Investment policy. And one of the reports found that we researched found that the Stanford Institute for grand jury report that you can stick on the projector. 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 retu
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
Story. The warbler that Richard Nixon used to trap hiss in his crossexamination. And these things, they live in kind of a mythological memory. It was in the New York Times about three weeks ago or so, a little box, a warbler had appeared in new york city, in manhattan. The time to photograph it and made a reference to the work of, were going to talk about today. And then i think a classic, enhanced by the seemingly never ending decades of controversy in which the defenders of alger hiss tried to make their slanders of the author of witness stick. Today, i want to introduce the three panelists, and this is an amazingly powerful group we have here. All at once, and then leave it to them, they will take it over. Each i hope making the remarks about 10 minutes, and then we will put it to the floor for further discussion. Elliott abrams has had a remarkable string of positions, of enormous importance. I know him going back to the early reagan years. He began, my knowledge, with human rights
Are possible. The president s own council of economic advisors some years ago estimated that we could do savings of 700 billion a year without affecting the quality of care in any way for the worse. The National Institutes of medicine have made several regular projections on this. The most recent one is at 75 750 billion a year. Well, the institutes of medicine are pretty serious folks and theyre entitled to respect when they say that we can have those kind of savings. Rand corporation a lot of people know a lot about. Its a very, very expert organization. They actually have done two things. Theyve looked at what we can snaif Health Care Save in health care and then theyve looked at what we can save in Health Care Plus an additional bit for dealing with waste and fraud. And they gave ranges for the two. The midpoint of the range for savings is about 730 billion. And if you add their suggestions on waste and fraud, the midpoint of their range goes to about 910 billion a year. And the le
Two years of discussion and were the Ethics Commission and according to the sunshine ordinance the only people we can discipline are elected heads and officials and so if you have a complaint against a line employee your response from the staff is we cant do anything, so these things go back and forth and you know. You can say the task force knows what its doing but every single time the task force sends awe recommendation you find or the staff finds a reason to find fault and if you think its at fault and you acknowledge the fact that part of the responsibilities as a body is the enforcement of the sunshine ordinance then i would think that there would be a moral imperative to do something to get together with the task force and come down with something meaningful where you can do something instead of these pointless arguments whether they charge the right person or crossed the right t or. Ed the i and the issue is let them go to Public Meetings and let them speak and i went to the Po