Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-25-2012, 06:00 PM
 
4,534 posts, read 4,931,272 times
Reputation: 6327

Advertisements

Why do states use expensive funds and fund managers to manage the portfolios of state employees as wells as the portfolios of the entire state (investments to build cash for funding projects) when expenses for those accounts can go in the 1-2% range? Meanwhile, many funds in Vanguard only charge .15-0.35% for maintenance fees. People wonder why so many states are in the red? It's because they spend billions more per year than they have to for financial services compared to consumer friendly businesses like Vanguard. As a matter of fact, price doesn't even equate to performance. Vanguard even beats many of the overpriced financial firms. Not only that, the expensive firms often sell extremely risky financial packages to states that no one understands. Once they backfire, the investment firms walkaway reaping millions (if not billions) of dollars per year from states, while states are left bankrupt and broken. It's nothing more than a massive fleecing of tax payer dollars.

State Investments Come Up Short


So why don't states use Vanguard or something similar? Could it be because Vanguard doesn't pay out kickbacks to corrupted state officials that manage investments for building projects, retirement accounts, and other financials of states?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-25-2012, 08:07 PM
 
30,065 posts, read 18,670,668 times
Reputation: 20886
Quote:
Originally Posted by fibonacci View Post
Why do states use expensive funds and fund managers to manage the portfolios of state employees as wells as the portfolios of the entire state (investments to build cash for funding projects) when expenses for those accounts can go in the 1-2% range? Meanwhile, many funds in Vanguard only charge .15-0.35% for maintenance fees. People wonder why so many states are in the red? It's because they spend billions more per year than they have to for financial services compared to consumer friendly businesses like Vanguard. As a matter of fact, price doesn't even equate to performance. Vanguard even beats many of the overpriced financial firms. Not only that, the expensive firms often sell extremely risky financial packages to states that no one understands. Once they backfire, the investment firms walkaway reaping millions (if not billions) of dollars per year from states, while states are left bankrupt and broken. It's nothing more than a massive fleecing of tax payer dollars.

State Investments Come Up Short


So why don't states use Vanguard or something similar? Could it be because Vanguard doesn't pay out kickbacks to corrupted state officials that manage investments for building projects, retirement accounts, and other financials of states?
Agreed. I have had a vanguard account for investments for a long time. Why? They are cheap and reliable. However, most of my money is not in the markets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2012, 09:06 PM
 
4,534 posts, read 4,931,272 times
Reputation: 6327
Maybe it's because banks like to corrupt state and city officials in charge of finances?

JPMorgan Proves Bond Deal Death in Jefferson County No Bar to New Business - Bloomberg

Quote:
JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)’s Charles LeCroy said the key to landing bond deals in Jefferson County, Alabama, was finding out whom to pay off. In one example, that meant a $2.6 million payment to Bill Blount, a local banker and longtime friend of County Commissioner Larry Langford.



“It’s a lot of money, but in the end it’s worth it on a billion-dollar deal,” LeCroy told a colleague in 2003, according to a complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission




That’s because in the $2.9-trillion market for state and local government debt, where 80 percent of all financings are negotiated in private, conflicts of interest prevail. While Langford and Blount are in jail, LeCroy is fighting an SEC action. JPMorgan, which provided most of the toxic debt that devastated Jefferson County, has suffered no loss of business as the nation’s third-largest underwriter of municipal bonds, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

And people wonder why so many states and cities these days are in the red? It's because of those damn state workers and their excessive pensions. Lol yeah right...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:44 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top