[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by auggie22

Then I will respectfully say that you are out of touch with what is happening in a mature industry. I work in Fintech, and to see sustained real wage growth ( in excess of inflation ) over an extended period in the same role ( not a promotion ) is incredibly rare. I would personally take real wage growth of .5% a year for ten years and be over the moon.

I see what your getting at now. Your one of those "more skills will get you more salary" people. You just took a very long route to get there.

If the union workers netted .00000000000000000000000000000001% wage increase after 10 years that would still be too much for you because you think Govt workers don't have skills to begin with.


I do not have an issue with wage earners regardless of what their occupation is getting yearly salary increases aka COLA to keep up with inflation. Govt workers are included in that.

Since you used the word "fintech" I will assume your young so your attitude is forgivable. IF you are old you are beyond redemption at this point.

If you're lucky your fintech firm can come up with an "app" that will disrupt one of the Govts functions and put more workers on the street. You can get in on the ground level too with an "IPO"

Maybe your company should develop a "union negotiator app" and we can get rid of all those union negotiators in addition to the State workers.

Please bring up this idea at your next company meeting I think its a winner.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by davwve

84.7% or $1,717,799,736 of the AIF (Alternative Investment Fund) is held in fund of funds.


For context, the AIF is approx. 6.22% of the CRPTF's (CT Retirement Plans and Trust Funds) total FV.

6.22% is actually an acceptable risk. That still doesn't tell us the allocation of the three buckets, but if we assume its equal that is about 2% per bucket. I never said pension funds don't invest in hedge funds, but that the amount would be small.


2% is certainly small and it should be obvious now why a hedge fund manager like STenerman would have alteriorer motives. Certainly he would want more than 2%. Imagine the potential mgmt fees.

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

The point is - currently hedge funds receive zero fees because they do not manage any pension funds to my knowledge. That is the prize here.

Originally Posted by Mike 75

Most pension plans have a portion of their assets allocated to hedge funds, including CT's. Its fairly standard.

Originally Posted by MrGompers

I would have to see a source for that, I doubt that is true. Hedge funds are too risky, and there may be statutory rules regarding investment risks for pension funds.

Originally Posted by MrGompers

I never said pension funds don't invest in hedge funds, but that the amount would be small.

Good to see your position has evolved.

To close the loop, and bring the thread back on topic, I would love to read more about Stemmerman's gubernatorial motivations. Any good articles you can point me to?

[auggie22]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

I see what your getting at now. Your one of those "more skills will get you more salary" people. You just took a very long route to get there.

If the union workers netted .00000000000000000000000000000001% wage increase after 10 years that would still be too much for you because you think Govt workers don't have skills to begin with.


I do not have an issue with wage earners regardless of what their occupation is getting yearly salary increases aka COLA to keep up with inflation. Govt workers are included in that.

Since you used the word "fintech" I will assume your young so your attitude is forgivable. IF you are old you are beyond redemption at this point.

If you're lucky your fintech firm can come up with an "app" that will disrupt one of the Govts functions and put more workers on the street. You can get in on the ground level too with an "IPO"

Maybe your company should develop a "union negotiator app" and we can get rid of all those union negotiators in addition to the State workers.

Please bring up this idea at your next company meeting I think its a winner.

Huh? My point is that wage increases are more a function of the demand for labor, not benevolent intent. There are salary bands and target salaries for every role in a typical firm. That is what the role is worth to the firm. Those targets don’t just move with inflation, and in a loose labor market they may not move at all. I suspect most firms manage their resources in the same way.

In a mature industry such as mine there is not a shortage of qualified labor thus you don’t tend to see people in the same role for 10 years getting consistent COL adjustments, let alone in excess of that. If you are good at your job and would likely continue to be successful with expanded responsibilities, you get promoted; and that generally brings greater financial opportunity.

I am sure state workers have promotion opportunities, don’t they? So in addition to promotion opportunities you think it is normal to also get frequent raises as a right? Can you clearly explain to me what that right is?

If that point of view makes me a “more skills gets you more money” person ( as if that is an insult ), then I guess that is what I am. Since you seem to view that as a pejorative that does beg the question - what is your philosophy on the matter? If raises in excess of COL are not something you earn, by what judgement should they be received?

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

Good to see your position has evolved.

I tend to be careful in my word choices and I did use the word "doubt" and asked for a source. I personally have never seen pension funds invested in hedge funds. You showed me its possible and not only that but you brought a source with numbers. That is way above what most people here would have done.


I still don;t know how much the state has in pension funds, but since it has to be in the billions that is a lot of potential in mgmt fees. from your data we can assume its 2% currently. Since Sternerman works as a portfolio manager or perhaps he works for a hedge fund in another capacity IMO he would have to recuse himself from any type of work in the hedge fund industry if he were to become Governor. That is probably too much to ask though. I also do not think many people see the potential for conflict of interests here with STernerman. Since he has no chance now its moot.

Originally Posted by Mike 75

To close the loop, and bring the thread back on topic, I would love to read more about Stemmerman's gubernatorial motivations. Any good articles you can point me to?

I'm not sure about his motivations, but I think he had the best and funniest anti Malloy commercials. You can find them on you tube still. He even managed to find a Malloy lookalike.

[RunD1987]

"Democracy Wins:" Oz Griebel Will Participate in Next Week's Gubernatorial Debate - Hartford Courant

Election over Oz will win it after this debate

[ryanthegoldengod]

Originally Posted by RunD1987

"Democracy Wins:" Oz Griebel Will Participate in Next Week's Gubernatorial Debate - Hartford Courant

Election over Oz will win it after this debate

Oz is the new Ross Perot!

But I will admit he does seem more polished and personable than the other two. But that's setting the bar pretty low.

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by ryanthegoldengod

But polls are so often proven wrong. But yes, Trump plus Stefanowski's personality.....or lack thereof. I mean a little bedside manner often goes a long way in politics. Even Trump has his brand of (snake oil salesman) charm. But Bob is stiff, kind of angry, kind of bullying. He's that scary high school Vice Principal you dreaded being sent to the office to talk to.

I mean if you thought Tom Foley was a little too warm and fuzzy, boy have we got a candidate for you!

Hah, your characterization of Stefanowski as a high school vice principal (presumably in charge of discipline) is pretty funny. He does come off that way, from the little I have seen of him.

In my own high school experience, I found that after the first couple of times, once I figured out that the worst he was going to do to me was make me stay after school for a spell, it was sort of fun to get into a little trouble and mess with those guys a bit. As soon as they got done punishing me for one thing, I was itching to do something else to **** them off.

So that demeanor just makes me more inclined to support Stefanowski....maybe that's what we need in a governor now...

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by ryanthegoldengod

Oz is the new Ross Perot!

But I will admit he does seem more polished and personable than the other two. But that's setting the bar pretty low.

Ross Perot didin't want to sell Govt assets like buildings then create a "lease back scam" where the Govt would then pay rent/leases to private businesses.



OZ doens't deserve the time of day. If he was drowning I would offer him a glass of water.

[RunD1987]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

Ross Perot didin't want to sell Govt assets like buildings then create a "lease back scam" where the Govt would then pay rent/leases to private businesses.



OZ doens't deserve the time of day. If he was drowning I would offer him a glass of water.

It's that or CT taxes go up to bail Hartford out. We need to make hard choices but smart choices. CT has it's back pressed against a wall due to debt. We can raise taxes on residents and businesses; driving people out of the State. We could make decisions that not immediately solve the State fiscal issues but work towards a solution. A solution benefiting businesses and residents.