switch managers? How many of us even know how our funds performed relative to the S.&P. 500?

The answer to all of these questions is a number very close to zero. We 401(k) holders are the world’s ideal source of capital. We let ourselves be charged high fees that we do not understand, we accept poor returns quarter after quarter, we never sue to enforce our rights, we never vote as shareholders and we never tell our investment managers how we think they ought to vote. We are beyond passive; we are supine.

At bottom, the problem is structural. We are to our investees and investment managers what nonunionized, “right to work” workers are to their employers: alone and devoid of leverage to negotiate. That stands in sharp contrast to traditional pensions, which, like unions, are collective and centrally managed.

For example, the nation’s largest traditional pension, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, known as Calpers, has 1.9 million members and over $300 billion in assets. When it calls up an investment manager to complain about performance, or to dump that manager, or when it calls a lawyer to sue for fraud, that catches the attention of corporate managers, of hedge funds, of private equity funds. That’s why they succeed where we fail. All of us benefit from their successes, which raise the value of companies we own.

Our mutual funds could do the same for us, if they wanted to, but they don’t. Despite important recent gestures towards activism, they have trailed far behind pension fund activists, and will continue to do so. They don’t want to challenge the compensation, reelection or legal judgment of the same corporate managers from whom they hope to win the right to manage our 401(k) money in the first place. Not true for public pension funds.

In just the past few years, pension funds (private pension funds have been almost completely eliminated) have radically reformed the role of shareholder opinion in executive compensation, successfully lobbying for the inclusion of “say-on-pay” votes in the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation and for mandatory disclosure of the chief executive/worker pay ratio. Pensions have also played the most prominent role in vivifying corporate voting, long an oxymoron. Because of a campaign run by New York City’s pension funds and others, hundreds of companies now offer significant, long-term shareholders a meaningful opportunity to put their own board candidates on a corporate ballot.


They can scam ignorant 401(k) participants over and over again, whereas pension funds hire experienced, knowledgeable fund managers, who can wield considerable clout!

And folks like glen cheer them on!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 1:09 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10416
Yeah, some of them are scammers. Maybe most of them.


I guess Glen got your goat again, another goat. A goat or two a day it seems like.



I don't know what Glen does with all your goats. I'm concerned. :|


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 5:59 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36390
Yeah, some of them are scammers. Maybe most of them.


I guess Glen got your goat again, another goat. A goat or two a day it seems like.



I don't know what Glen does with all your goats. I'm concerned. :|

And it looks like I have yours. I just turn them over to glen.

Just making the point that that working class folks like glen are voting against their own best interests.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 7:42 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17399
Well there are several problems with your post. Number one being is people like me do not vote against our own best interests. We do two things, first we vote against what you perceive to be our best interests. Second we vote for what we consider to be in the best interest of our country. Unlike liberals who apparently look for what is in it for them and vote for their personal interests as opposed to what is in the best interest of the country.

Now on to your main point as flawed as they are. You are correct that we need safegards in place to keep people from being taken advantage of and from making stupid investments. Things like Bitcoin and Emu herds need to be off limits.

Now your link cited public pensions which inmany cases can be funded by simply raising taxes. Of course the negative side is in places like Chicago and Detroit the elected members of the Democratic Party paid back their public sector union support by agreeing to pensions that now the bills are coming due they simply cannot pay. Of course during those times decades back when they agreed to those plans the Democratic Party elected officials didnt do their due diligence because they didnt care. They wanted elected today and let future elected Democrats deal with the shortfall.

Then of course we can discount the entire link as total liberal bullshit not because it was written by some liberal law professor, not because it is an opinion piece [ remember all those times you and others have chided me for posting op/ed's] But because it claims the California Public Pension deal has 300 billion in assets.

As we see in this link from the pension fund Calpers is has an unfunded liabilty of close to 97 billion.

https://calpensions.com/2017/04/03/cals ... all-grows/

So the author of the op/ed is totally wrong to cite California as a shining example. Now when it comes to private pensions we have to make sure those funds are off linits to both the company and the Union Bosses. Otherwise there is just to great temptation for people to steal those funds. That along with while today the company might be solvent and looking as if they can go on forever. But, 40 years later they are no longer relevent or even still in business.

So now that I have destroyed your here comes either you hate the working man or something about Mitt Romney in 3-2-1. As opposed to a fact based arguement proving ypou are correct.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:36 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36390
Ignorance as usual. You simply don't know what you are talking about. Here's the reality:

Current Total Market Value: $352.09 Billion

You don't understand assets vs. liability.

And nothing is perfect, but the investor class wants us in 401(k)s, so that we don't know how to invest properly, and we don't have a say in corporate governance like pension funds do, so they can rob everyone blind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:40 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17399
Not that you or any other lefty is going to look at the link other than to see if you can trash the source. This link has a chart that shows that nationwide public pensions are under funded by about 2 TRILLION.

If companies or local, state or the Federal Gov't are going to make pension promises those promises needs to be 100% funded from day one. Through hirer prices or less profit. In the case of various Govt's through higher taxes or contributions from the workers. It is so obvious that Democratic Party elected officials have been paying off union support for decades that they have not been funding.

If they had to fund those pensions from raising taxes I am pretty sure they would negotiate those pensions a little tighter. As opposed to paying the Unions and their workers for their votes by agreeing to contracts they cant fulfill.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:45 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17399
Ignorance as usual. You simply don't know what you are talking about. Here's the reality:

Current Total Market Value: $352.09 Billion

You don't understand assets vs. liability.

And nothing is perfect, but the investor class wants us in 401(k)s, so that we don't know how to invest properly, and we don't have a say in corporate governance like pension funds do, so they can rob everyone blind.


Bullcorn you are ignoring assets vs unfunded liabilities Calpers is underfunded and to use it as some sort of shining example is laughable.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:47 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36390
Not that you or any other lefty is going to look at the link other than to see if you can trash the source. This link has a chart that shows that nationwide public pensions are under funded by about 2 TRILLION.

If companies or local, state or the Federal Gov't are going to make pension promises those promises needs to be 100% funded from day one. Through hirer prices or less profit. In the case of various Govt's through higher taxes or contributions from the workers. It is so obvious that Democratic Party elected officials have been paying off union support for decades that they have not been funding.

If they had to fund those pensions from raising taxes I am pretty sure they would negotiate those pensions a little tighter. As opposed to paying the Unions and their workers for their votes by agreeing to contracts they cant fulfill.

First, again, you're arguing from ignorance. Just because they have unfunded liabilities doesn't mean they don't have assets.

And BTW, my link was from CALPERS itself.

Most state pensions were funded by the workers themselves, too, so that they didn't have to pay into Social Security. Then the states decided to cut taxes and not fund their pensions. That's what you get when you elect Republicans. Cut the funding, then blame Democrats and the unions because the pensions aren't funded.

Of course, you worship the investor class, so you are blind to the fact that they are fucking the working class. Of course, you don't have ANY investments at all, no 401(k), no nothing. So you'll be dependent upon Uncle Sugar to take care of you in your old age. Therefore, you don't want any other working person to have anything more than you. Just like a working-class Republican.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:06 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17399
First, again, you're arguing from ignorance. Just because they have unfunded liabilities doesn't mean they don't have assets.

And BTW, my link was from CALPERS itself.

Most state pensions were funded by the workers themselves, too, so that they didn't have to pay into Social Security. Then the states decided to cut taxes and not fund their pensions. That's what you get when you elect Republicans. Cut the funding, then blame Democrats and the unions because the pensions aren't funded.

Of course, you worship the investor class, so you are blind to the fact that they are fucking the working class. Of course, you don't have ANY investments at all, no 401(k), no nothing. So you'll be dependent upon Uncle Sugar to take care of you in your old age. Therefore, you don't want any other working person to have anything more than you. Just like a working-class Republican.


Yes they have assets we all understand that. If you have 100 dollars in assets and 500 in debts you are not solvent. What you and the author of the op/ed are doing is the typical liberal deal of lying and telling the truth at the same time. By continuing to claim they have 300 billion in assets you are attempting to give the false impression that the plan is solvent.

It is not solvent it is pretty much broke. Another thing they are doing is claiming a return of over 7% a year into the future. That is a pretty strong return. While some years they will get that and more but in others their investments are going to lose money as all funds do.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:12 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17399
http://www.mybudget360.com/calpers-cals ... t-markets/

500 billion underfunded according to Stanford.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:14 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36390
http://www.mybudget360.com/calpers-calstrs-ucrs-california-pension-state-local-government-debt-markets/

500 billion underfunded according to Stanford.

What the op/ed said was correct. Is your continued argument ignorance or stupidity?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:19 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17399
What the op/ed said was correct. Is your continued argument ignorance or stupidity?



None of the above, I just recognized the Op/ED as being a LIE. Because it is falsely giving the impression that the Pension Fund is well funded and is running a 300 billion dollar surplus. While I am sure the low information voters who vote for liberals might believe those lies. Those of us who are informed know it for what it is. Just another LW Lie.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:21 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17399
If we are going to have public pensions they need to be 100% funded. The problem is the Democrats who pass those pensions do not fund them. Because they know if they raise taxes to pay for those promises they will be in trouble at the ballot box.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:28 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36390
If we are going to have public pensions they need to be 100% funded. The problem is the Democrats who pass those pensions do not fund them. Because they know if they raise taxes to pay for those promises they will be in trouble at the ballot box.

As I said, the Republicans cut taxes and then refused to fund the pensions, then blamed the dems and the unions. And the workers who put their own money in, too, are getting screwed.

But then, you love to see workers screwed, don't you?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:22 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16086
Well...I'm pretty sure me and the blonde are members of the "investor class". We invest and if we didn't we would not be in the financial position that we enjoy, and probably looking down our noses at the "investor class."

So, I see a statement where it's suggested that if I actually have a class, and if it's actually the class that is targeted in the topic, this statement is painted with a pretty broad brush, since the last time I checked my frontal cortex I was not experiencing any hate for pensions or pensioners.

But if I'm misunderstanding something, perhaps somebody will set me straight.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:45 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16086
If we are going to have public pensions they need to be 100% funded. The problem is the Democrats who pass those pensions do not fund them. Because they know if they raise taxes to pay for those promises they will be in trouble at the ballot box.


Do you know how rich this country is? Do you have a fucking clue? If every politician, Rep or Dem, left or right was less interested in grabbing at every fucking penny of government income for publicly funded projects (including massive military spending projects) that we don't need in his/her district or state (you recall the bridge to nowhere, eh glen?), if we didn't have 11 active fucking carrier strike groups (that's a specific reference for our massive general problem of military spending...got it glen?), if Republicans weren't constantly slashing at the federal corporate tax rates, if Republicans weren't constantly slashing at the federal personal income tax rates which have been the lowest of all developed nations for decades, if Republican presidents weren't starting personal wars all over the world designed for nothing more than the establishment of a presidential legacy for a mediocrity who will never have a legacy anyway...if the people got their heads out of their asses and stopped allowing the government to waste money on shit that benefits nobody but lawyers and politicians...we would have plenty of money for health care for everybody, equal education for everybody, pensions for public employees, and all the other social protections that should be there for the people. The people will hurt the politicians at the ballot box if they don't continue to slash at taxes...that would be the American people, who want what they want, want it right this fucking nano-second, and want somebody else to pay for it. Well fuck the American people and the horses they rode in on.

We have way more goddamn money than every EU nation with higher standards of living, better education, better health care, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality rates, better public pensions, and lower fucking firearms homicide rates. Because they spend their tax revenue on the right stuff.

But no...idiots like you have decided we need 12 active carrier strike groups because a criminal like Donald Trump and his Republican co-conspirators in the legislative branch tell you so.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:51 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:10 pm
Posts: 17414
Location: The blue parts of the map
We're investment class all the way, and we think pensions are just fine, except when city employees give themselves inflated ones while shaking down everyone else.

Then there's that military thing. Has anyone asked the Navy whether it needs another carrier group? Is this like the Air Force getting planes it doesn't want or need?

Then there's BRAC. Everyone in Congre$$ had gotten a base for their constituents. Here you go, more jobs, vote for me. So the Feds decided to close some of the extra ones. Funny how many of them were in California, even after you account for the size of the state. Odd, that. Or maybe not so odd.

Meanwhile we have, what is it now, 150 bases overseas?

_________________
We used to hang our traitors. Now we elect them to lead us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 1:11 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1067
As I said, the Republicans cut taxes and then refused to fund the pensions, then blamed the dems and the unions. And the workers who put their own money in, too, are getting screwed.
This is completely unfair. The fact is that both Dems and Reps have played this game of offering benefits without a way to pay. In Illinois, for example, certainly one of the worst examples of underfunded pensions, the Democratic controlled legislature has continually underfunded pensions, both under Democratic and Republican governors. In fact I don't think they have ever...not once...fully funded their liability. Where this really screws the workers who've earned the pensions, is that they are fully paying their share. (and to make matters worse, they pulled them out of the social security system as well so they dont receive that benefit...and if they have years from non-public work, their social security is reduced).

So now who should pay?...all the citizens of the state (which is who got the benefit of their work) or the employees not get what was promised and agreed to contractually and constitutionally. The debt is so bad that if the answer is all the citizens, the reality it that there are other programs that will have to be cut.

I assume this is a similar situation in some of the other states with particular funding problems.

But it wasn't just the Dems (glen) or the Reps (GoU) who created this situation. It was the politicians of both parties focused solely on their own, personal, interests.


Last edited by Viewer on Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 1:18 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 pm
Posts: 12863
If we are going to have public pensions they need to be 100% funded. The problem is the Democrats who pass those pensions do not fund them. Because they know if they raise taxes to pay for those promises they will be in trouble at the ballot box.

glen, I know you're trolling because you make a dumb ass statement like this. The fact is city/town/county/state government pensions a funded funded by the elected leaders in each of those political districts and those leaders are both republicans and democrats.

_________________
When you vote Left you vote right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 1:34 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 pm
Posts: 12863
We're investment class all the way, and we think pensions are just fine, except when city employees give themselves inflated ones while shaking down everyone else.

For some reason, people think city employee pensions are overly generous and want to do away with them except for police and fire personnel. If these people were truly honest they'd want the police and fire personnel to have the same pension as other city employees have.

Quote:
Then there's that military thing. Has anyone asked the Navy whether it needs another carrier group? Is this like the Air Force getting planes it doesn't want or need?

During the Cold War, the need for overseas bases could be justified but now that's not the case. We closed a lot of Army and Air Force bases in Germany during the 90s. Three of the four bases I was stationed at in Europe are closed as are many of the other bases I could have been stationed at.

Quote:
Then there's BRAC. Everyone in Congre$$ had gotten a base for their constituents. Here you go, more jobs, vote for me. So the Feds decided to close some of the extra ones. Funny how many of them were in California, even after you account for the size of the state. Odd, that. Or maybe not so odd.

BRAC is a good program as long as the closing base isn't in your Congressional district. That's why closing an overseas base is a lot easier than closing a stateside base.

Quote:
Meanwhile we have, what is it now, 150 bases overseas?

Multiply that number by five and you'd be close. Although the number sounds high you have to remember there are a lot of "small" bases like radar sites. During the draw down of 80s and 90s, many overseas bases were closed but a number still had one or units operating on them even though they were officially closed.

_________________
When you vote Left you vote right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:07 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1067
We're investment class all the way, and we think pensions are just fine, except when city employees give themselves inflated ones while shaking down everyone else.

Then there's that military thing. Has anyone asked the Navy whether it needs another carrier group? Is this like the Air Force getting planes it doesn't want or need?

Then there's BRAC. Everyone in Congre$$ had gotten a base for their constituents. Here you go, more jobs, vote for me. So the Feds decided to close some of the extra ones. Funny how many of them were in California, even after you account for the size of the state. Odd, that. Or maybe not so odd.

Meanwhile we have, what is it now, 150 bases overseas?
With the exception of a relatively small number of elected officials "city employees" cannot give themselves pensions, inflated or otherwise. And the the amount going to those elected officials, while maybe unreasonable sometimes, even in the aggregate aren't the real crisis states and municipalities are facing. It's the aggregate of all employees, the bulk of whom are not decision makers.

And yes, in most cases the Navy, Air Force and rest of the military can 'justify' their call for additional allocations. But it is the job of our politicians to balance those needs with other societal needs. Its unusual (I'm sure not unheard of though) for the military get get a new carrier, a new plane or a new base that they can't say helps US 'preparedness' and 'deterrence.' (And yes, of course, some/oftentimes the benefits are beyond just military considerations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:37 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 pm
Posts: 12863
BINGO! And the pieces of the puzzle falls into place. A law professor's op/ed in the NYT:

Consider how we 401(k) holders behave as investors. How many of us thought to sue Wells Fargo after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau revealed that the bank had created millions of fake credit card and bank accounts? Or to push our fund managers to do so for us? How many of us call up our fund managers after a quarter, a year or a decade in which we underperformed the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index to renegotiate our fees? Or even to switch managers? How many of us even know how our funds performed relative to the S.&P. 500?

The answer to all of these questions is a number very close to zero. We 401(k) holders are the world’s ideal source of capital. We let ourselves be charged high fees that we do not understand, we accept poor returns quarter after quarter, we never sue to enforce our rights, we never vote as shareholders and we never tell our investment managers how we think they ought to vote. We are beyond passive; we are supine.

At bottom, the problem is structural. We are to our investees and investment managers what nonunionized, “right to work” workers are to their employers: alone and devoid of leverage to negotiate. That stands in sharp contrast to traditional pensions, which, like unions, are collective and centrally managed.

For example, the nation’s largest traditional pension, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, known as Calpers, has 1.9 million members and over $300 billion in assets. When it calls up an investment manager to complain about performance, or to dump that manager, or when it calls a lawyer to sue for fraud, that catches the attention of corporate managers, of hedge funds, of private equity funds. That’s why they succeed where we fail. All of us benefit from their successes, which raise the value of companies we own.

Our mutual funds could do the same for us, if they wanted to, but they don’t. Despite important recent gestures towards activism, they have trailed far behind pension fund activists, and will continue to do so. They don’t want to challenge the compensation, reelection or legal judgment of the same corporate managers from whom they hope to win the right to manage our 401(k) money in the first place. Not true for public pension funds.

In just the past few years, pension funds (private pension funds have been almost completely eliminated) have radically reformed the role of shareholder opinion in executive compensation, successfully lobbying for the inclusion of “say-on-pay” votes in the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation and for mandatory disclosure of the chief executive/worker pay ratio. Pensions have also played the most prominent role in vivifying corporate voting, long an oxymoron. Because of a campaign run by New York City’s pension funds and others, hundreds of companies now offer significant, long-term shareholders a meaningful opportunity to put their own board candidates on a corporate ballot.


They can scam ignorant 401(k) participants over and over again, whereas pension funds hire experienced, knowledgeable fund managers, who can wield considerable clout!

And folks like glen cheer them on!

Jesse Unruh was California's State Treasurer from 1975 - 1987 and he was responsible for making corporations sit up and listen to him when he disagreed with them. He oversaw the investment of California's pension funds and with that much money under his control he was able to withhold investing funds which didn't benefit California or it's pension members, something in which average individual investors can't do. The difference between CalPERS and a 401k program is CalPERS represents California public employees, retirees, and family members whereas a 401k manager may represent employees from a variety of private sector jobs. CalPERS caters to the needs of a closed membership whereas the 401k manager caters to the needs of a general population. So who is a CEO going to listen to, someone who controls billions of dollars (calPERS) for specific group of people or someone (401k) manager who may control (hundreds?) millions of dollars from employees who have no common interest with each other?

_________________
When you vote Left you vote right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:08 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:36 pm
Posts: 250
Retirement Funding in contemporary society is a mixed bag.

The idea that union pension fund management is superior and 401k/IRA holders are constantly being ripped off is simply wrong.

"Hedge funds are no place for public pension investments"
"Over the past eight years, by my estimate, pension plans have cumulatively lost about $600 billion compared with what they could have earned by passive (unmanaged) investment. That’s a lot, and that’s why I have pleaded with the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Employees’ Retirement Fund to abandon its misguided policy of investing in hedge funds."
"But it’s easy to be drawn in when pension fund trustees are investing other people’s money. The lust for imagined riches and the desire to be part of the special fraternity who can invest with a celebrity hedge fund manager are just too much for logic to overcome.

Unless the public wakes up and tells pension fund trustees and others deciding how to invest their retirement funds that these are unsuitable investments, hedge funds will continue to be a fabulous idea for their managers and a poor investment for the investors."

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/he ... 6c0a8d0a21

"114 Multiemployer Pension Plans Projected to Fail Within 20 Years"
"The forecast, from a new analysis by actuarial consulting firm Cheiron Inc., draws on the latest annual financial reports filed by multiemployer pension plans with regulators. The troubled plans have total assets of $43.5 billion and liabilities of $79.9 billion, leaving unfunded liabilities—future benefit payouts promised to retirees and beneficiaries for which reserve funds have not been set aside—of $36.4 billion."

"The PBGC recently projected that it expects its insurance program for multiemployer pension plans will run out of money by the end of 2025. "As the demand for PBGC financial assistance for insolvent multiemployer plans increases, it will further strain PBGC's depleting assets—leading to estimated insolvency of the multiemployer insurance fund by the end of 2025," the PBGC reported. "If that happens, we won't have the money to pay PBGC guarantees at current levels to multiemployer plan participants when their plans run out of money."

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/ ... -fail.aspx

Dallas Police and Fire

"The investment problems stem from 2006 when the Board decided to diversify its investment strategy to reduce the risks associated with equities. These diversified investments included luxury homes in Hawaii, student housing in Texas, and raw land in Idaho and Colorado.

A Dallas Morning News expose in 2013 describes one of the Hawaiian homes as consisting of six buildings, a championship golf course, two infinity pools, a sculpture garden and a large entertainment pavilion. In 2013, it had been on the market for five years with no one willing to pay the asking price of $22 million, so the fund – which managed these investments internally – started renting it out for as much as $15,000 per night to recoup some of its operating costs."

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dalla ... 2016-12-14

"Unfortunately, what many of these funds owe to beneficiaries far exceeds their ability to pay. Truth in Accounting, a nonprofit that aims to educate taxpayers on government finances, estimated that the unfunded liability at 500 large pension plans across the nation stood at $1.3 trillion in fiscal year 2015.

That is a mighty deep hole. And many pension fund trustees have responded by increasing their allocation to so-called alternative investments, such as in hedge funds and private equity, rather than sticking to lower-cost vehicles that invest in stocks and bonds. They seem to think that swinging for the fences with the more exotic strategies will close the yawning gap.

These investments beat the market, sometimes. But their enormous fees — as much as 2 percent in management fees and 20 percent of any gains — must always be paid. And these costs push pension funds deeper into the hole."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/busi ... -fees.html


"The hedge-fund delusion that grips pension-fund managers"

https://www.economist.com/news/finance- ... their-high

And lets not forget that Pension Funds are Private Equity Funds(i.e. Bain) best friends.

There are a great many healthy Defined Benefit funds out there but they aren't necessarily better.

Whole lot of people like the ownership, flexibility, and above all portability of the 401K/IRA. 45 years at the Plant is long past.
And as to these people constantly being ripped off - the average expense ratio is 0.64%.

Expense Ratios Are Falling
"Investors are paying less for fund management. The asset-weighted expense ratio across all funds
(including mutual funds and exchange-traded products, or ETPs, but excluding money market funds
and funds of funds) was 0.64% in 2014, down from 0.65% in 2013 and 0.76% five years ago.
The trend is being driven more by investors seeking low-cost funds than it is by fund companies
cutting fees. Fund investors are increasingly buying passive funds and investing in lower-cost actively
managed funds. Asset growth has also spurred fee reductions triggered by built-in breakpoints.
However, much of the increased economies of scale are going to the fund industry rather than
investors. Assets under management have risen faster than fees have fallen."

https://news.morningstar.com/pdfs/2015_fee_study.pdf

Make no mistake, there are ripoff artists out there but that 0.64% says they are the exception.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:02 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17399
glen, I know you're trolling because you make a dumb ass statement like this. The fact is city/town/county/state government pensions a funded funded by the elected leaders in each of those political districts and those leaders are both republicans and democrats.



I am not trolling and what I said is 100% true. Otherwise we wouldn't be seeing so many public pensions being so woefully underfunded. Including the Calpers example in the OP's link. Which so underfunded that it is only a matter of time before it blows up.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:32 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 pm
Posts: 12863


I am not trolling and what I said is 100% true. Otherwise we wouldn't be seeing so many public pensions being so woefully underfunded. Including the Calpers example in the OP's link. Which so underfunded that it is only a matter of time before it blows up.

glen, I know you have a problem with reading but please go back and reread, slowly and out loud if necessary, what I wrote. I don't deny CalPERS is underfunded but that's because elected officials, not the employees, didn't fund it. And those elected officials are at the city/town/county/state levels and these people are republicans and Democrats. Neither party is innocent but you can't put the blame on one party because it's the elected officials in each political jurisdiction that are under-funding it. IMO, if you are an elected official you're obligated to fund employee pensions. You have to make the decisions as what programs to cut funding to in order to meet your employee obligations.

_________________
When you vote Left you vote right.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 70 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group