The irony is that the CA pension plan has very good investment power (since it is so large), and gets really good returns on the invested $$.

MoapaPk wrote:The irony is that the CA pension plan has very good investment power (since it is so large), and gets really good returns on the invested $$.

Made even more ironic that it has very poor investment wisdom. Calpers lost over 100 billion since 2007. I can't believe I have to help support this incompetence and see less than no benefit. The return on government dollars in CA is criminal.

Put it in % loss versus other investments. The DJI was over 14000 in 2007.

Bubba Suess wrote:

MoapaPk wrote:The irony is that the CA pension plan has very good investment power (since it is so large), and gets really good returns on the invested $$.

Made even more ironic that it has very poor investment wisdom. Calpers lost over 100 billion since 2007. I can't believe I have to help support this incompetence and see less than no benefit. The return on government dollars in CA is criminal.

If you look at CalPERs website, you'd see their investment wisdom (and returns) have been quite good in comparison to the investment market in general. The only recent down years were FY2007-2008 (-5.1%) and FY2008-2009 (-24.8%). Other years have all been positive, with most having double digit (%) gains. More important, the 10 year average for return on investment is 9% (it'd be higher without that -24.8% single year loss) and the actuarial target is 7.75%, which means they are exceeding their goals. Any other long term investments you know of (such as managed 401Ks) that have that kind of 10 year average return?; please let us all know

Two real worries are:

1) State, county, city, and other local agencies all up and down the state have given workers enhanced benefits without financially accounting for them. A good recent example is here in Orange County, where sheriffs deputies were given an enhancement; this included already retired deputies sheriffs, who don't contribute to the system any more! It was granted by a group of county superviors who are no longer around, and a lawsuit brought by the current county supervisors was rejected when it was appealed all the way to the state supreme court (it was considered a valid contract by the local superior court and appeals court).

2) the pension system is not indexed for longevity. The typical 3% @ 50 yrs (safety) and 2.0% at 55 yrs (general) contribution rates have not increased for decades, even as life expetancy has increased. The result is having to pay out more $$$ for more years, and no allowance was made to cover the increasing life span of people.

In short, its not so much CalPERs fault, but the local agencies (elected politicians that won't say 'no') and employee groups (unions and other barganing entities) that are screwing thing up by not looking at long term financing.

Have they written down all those real estate investments to market value? There's a group of investors with political connections busy investing pension money on land in the desert that has speculative value due to the push for solar energy. The word speculative always makes me nervous. I know there have been a lot of changes in accounting for pension funds over the last so many years, but I have a feeling the books still don't show the whole liability. As I recall, accounting for pension funds was a very difficult topic when I took accounting years ago - I guess that's why I'm not an accountant.

MoapaPk wrote:The irony is that the CA pension plan has very good investment power (since it is so large), and gets really good returns on the invested $$.

All the more incentive for pension reform. It is a sad state of affairs.

A glimmer of hope: http://www.sonomanews.com/News-2011/Gov-signs-state-parks-bill/

Marmaduke wrote:A glimmer of hope: http://www.sonomanews.com/News-2011/Gov-signs-state-parks-bill/

That's a nice start. Wonder how it'll be set up; nonprofits just supplying the mgmt and staff, or buying the parks outright?

Since they mention it, Jack London SP is mostly leased out to local wine grape growers (it makes $$$ for the State), so I wonder why that was included on the closure list. The public areas around the houses and old farm facilities are really just a small part of the entire park right near the entrance. You can still walk/jog/horseback ride (maybe bike, too?) on the service roads that weave around the grape fields and through the park (you have to to get to the Pond), so I wonder why the State decided to close it. What they could do for this park in particular is make it easier to find. When I was up there in 2010 there was only a very small, hard-to-see sign on the main road going through Glen Ellen that directed you to the small road that leads up to the park; it really needs to be bigger.

Could some of the general labor ie; weed cutting, cleaning bathrooms, painting structures, repairing fencing, digging out the drainage along roads, etc, be done by city and county "jailbirds"? Does any of that fit into the funding of these parks?

Looks like the NPS is stepping up (with new fees) to help their neighbors:

http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_19058008

Assemblymember Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, a long-time champion of environmental causes, has focused his attention recently on efforts to keep open all of California’s 278 state parks. His latest bill, AB 1589, sailed through the Assembly’s Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee last week with bipartisan support.

The bill is aimed at establishing reliable and dedicated funding streams to support the state parks, much of which the legislature would not be able to touch in times of deficit.

Complete article:
http://www.sonomanews.com/News-2012/Parks-bill-attracts-bipartisan-support/