CalPERs about to post $31 billion loss (stats, safe, rating)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

I love the 2 step back step logic.

"Well we don't know what will happen! Just wait and see!"

I guess that's better than "CalPERs is like Amazon.com", so I'd say we're getting somewhere.

Well, you / we don't know, in fact, do we (rhetorical). So there you have it. "We" will adjust as necessary as situations and opportunities unfold. Just as humanity has always done with every challenge since we emerged from caves.

And, of course, I didn't say CalPers is like Amazon. That's your silly rephrasing of my excellent analogy of market potential allowing for growth. Your shtick of creating sensational points of attack and alarm by parsing statements and reassembling them to fit your alarmist narratives wouldn't make the first round of a jr high school debate team event. You need a new sport, sport.

[Vic Romano]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

I'm Nostradamus man! I literally posted this thread ONE WEEK ago, and was making the point that 7.5% is unsustainable and not realistic and totally ridiculous to put that burden on California taxpayers.

Here I'll post for you exactly what I said a week ago:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/45095018-post36.html



Despite you, 2sleepy, and a few others trying to attempt a full court press to somehow convince anyone who might read your totally ignorance on the subject, that somehow CalPERs losses and expectations were alright and somehow comparable to "Amazon.com" (my personal favorite btw), just 2 days ago, the actual fund managers are basically conceding my original point was completely right.

I should invoice you for the lesson I taught you, 2sleepy, and the other CalPERs cheerleaders.

But something tells me you won't concede that you were totally ignorant and astronomically wrong about the CalPERs fund, and continue to embarrass yourself by exposing how totally ignorant you are about the subject.

Wow.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Well, you / we don't know, in fact, do we (rhetorical). So there you have it. "We" will adjust as necessary as situations and opportunities unfold. Just as humanity has always done with every challenge since we emerged from caves.

I know what will happen. CalPERs is going to lower their fund return expectations, the state will eventually require a higher contribution, California taxpayers will cover the losses, and this will NEED to happen to prevent CalPERs from totally imploding.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

I'm Nostradamus man! I literally posted this thread ONE WEEK ago, and was making the point that 7.5% is unsustainable and not realistic and totally ridiculous to put that burden on California taxpayers. Despite you, 2sleepy, and a few others trying to attempt a full court press to somehow convince anyone who might read your totally ignorance on the subject, that somehow CalPERs losses and expectations were alright and somehow comparable to "Amazon.com" (my personal favorite btw), just 2 days ago, the actual fund managers are basically conceding my original point was completely right.

I should invoice you for the lesson I taught you, 2sleepy, and the other CalPERs cheerleaders.

But something tells me you won't concede that you were totally ignorant and astronomically wrong about the CalPERs fund, and continue to embarrass yourself by exposing how totally ignorant you are about the subject.

WTH? The idea that CalPERS should establish a lower projected return than 7.5% has been under discussion for two years now both by analysts and by CalPERS. Do you think you are the first one who brought it up, or that somehow you prognosticated it? Good God man, get a grip.

You come in here today trying to claim you won an argument, but the argument you claim you one is NOT the one you have been making.

Since the beginning of this thread you have tried to say that taxpayers have to "pay back" 31 billion dollars of an actuarial loss.

If this your way of ending the argument and saving face or what?

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Since the beginning of this thread you have tried to say that taxpayers have to "pay back" 31 billion dollars of an actuarial loss.

If the CalPERs fund fails to return 7.5% say for 5 years straight (we're on 3 straight years of massive losses), California taxpayers won't have to pay back the difference?

Is that really the argument you're going to hang your hat on?

Do people like you and Tulemutt just enjoy taking the side of the weakest argument possible, and attempting to defend rationally weak stances? That seems sadistic (but enjoyable for me).

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

If the CalPERs fund fails to return 7.5% say for 5 years straight (we're on 3 straight years of massive losses), California taxpayers won't have to pay back the difference?
Do people like you and Tulemutt just enjoy taking the side of the weakest argument possible, and attempting to defend rationally weak stances? That seems sadistic (but enjoyable for me).

No we just enjoy enlightening the likes of people like you:

TOTAL FUND NET RATE OF RETURNS
Fiscal year to date ended 6/30/2015 2.4%
3 years for period ended 6/30/2015 10.9%
5 years for period ended 6/30/2015 10.7%
10 years for period ended 6/30/2015 6.2%
20 years for period ended 6/30/2015 7.8%

And once again, taxpayers do not pay back 'actuarial losses', I think I've said that probably 5 or 6 times now..not sure why you don't get it.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by sav858

CalPERS is the equivalent to Social Security, not a 401K. Many public employees do have the equivalent of a 401K called a 401A in addition to CalPERS. Don't forget they're not accruing any social security benefits either as long as they are paying into CalPERS.

Not always true. Some government agencies contribute to SS and Calpers and others don't.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

And once again, taxpayers do not pay back 'actuarial losses', I think I've said that probably 5 or 6 times now..not sure why you don't get it.

The next three to five years are shaping up to be “a challenging market environment, not just for CalPERS, but for all investors,” Eliopoulos added. “It’s going to test us.”

Projections from independent third parties are “materially lower” than what CalPERS forecast just two years ago, he said. With its current mix of investments, CalPERS can expect a total return of just 6.4 percent over the next decade.

So I ask again, if over the next 10 years as is expected by the fund managers of CalPERs, third party accounting firms, and anyone with a basic understanding that relying on 7.5% returns is a total fantasy,you tell everyone here who will pay back 10 years worth of multi-billion losses to the fund? You say it's not taxpayers, then who?

[Nerdlord]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

So I ask again, if over the next 10 years as is expected by the fund managers of CalPERs, third party accounting firms, and anyone with a basic understanding that relying on 7.5% returns is a total fantasy,you tell everyone here who will pay back 10 years worth of multi-billion losses to the fund? You say it's not taxpayers, then who?

There are two sides to the coin. Income (fund returns) and expenses (pension benefits).

If it were up to me, I would tell the pension holders, tough luck we've had some bad years. Your payout is going to be 10% less for the next 3 years. We will reevaluate then. Also, I'm pretty sure there are insurance contracts that cover the losses as well.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

who will pay back 10 years worth of multi-billion losses to the fund? You say it's not taxpayers, then who?

What multi-billion dollar losses, are you prognosticating again?