View Single Post
Old 01-04-2013, 22:15   #23
Proud Introvert
SunsetMan's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Between two ferns
Posts: 1,163
Originally Posted by jpa View Post
NV PERS had a return for 2012 of 16%. Since 1984 they have a net return of 9.3%, also greater than the 8% expected. So does that mean I should get a refund of my contributions since they did better than their expected rate of return? If there was a shortfall you would expect that I would have to contribute more, right?

The problem with a lot of pension plans (CALPERS included) is that the money wasn't put into the plan to be invested as required. Instead the lawmakers wrote an IOU and spent the money elsewhere. Since that money wasn't invested, there's no way for it to achieve the rate of return required to sustain the system.

This kind of misappropriation committed by politicians across the country would land everyone involved in prison if it were done in private business. If the systems are underfunded and going broke it's because of mismanagement at the highest level, not because they're unsustainable.
Do you have proof the CALPERS money was not put into the plan? My roommate says all the money was only used for CALPERS.

I had a discussion with him that his pension could become insolvent if California became bankrupt, that promises were made that CA maybe could not keep. He was fairly convinced that was impossible.
Never miss an opportunity to meet someone, go to the bathroom, or take a sedative. - gwalchmai
SunsetMan is offline   Reply With Quote