Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the risk is pretty balanced . long term odds are very very good the least risky are the equity investments not in the business ventures , not the publicly traded companies.
historically it is fixed income that ends up being the riskiest because over long periods of time the returns are lower with not much cushion for inflation .
in never really makes sense in a long term investment plan to veer to deep in to bonds and fixed income since trying to mitigate short term temporary dips with fixed income permanently reduces long term gains . there is no logic in it financially .mentally it can be more comforting but pension plans don't run on mental comfort .
bonds are used only when you need shorter term money because then mitigating short term dips can be helpful , but if most of the money is long term than no .
Columbia University used eminent domain as a part of it's Manhattanville expansion. So did the Atlantic Avenue/Barclay's expansion.
So if a developer can successfully argue a development is for the public good, being a property owner will not shield you.
The MTA has successfully used eminent domain for the phase one of the Second Avenue Subway and for the 34th Street/Hudson Yards expansion. As the MTA comes up with ways to get funding for more new lines, it will used eminent domain again.
All those people who got their homes seized through eminent domain got to cash out $$$ big time. The WORST that will happen is you'd get 10%+your home market value, if you got some good lawyers, you may be able to get millions over your market value.
If you find out your home is going through eminent domain process in NYC its like hitting a lottery. All you gotta do is lawyer up and raise up stink in the media about how its causing you emotional stress, you would NEVER want to leave your house and want to pass it on to your great-great-grandchildren... etc etc. Then collect your paycheck.
the last five years the pension fund has returned 10.17% , last 10 years 7.12% and 20 years 8.69 . the majority of the money is not fixed income .
it is only about 22% fixed income / 78% equities .
it is in range of most pension funds as well as what most invest in . investing in mortgages is nothing really different for pension funds . it looks like nyc is just going direct rather than an investment company . other wise the adviser's decide what mortgages to put money in .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our long-term target allocation for our investment portfolio is 22 percent in fixed income assets (bonds and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities [TIPS]) and 78 percent in equities, which includes:
Domestic and international public equities
Real estate
Real assets
Absolute return strategies
Mortgages
Private equity investments
Opportunistic funds
It might have to do with the current environment we are in, but in general, pension funds want to know what their short-term returns will be so that they can adjust funding schemes. Demographics come largely into play so more risk could be the baby boomers transitioning from contributer to receiver.
pension funds have always been long term oriented , they have to be since most claims are always future claims .
even for retirees most of the money is still long term money in their own lives . at 65 i have money god willing we won't eat with for 20 or 30 years . that is still long term money and gets invested as such .
you can look at the portfolio's used by most pension funds ,they are always growth oriented .
many famous financial people made their marks running various funds needed for the ivy league schools and many duplicate those portfolio's on their own .
in the long run markets have never not out performed over 20 years or more so that is where long term money goes .
don't forget , interest rates and inflation are joined at the hip for the most part .even when rates were in the historical average 5-6% range we had negative real returns over many years because it just isn't enough growth .
it is not funny but most folks do things backwards because there financial logic is very poor . that is why left to themselves investors do poorly compared to the investments they were in .
using conservative investments as a long term investor is self defeating .
they add bonds to mitigate temporary short term dips , which permanently reduce the long term gains . as long term investors the temporary dips are meaningless so they end up shooting themselves in the foot .
i is only the short term needs that these conservative investments have to fill , not the bulk of the years . so that is why pension funds will always be equity heavy
They probably increased their allocations towards equities and alternative investments to make up for funding shortfalls. Pension funds are not long-term investment vehicles, they are insurance programs. Funding should take the priority over return on investment, and the increasing emphasis on the later should be worrisome for state budgets. It is obvious as to why governments wouldn't want to increase funding to proper levels. Plus many realize they are too big to fail.
actually you can google what most pension funds do . they do not invest most of their money in short term conservative investments . they can't afford to . they need growth to keep these funds going for decades .
they always have , in fact they resemble a retirees draw and the biggest risk to retirees living off their portfolio's is going to conservative .
you can only take lower draws around 3% or less inflation adjusted using fixed income . fixed income has failed to sustain even 4% over so many existing 30 year periods it is considered unsafe to do so .
did you know even being 100% in equities and spending 4% a year inflation adjusted carry's almost the same success rate as a 50/50 mix does when you look at the 116 rolling 30 year periods we have had to date .
the reason is in the up markets the bigger cushion grows so much more that the down years do not really effect things that much .
Detroit was not ruined by "unions" demanding living wages for their workers. If anything a company that can't pay its workers living wages should not be allowed to be in businesss. Why should thetaxpayer subsidize a failing business that takes its lack of profits out on the workers that keep the company running?
Everyone knows it was globalization and NAFTA that killed Detroit. The breakdown of trade tarriffs and the advent of cheap shipping allowed car makers to make greater profit by producing their cars cheaply in third world countries.
Detroit was hit especially hard because its economy was overdependent on car production and was not diversified but literally the exact same problems occurred in conservative regions of upstate New York and Appalachia where industry packed up and left after anti-worker trade deals wreaked havoc
i agree taxpayers shouldn't bailout businesses. by the same token unions shouldn't be allowed to hold companies by the balls. people working for detroit auto companies were massively overpaid with unsustainable pensions to top it off. and you're right they were also overdependent on the auto industry.
It's crazy that some posters think everyone should accomodate a FEW out of town wealthy whites who own property in NY AND in other places. These people have no real ties to NY and can easily leave whenever they want. If policies by Cuomo and de Blasio drive them out of the city, the rest of us (the majority of NY, especially people of ANY race born here) will not weep.
Honestly if a bunch of well off people moved out of NY, eventually more well off people would move to NY anyway. NYC is the most famous city in the nation, and has a lot to offer. It always had, and even in the 70s people came here to study, do business, etc from all over the world.
That does not mean we should cater the city to the 1 percent. If they hate paying taxes, let them leave. If they hate more equitable social policies, let them leave.
it works both ways. if it's so popular that so many people want to live here then it's going to be really expensive.in the 70s a lot less people wanted to live here, it was unsafe in many places that were safe now, there were lots of vacancies so rent was a lot cheaper.
not to mention the city needs rich people paying tons in taxes. where else would they get money from for all the programs we have. who else would be paying for schools? people who make 60k a year with 3 kids that cost the city 30k a year to educate?
I agree. I know of plenty of white Europeans who are in this country illegally, and who live by distributing drugs while holding jobs at ethnic white restaurants (German, French, etc). These people are just as much of a nuisance as anything ghetto.
Then there's that H1B crowd who come here from Asia, and who make the 250K a year (I know of one young chick who's only 26 and already makes 75K) because American company's can't find "American workers" It's all BS. At 26 I was still making minimum wage!
what's wrong with asians who make 250k a year?
i'm not asian nor do i make 250k but what's wrong with it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
