<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Calpensions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://calpensions.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://calpensions.com</link>
	<description>CalPERS, CalSTRS and other government pensions</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:27:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Pension earnings dip amid gloomy forecasts by Captain</title>
		<link>http://calpensions.com/2012/01/30/pension-earnings-dip-amid-gloomy-forecasts/#comment-26851</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Captain]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:27:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://calpensions.com/?p=5763#comment-26851</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As previously stated, &quot;Sounds like the CalPERS CIO is saying, and has been alluding to for several months, that we have a problem that is beyond his control. He said, among other things in many previous “muted” comments that, according to this article, “the board decision to leave the forecast at 7.75 percent still accurately reflects expected earnings (a stretch based on the consultants comments and common sense). But in the new “low return environment,” the conservatism cushion is gone and the risk of not hitting the earning target has increased (taking on increased risk at the tax apyer expense).”
 
Hmmm… and he (the CalPERS CIO) goes on to say:
 
“Given that the state of the economy has put severe pressure on employers’ budgets (no shidt), we recognize that it may be appropriate to reconsider the level of margin for adverse deviation,” said Milligan’s report to the board last March.
 
“The balancing of the level of risk taken on the funding of the plan with the impact on employers, stakeholders and the public in general is fundamentally a task of the board (that would be the same CalPERS Board of Directors that completely ignored common sense and ALL the above mentioned advice from the CalPERS paid consultants that were mentioned above).”
 
And what has the underachieving CalPERS Board of Directors done to address the CalPERS CIO concerns – Nothing, Nada, Zilch. The fools are too busy trying to figure out how it will impact their collective bargaining. We NEED A NEW AND IMPROVED CALPERS BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND WE NEED IT NOW!&quot;




SeeSaw, the CalSTRS B.O.D. has actually listened to their consultants and reduced their assumed rate of return to 7.5%.  Unfortunately that increases the unfunded liability by 6 billion but it does come a step closer toward honesty.  What is this so called proactive CalPERS B.O.D waiting for ?  Do you have an opinion or would you prefer to wait until  CalPERS tells you how to respond?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As previously stated, &#8220;Sounds like the CalPERS CIO is saying, and has been alluding to for several months, that we have a problem that is beyond his control. He said, among other things in many previous “muted” comments that, according to this article, “the board decision to leave the forecast at 7.75 percent still accurately reflects expected earnings (a stretch based on the consultants comments and common sense). But in the new “low return environment,” the conservatism cushion is gone and the risk of not hitting the earning target has increased (taking on increased risk at the tax apyer expense).”</p>
<p>Hmmm… and he (the CalPERS CIO) goes on to say:</p>
<p>“Given that the state of the economy has put severe pressure on employers’ budgets (no shidt), we recognize that it may be appropriate to reconsider the level of margin for adverse deviation,” said Milligan’s report to the board last March.</p>
<p>“The balancing of the level of risk taken on the funding of the plan with the impact on employers, stakeholders and the public in general is fundamentally a task of the board (that would be the same CalPERS Board of Directors that completely ignored common sense and ALL the above mentioned advice from the CalPERS paid consultants that were mentioned above).”</p>
<p>And what has the underachieving CalPERS Board of Directors done to address the CalPERS CIO concerns – Nothing, Nada, Zilch. The fools are too busy trying to figure out how it will impact their collective bargaining. We NEED A NEW AND IMPROVED CALPERS BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND WE NEED IT NOW!&#8221;</p>
<p>SeeSaw, the CalSTRS B.O.D. has actually listened to their consultants and reduced their assumed rate of return to 7.5%.  Unfortunately that increases the unfunded liability by 6 billion but it does come a step closer toward honesty.  What is this so called proactive CalPERS B.O.D waiting for ?  Do you have an opinion or would you prefer to wait until  CalPERS tells you how to respond?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
