|
|
 | | From: | Poppy - San Francisco Bay Area | | Subject: | Re: California: Failed State | | Date: | 23 Jan 2005 11:13:14 -0800 |
|
|
 | The problem with this article in the New York Times is that it doesn't
address what has happened with the CalPers funds in the past. Some
just can't resist a big pile of money like that. They have tried to
influence corporate decisions because of the stock they own. A year
ago, a political activist became head of the pension board and tried to
make the fund follow his political bias. He was recently fired.
So the fact that the fund was invested in the stock market wasn't
enough. The control by the pension board didn't stop abuse of power.
It is one reason why we must go to individual accounts that are
individually controlled. I continue to believe that while there is a
role for government, for instance in choosing perhaps six mutual funds
in which stakeholders are allowed to invest, control must be with the
individual and not available to politicians to manipulate.
|
|
| | From: | El Castor | | Subject: | Re: California: Failed State | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:06:18 -0800 |
|
|
| "Poppy - San Francisco Bay Area" wrote:
>The problem with this article in the New York Times is that it doesn't
>address what has happened with the CalPers funds in the past. Some
>just can't resist a big pile of money like that. They have tried to
>influence corporate decisions because of the stock they own. A year
>ago, a political activist became head of the pension board and tried to
>make the fund follow his political bias. He was recently fired.
>
>So the fact that the fund was invested in the stock market wasn't
>enough. The control by the pension board didn't stop abuse of power.
>It is one reason why we must go to individual accounts that are
>individually controlled. I continue to believe that while there is a
>role for government, for instance in choosing perhaps six mutual funds
>in which stakeholders are allowed to invest, control must be with the
>individual and not available to politicians to manipulate.
Connie, I've seen statistics on various PERS funds around the country.
On average they return at least 1% less than similar funds run by
apolitical professional managers. In 1999, Alan Greenspan in testimony
before the House, brought up that very point. The politicians simply
can't keep their hands off. Whenever investment decisions are based on
who does or doesn't do business with South Africa, manufacture drugs,
sell cigarettes, have sufficient minorities on the Board, or whatever,
the return always suffers.
|
|
|
