Comments on: Portsmouth slices pension fund’s investment outlook to 6.75%

By: Are The Loonies Running The Fiscal Asylums Both In The EU And The US? | Black & Right X

Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:03:15 +0000

[...] in the USA in Rhode Island, have a few Government hacks have acted “sanely?” “At 6.75%, Portsmouth may have set the most conservative investment outlook in the state. A study by …” Meanwhile in NY City, “the city’s chief actuary, Robert North, has proposed lowering [...]

By: RIprof

RIprof — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 03:00:26 +0000

Simple answer: old apples to young oranges.

The RI number is for “the last decade”. From 2002 to today, the stock market hasn’t grown a whole lot. Hardly any investments have done all that well.

Oregon and Texas numbers average in the stock market boom from 1982 to 2000.

Look at numbers from 2002 to today for all three states and none of them will be averaging 8%.

By: Tough Love

Tough Love — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 19:01:14 +0000

As they should be.

Public Sector Collective Bargaining should be outlawed.

Public Sector Unions are a CANCER on Society.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 01:59:35 +0000

Ted

Look deeper into why RI State Pension System returns have been so bad in the last decade with just a 2.4% annually according to your 1/26/2012 Article. According to an article on the wall street journal “Pension Gaps Loom Larger” dated 9/18/2010. The Oregon Public Employees Retirement System has had a 8% assumption since 1989, its actual return from 1970 to 2009 averaged 10.7% annually. The teachers retirement system of Texas has had similar expectations since 1986 with an actual return of 9% since then. It would be interesting to see why RI returns are so bad, what where we invested in compared to Oregon and Texas, and who made money off the fund when is was performing so bad, what investment firms, maybe Politicians? Was the poor performance done on purpose with the idea to pass pension reform’s down the road.

By: old6789

old6789 — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 22:35:38 +0000

Look at bands paying 0.50%, and CD’s paying 2.00% I think 6+% is 3% to high.
If you bite the bullet and go to 3% it will cost some now but save you big time in a few years.

By: Ed

Ed — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 17:05:19 +0000

Hey Fish public sector “employees” are not special. You and your brethern need to be have a 401K where you have to contribute your own money and are RESPONSIBLE for how the money is invested.

By: Doug from South County

Doug from South County — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:36:22 +0000

I find it amazing that several of the non-mers pension systems are now finding creative ways to get down to Tier 5 “critical status” under 60% funded to qualify for the Chafee legislation if it should pass.

By: Mr. Fish

Mr. Fish — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:44:01 +0000

Doesn’t the T-Party dominate the Portsmouth Council? Can this be seen as a move to sabotage the pension plan because the don’t believe in public pension…period?

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:12:07 +0000

Since smaller funds pay higher fees as a percentage of overall assets, there MIGHT be a rational, as opposed to a political, basis behind this, but I fear otherwise. The question is what assumptions are used to arrive at the 6.75% return. The calculation should be expected inflation + expected return over inflation – fees. 6.75% seems a bit low – in fact – didn’t some of the 38 Studios Bonds pay a higher rate of return than that?