You ask me, just sort of comment, on what the employer contribution rate looked like over the years. I dont have the chart in front of me but there were times when the employer contribution rate exceeded 100 of pay. Was in the 60 to 70 . Aside i raised that point because those were years when we do not do alternative investments so the notion that is some sort of panacea to fix the city contribution is just bunk. Also the report indicates that from 2004 to 2007 there were no contributions made to the plan. In fact, from 1998 through 2004, because of the funded nature of the plan, there were no required employer contributions, however employee contributions were made. Either by the employees themselves or on behalf of the employees in every year of the existence of this plan. So to characterize that there was ays 0 period of time whee were no employee contributions made is a misrepresentation. Supervisor elsbernd and while we cannot go back add correct the past that will never happen
Our clerk will do it. Go ahead. What the Stanford Institute compared was the calpers return to hypothetical low risk portfolio pursued over the same 25 year time period, a negligible the new york times, in 2012 found that Pension Funds investing in more alternative investments, not only have the highest risk levels, but contrary to expectations had poor returns than those that remained in traditional low risk investments. They further found that funds that did well with low risk Investment Policies nevertheless tended to switch to high risk model. And the reason for that is the Upjohn Institute in 2011 report titled an analysis of risktaking behavior for public Pension Plans of over 100 funds found pressure on Fund Managers to change from their conservative investment policy to assume more risk, even if a fund made a higher return with a low risk portfolio. Economists referred to this trend as the herd mentality. The jury can verify to the board of supervisors that studies do exist are
Investments. They further found that funds that did well with low risk Investment Policies nevertheless tended to switch to high risk model. And the reason for that is the Upjohn Institute in 2011 report titled an analysis of risktaking behavior for public Pension Plans of over 100 funds found pressure on Fund Managers to change from their conservative investment policy to assume more risk, even if a fund made a higher return with a low risk portfolio. Economists referred to this trend as the herd mentality. The jury can verify to the board of supervisors that studies do exist are easily found in our fromibt n0v respected institutis showing that public Pension Funds with low risk Investment Policies perform as well as better than those with high risk policies as stated in our findings on page 7. We do not understand why the pension board, or its executive director, cant confirm or deny these reports exist. The jury recommends that a fund to see if we couldnt go back to investing in a l
Only have the highest risk levels, but contrary to expectations had poor returns than those that remained in traditional low risk investments. They further found that funds that did well with low risk Investment Policies nevertheless tended to switch to high risk model. And the reason for that is the Upjohn Institute in 2011 report titled an analysis of risktaking behavior for public Pension Plans of over 100 funds found pressure on Fund Managers to change from their conservative investment policy to assume more risk, even if a fund made a higher return with a low risk portfolio. Economists referred to this trend as the herd mentality. The jury can verify to the board of supervisors that studies do exist are easily found in our fromibt n0v respected institutis showing that public Pension Funds with low risk Investment Policies perform as well as better than those with high risk policies as stated in our findings on page 7. We do not understand why the pension board, or its executive di
Investments. They further found that funds that did well with low risk Investment Policies nevertheless tended to switch to high risk model. And the reason for that is the Upjohn Institute in 2011 report titled an analysis of risktaking behavior for public Pension Plans of over 100 funds found pressure on Fund Managers to change from their conservative investment policy to assume more risk, even if a fund made a higher return with a low risk portfolio. Economists referred to this trend as the herd mentality. The jury can verify to the board of supervisors that studies do exist are easily found in our fromibt n0v respected institutis showing that public Pension Funds with low risk Investment Policies perform as well as better than those with high risk policies as stated in our findings on page 7. We do not understand why the pension board, or its executive director, cant confirm or deny these reports exist. The jury recommends that a fund to see if we couldnt go back to investing in a l