Skimming ‘excess’ pension investment earnings

An issue in the San Jose pension reform trial, a “13th check” bonus for retirees when investment earnings exceed the annual forecast, reflects a widespread attitude that added to public pension debt.

In its starkest outline: When pension fund earnings are above the target, it’s a surplus or windfall that can be distributed to employees and employers. When earnings are below the target, it’s a shortfall that must be paid by taxpayers.

The notion that pension fund investment earnings, now often expected to cover about two-thirds of pension costs in the future, could be regarded as “excess” or “surplus” can seem out of step with the times.

Growing costs of under-funded pensions are taking money from other programs. Optimistic earnings forecasts are said to hide crushing debt. And the long-term viability of public pensions is questioned as similar private-sector benefits disappear.

A belief that pensions have excess or surplus earnings might have been a step in the evolution of actuarial practice, still struggling with volatile stock-market risk after a shift from predictable bonds authorized by voters with Proposition 21 in 1984.

Or declaring earnings excess or surplus might have been a backdoor way to give employees more money and employers short-term budget relief, knowing from the outset future generations were likely to get a larger pension bill.

But whatever the cause, treating investment earnings as an excess or surplus, in ways large and small, has skimmed off money that could have been invested, adding to pension debt rather than lowering it.

The Economist magazine cover, July 27-August 2 2013 issue

The Economist magazine cover, July 27-August 2 2013 issue

In lawsuits to overturn a San Jose pension reform, unions and retirees argue that the “13th check” bonus, totaling about $13.4 million this year, is one of the vested rights, protected by contract law, that are violated by the voter-approved measure.

The city argues that the bonus has been suspended during the last several years, that unions have proposed eliminating the bonus in bargaining, and that the city charter reserved the right to change pension benefits.

An attorney for the city, Arthur Hartinger, described the Supplemental Retiree Benefit Reserve during a five-day superior court trial last month merging several union and retiree lawsuits.

“What it would do is if, for example, in a given year, the fund performance measured in a given year showed that it exceeded the actuarial assumption, you’d take that money, and then subject to the discretion, you could give it away, even though you’re facing a multi-billion-dollar unfunded liability,” Hartinger said.

San Jose’s actuaries assumed investments would earn 7.75 percent a year, regarded as too optimistic by critics but similar to the earnings forecast used by other California pension funds.

The long-term debt or “unfunded liability” of the two city-run pension systems is nearly $3 billion. The annual city pension costs soared from $73 million to more than $245 million during the last decade, eating up about 20 percent of the general fund.

In a memo to the city council two years ago, Deborah Figone, the San Jose city manager, said the retiree bonus “was patterned on state legislation that been adopted in 1983 to permit certain counties to do the same.”

The 20 county retirement systems operating under a 1937 act, ranging from Los Angeles to Mendocino, can use “excess” earnings, amounts exceeding 1 percent of total assets, for retiree bonuses, retiree health care or lowering employer contributions.

The option is said to be seldom used now because reserves are depleted. The county option to divert “excess” earnings apparently was not changed by the pension reform, AB 340, pushed through the Legislature by Gov. Brown last year.

In the past, the giant California Public Employees Retirement System had two programs that used excess earnings. Retiree pensions were brought up to 80 percent of original purchasing power with excess earnings on employee contributions.

The Extraordinary Performance Dividend Account (EPDA) and the Investment Dividend Disbursement Account (IDDA), whose names refer to the diversion of earnings, were replaced in 1991 by the Purchasing Power Protection Act.

Former Gov. Pete Wilson used EPDA and IDDA “surplus” reserves, $1.6 billion, to help close a huge state budget gap. Unions got the “raid” overturned in court and countered with an initiative, Proposition 162 in 1992, strengthening pension boards.

As a booming stock market in the late 1990s gave CalPERS a temporary surplus, with more than 100 percent of the projected funding needed for future obligations, there were two major changes.

CalPERS dropped employer contributions to near zero in some cases. The state contribution fell from $1.2 billion in 1997 to about $60 million in 2000. It’s about $3.9 billion this year.

In addition, CalPERS sponsored a major retroactive pension increase for state workers, SB 400 in 1999. Legislators were erroneously told surplus funds and “superior” investment returns would cover the cost.

The bill increased Highway Patrol pensions by 50 percent, setting a benchmark later matched in local police and firefighter negotiations. Now SB 400 is often cited by critics who say “unsustainable” pension costs are devouring local government budgets.

CalPERS apparently has not calculated the impact of the huge contribution “holiday” given employers in the late 1990s. The other two state pension funds, who also cut contributions and raised benefits, have made estimates of the impact.

The UC Retirement Plan dropped employer and employee contribution rates to zero in 1990, when it was 137 percent funded. After a remarkable two-decade holiday, which included some benefit increases, contributions restarted in 2010.

UCLA Chancellor Gene Block warned that a plan to push employer contributions to 20 percent of pay by 2018 could cause cuts. Late last month UC imposed a contract on one of three unions refusing to agree to another round of pension contribution increases.

“Hypothetically, had contributions been made to UCRP during each of the prior 20 years at the Normal Cost level, UCRP would be approximately 120 percent funded today,” a UC staff report said in September 2010.

The California State Teachers Retirement System would be 88 percent funded, instead of 67 percent, if benefits had remained at the 1990 level, Milliman actuaries told the CalSTRS board last April.

As CalSTRS had a brief surplus in 2000, one of a half dozen pension increases, AB 1509, diverted a quarter of the teacher pension contribution into a new individual-investment fund with a guaranteed minimum return based on the 30-year Treasury bond.

The full teacher contribution to the pension fund, 8 percent of pay, had been going into the pension fund. For 10 years, a quarter of the teacher contribution, 2 percent of pay, was diverted to the Defined Benefit Supplement, a new “cash balance” fund.

As with the CalPERS claim for SB 400, the Legislature was erroneously told that a decade-long diversion of a quarter of the teacher contribution would have “no effect to the solvency of STRS; the STRS surplus will absorb the cost of DBSP.”

Most California public pension systems set an annual contribution rate that employers must pay. But CalSTRS, which lacks that power, has been trying for a half dozen years to get the Legislature to raise contributions.

CalSTRS has an “unfunded liability” of $71 billion and needs an additional contribution of more than $4.5 billion a year to project a full funding level of 100 percent in 30 years.

When the Legislature held a joint hearing on CalSTRS funding in March, some were optimistic about getting a phased-in rate increase. But that seems unlikely now as the Legislature moves toward adjournment for the year on Sept. 13.

A New York Times story Saturday about Gov. Brown’s successes so far said one of the notable exceptions is his pension reform. In the view of most analysts, said the story, the reform does not “come close” to addressing long-term pension liabilities.

“I’ve said there needs to be more pension reform,” Brown told the Times. “Well, when to do that is a matter of my prudential judgment. People who want to do everything all at once generally don’t get anything done.”

Reporter Ed Mendel covered the Capitol in Sacramento for nearly three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune. More stories are at Posted 19 Aug 13.

CalSTRS funding level (red line) dropped from 120 percent in 2000 to 67 percent last year. Bar at left shows investment losses (blue) caused 46 percent of the drop, benefit increases 25 percent. (Milliman actuaries, CalSTRS board video archive, April 2013)

CalSTRS funding level (red line) dropped from 120 percent in 2000 to 67 percent last year. Bar at left shows investment losses (blue) caused 46 percent of the drop, benefit increases (green) 25 percent. (Milliman actuaries, CalSTRS board video archive, April 2013)

36 Responses to “Skimming ‘excess’ pension investment earnings”

  1. My_Pension_Will_Stimulate_Economy Says:

    If the retirees and unions were smart they would voluntarily give up the 13th check and ask that it be reinvested in the pension fund to help improve the fund’s financial security.

  2. Captain Says:

    “The 20 county retirement systems operating under a 1937 act, ranging from Los Angeles to Mendocino, can use “excess” earnings, amounts exceeding 1 percent of total assets, for retiree bonuses, retiree health care or lowering employer contributions.

    The option is said to be seldom used now because reserves are depleted.”

    – Resreves have nothing to do with it. “Seldom used”? This skimming scheme is probably used anytime investments returns exceed 8.75%. I can’t imagine what those 13th checks looked liked the year investment returns were around 23%. While San Jose may have suspended this tax dollar giveaway, although the unions seem to be fighting in court to get it back – or negotiate it away for other perks, there are a lot of counties & cities (non – CalPERS) that haven’t ended this practice.

    It’s becomes very disturbing when one realizes that Employer/Taxpayer contribution rates have been rapidly increasing for over a decade – to help increase funding levels of these retirement plans, and we now discover these same tax dollars are going out the back door in the form of employee bonuses.

    Can’t help but wonder how many taxes and/or fees have been increased to support growing employee costs while at the same time
    employee pension systems have been abusing taxpayers with these shenanigans.

    We need legislation to eliminate this fraudulent practice, and we need it now. The unions should not be allowed to bargain away what should be illegal to begin with.

  3. Moobie Says:

    ‘Captain’ doesn’t understand how the County systems (NOT San Jose!) work. In the county system I’m most familiar with (which I think is fairly typical), the ‘excess’ earnings are used, if available, for cost of living increases, which are seldom granted unless the earnings truly are excess and likely to stick around. Unlike PERS, the County systems don’t do regular COLAs – they only happen when there’s extra money. Result is that ordinary (not management) county retirees must have additional retirement savings because over time the county retirement payments decline as a percentage of their necessary income.

  4. Paul Easley Says:

    This story and the comments are total BS. All the reporters keep parroting the comments about giving the state and counties a payment holiday and claiming the excess would cover it. That is absolutely untrue..
    Calpers used to hand out the 13th check way back in the early 80’s.
    That practice was stopped by the courts when the state and several municipalities banded together and claimed if there was a surplus that Calpers was charging them too much. Under contract law If I offer you a service and make a certain amount of money on the cost of that service and I happen to be efficient and do really well with the money I charge you, You can’t come back later and claim that you were overcharged and want your money back. Further, any profits I make off the money over and above the cost of the service I provide are mine to do with as I please and you have no say in the matter.
    Even so the state and municipalities sued and convinced some idiot judge that they were entitled to a refund that let them off the hook for a decade on payments and they further demanded a gag order on the outcome of the case so no one could ever tell how they violated contract law with the help of their state paid judge.
    Had they left things alone the system would be well funded for ever. The payment costs were fixed and covered everything and only surpluses in individual accounts were paid out to the individuals as a 13th check. That only happened if a persons account was fully funded so it had no effect on the rest of the system.
    Get your facts straight before you print this stuff.. It was the states greed that got them into this situation and now they want to try to shift the responsibility to the employees. As usual there is no accountability for government mismanagement or outright fraud. Put the blame where it really lies and stop blaming the retirement system and the employees. They are just like everyone else. Trying to make the best living they can and have something for their old age.
    Force the state to tell the truth about the payment holiday and stop beating up the people who clean the bathrooms and floors for less than they would make in private employment cause they thought they would get a good retirement.

  5. spension Says:

    UC Employees contributed at historical rates between 1990-2010… those funds were put in a DC plan, not into the UCRP. Only the UC employer contributions were ceased entirely.

  6. Tough Love Says:

    Editor, I find all of your articles informative, well written and factual. Mia culpa for pointing it out, but in the following quoted paragraph,I believe you stated something that’s not accurate.

    Quoting … “Or declaring earnings excess or surplus might have been a backdoor way to give employees more money and employers short-term budget relief, knowing from the outset future generations were likely to get a larger pension bill.”

    While there are MANY things Pension administrators do that minimizes Plan costs and hence results in “employers short-term budget relief”, “declaring earnings excess or surplus” is not one of them, Paying out that surplus via the 13-th check lowers Plan assets (increasing funding requirements) and certainly does not drive immediate (or long-term) employer costs downward.

  7. Tough Love Says:

    Paul Easley , You arguments are baloney.

    While they would be accurate in fixed price PRIVATE Sector contracts where the benefits of greater-than-expected efficiency enure to the contract provider, Public Sector pensions are not “fixed price” and the Taxpayers are the balancing item. For taxpayers to be the balancing item on shortfalls (whether due to LACK of efficiency or poor investment results), but NOT the beneficiary of efficient administration or greater-than-expected investment results, is patently absurd.

    Clearly you are a Public Sector worker or retiree, riding this gravy train, and not wanting it derailed.

  8. larrylittlefield Says:

    Heads past taxpayers and public employees win.

    Tails future taxpayers and public employees lose.

    And heads are always followed by tails.

    Who in Generation Greed could resist that deal?

  9. Captain Says:

    Moobie, there are NO EXCESS EARNINGS available for distribution to retirees. Show me one, just one, county plan that has in excess of 100% funding on a Market Value basis. The funded ratios of these plans are nowhere near 100%, and even then these stated low funding ratios do NOT include the cost of POB‘s (Pension Obligation Bonds) because county retirement plans do NOT include them in their funding ratios. Once the cost of POB’s are included the funding ratio drops even further – considerably further.

    I’m not sure what county you’re most familiar with, but the county pension plans I’m familiar with provide pension COLA’s. The Alameda County Employee Retirement Association (ACERA) provides a 3 percent COLA, which is a 50 percent premium above the standard CalPERS 2 percent COLA.

    Here are some of the perks the ACERA provides with the “Skimmed Funds”:

    – 100 dollars per month toward Medicare part B (not a vested right).

    – 522 dollars per month toward medical insurance. This can be applied toward the retiree, surviving spouse, domestic partner, or dependant children (not a vested right).

    – Full Family Dental and Vision for the retiree, spouse, surviving spouse, and dependant children (not a vested right). Not sure what the $ cost is.

    – The 3% COLA is typically a max with the actual COLA paid being based on the bay area CPI. The Supplemental Benefits Program being offered by ACERA essentially provides guarantees that employees receive a 3 PERCENT COLA even if the CPI were zero, which effectively provides a 3 percent raise to retirees (not a vested right). Not sure what the $ cost is.

    – ACERA uses the Supplemental Benefits Program to guarantee an 85% buyer protection minimum pension benefit (not a vested right). Not sure what the $ cost is.

    Keep in mind these non-vested benefits/perks are being PAID at the same time taxpayers are contributing RECORD DOLLAR AMOUNTS to help stabalize the VERY SAME pension funds that are paying HUGE DOLLARS OUT the BACK-DOOR.

    Moobie, IMO, this is what a typical county pension program looks like. What county do you live or work in?

  10. Alberta Anders Says:

    When your total pension after 20 years nets you $1,000 to live on, and SS is reduced to almost nothing (in spite of years in the private industry) avoid “double dipping” that 13th check was an unexpected amazing bonus – Never expected, never counted on but what a blessing when it came. Difficult for those in higher brackets to understand, on this fixed income, in my 7th decade, it was like a miracle from Heaven. How I appreciated those far thinking managers when it Did Happen. I’ll get by, I won’t go hungry, but I can appreciate how difficult it is for some to understand what a real blessing it was. Alberta Anders, San Jose Police Officer retired.

  11. Tough Love Says:

    Alberta Anders, Private Sector workers generally work for 35-40 years … NEVER 20.

    Sounds like you stopped working quite young, or never saved outside that pension …….. bad choices have consequences (as would, for example, most CURRENT Public Sector workers actually believing they will get all the retirement benefits that they have been “promised”)

  12. Larry Fernsworth Says:

    Yes Alberta, shame on you (and me) for actually believing your employer would honor contracts compensating you for work performed. As a Police Officer you must have noticed not all criminals go to prison. Many go to law school.

  13. Tough Love Says:

    Well Larry, when 99% of those “contracts” were negotiated with NOBODY at that bargaining table rightfully looking out for the Taxpayer’s interests …………… you were pretty stupid for expecting those (betrayed) Taxpayers to endlessly agree to being the suckers in this equation.

    Greed HAS consequences !

  14. Larry Fernsworth Says:

    You don t know enough about me to be calling me stupid. Given your penchant for regurgitating fairy tales as exhibited in your posts you don t know much about anything. Crawl back under your rock pal.

  15. Tough Love Says:

    Larry,, I’m quite up for a challenge, please tell me what I’ve said that are “fairy tails” and we can debate it.

    You, as most Public Sector workers riding this pension gravy train just don’t like it when someone challenges all the BS put out by the Unions and workers.

    Well tough luck …you’re going to see a lot more of it, as we are fed up with the financial “mugging” of PRIVATE Sector Taxpayers that has taken place for the last 2 decades.

  16. Captain Says:

    Larry, how about you offer to contribute more toward your healthcare and pensions. As has been exposed in this CalPension article public employee unions have been skimming from their own pension plans to provide EXTRA benefits (medical, cash – as Alberta seems to have become accustom to, and other perks such as Increased COLA’s, Buyer Protection plans which increase pensions, and full medical benefits).

    Nothing like siphoning money from your own pension plan and expecting taxpayers to not only cover the plan losses but also the members theft while you cash your check and proclaim there isn’t a pension problem.

    Now you expect taxpayers to cover for the theft of pension funds by members while they continue to claim the very same taxpayers need to honor their commitment to a corrupt system established by the various pension boards, for the benefit of people like yourself.

    And you go on to say, in response to Alberta: “shame on you (and me) for actually believing your employer would honor contracts compensating you for work performed.”

    To that I say, @#$% &^%. Us dumb taxpayers never agreed to the collusion that has us stuck (maybe) paying 100’s of billions in unfunded liabilities for a bunch of arrogant jerks that don’t want pension reform or even to contribute a nickel more toward their own excessive benefits.

  17. Larry Fernsworth Says:

    Theft? Among other things you have a misunderstanding of that word. Pensions do not belong to taxpayers or those they elect. They are the excusive property of those of us who earned them. Paid for with work performed and significant amounts of cash out of our pockets over many years. Theft of taxpayer money here is the millions of dollars in legal fees incurred by the machinations of those of you attempting to **** up a rope in the name of pension reform. So, @#$%&^% too Captain.

  18. Tough Love Says:

    Quoting Larry …”Paid for with work performed and significant amounts of cash out of our pockets over many years.”

    I can all but guarantee that if you took all of your actual out-of-pocket contributions and accumulated each (at an earnings rate consistent with that of a balanced portfolio) to the date of your retirement, the accumulated sum would be sufficient to buy no more than 10-20% of you VERY generous pension.

    If you are CA police officer as I suspect, while that accumulated sum is likely $200K-$300K (which some would say is indeed “significant”), it pales in compassion to the “value” of your pensions (in lump sum present value dollar terms) on the date of retirement, which for the typical CA full career police retiree approached $2 Million.

    That “typical” police pension is roughly equivalent to that of a Private Sector executive making a salary of $400K-$500K annually. It is patently absurd that Taxpayers (80+% of of whom are NOT Public Sector workers riding this Public Sector pension gravy train) should fund 80-90% of such a pension for the run-of-the-mill police retiree.

  19. SeeSaw Says:

    There is no such thing as having the complete DB pension paid for at the time of retirement. Sixty-four cents of every pension dollar paid out by CalPERS comes from the investment earnings. When the original contributions, from both the employer and the employee, are used up after 8-10 years, the former employer continues to make up the difference of 36 cents on every dollar. That’s the wonderful thing about DB pensions. How many workers could save two+ million dollars, on their own, during their active years?

    TL your claim that the economy cannot afford to give DB pensions to workers in the private sector does not hold up. DB plans in the private sector were usual before the 401k plans were introduced. With CEO’s cashing in golden parachutes like they now do, I say that each of them could give up a paltry few million to set up DB plans in their own, respective, entities.

    In the meantime, why can’t we all put pressure on our own government to set up some work programs so that the 20+ million workers who were denied their own places in this economy by the closing of 60,000 factories during the Bush Administration. Worry about those people! The former public sector workers with DB plans are ok.

  20. Tough Love Says:

    SeeSaw, Your above comment deserves my repeating what I have said about you before …………… are “clueless”.

    And where you said ,,,”TL your claim that the economy cannot afford to give DB pensions to workers in the private sector” …..

    How you interesting you omitted the MOST important words (see CAPS). If you were quoting me, it would have said …”the economy cannot afford to give DB pensions EQUAL TO THOSE TYPICALLY GRANTED PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS TO ALL workers in the private sector “

  21. Larry Fernsworth Says:

    Nobody I worked with was run of the mill. Taxpayers got their moneys worth and more. Some days and nights a lot more. Should your dreams of PD s populated with minimum wage warm bodies in blue shirts come to pass do you think the” savings” will accrue to you in lowered taxes or will the destruction of PD s cause lowered tax bases from more business flight to Nevada and Texas? When politicians get their hands on my pension will they spend it on schemes engineered to improve their electability and their friends bank accounts or give it to you? I’m guessing the ride you are so eager to be taken on won’t just be the magic bullet train, SF to LA in 20??,as all your shortsighted sniveling goes for naught.

  22. SeeSaw Says:

    There is no law requiring the public and private sectors to compare wages and benefits–no law that requires comparing apples and oranges. So as usual–TL is hopelessly clueless in believing that the rest of the citizenry is out of breath complaining, because the two aren’t aligned.

  23. Larry Fernsworth Says:

    SeeSaw…If your lucid commentary on public pensions doesn’t deter TL et al from their proud displays of ignorance on the subject nothing will but I thank you for trying. At the end of the day I believe the courts will more closely reflect rule of law than the internet bleatings of the uninformed. Keep punching.

  24. Tough Love Says:

    Quoting Larry Fernsworth … ” When politicians get their hands on my pension will they spend it on schemes ”

    Spend it ? Spend what ? The money to pay those overstuffed promised pensions doesn’t exist now, and never will.

    When the Taxpayers “get our hands son on your pensions” means that WE (the Taxpayers) will not be topping up the funding shortfall that (under proper accounting that Moody’s is now using ) is likely just about 50%. You see, the politicians won’t be getting any money to spend, But you’ll soon enough be getting a whole lot less than what was “promised”.

    The era of the Public Sector ‘s financial “mugging” of the Taxpayers is rapidly coming to an end. Once the Federal Bankruptcy Court makes it clear (in the Detroit case) that the pensions of retirees and the vested pension accruals of actives CAN be reduced, the floodgates of similar filings will open and many of these pensions will be reset at 50% or less of the promised amounts.

    Greed HS consequences … and boy are you guys greedy.

  25. Larry Fernsworth Says:

    Ever been to Detroit TL? No? Not to worry. Once the Federal Bankruptcy Court allows itself to be used as a subterfuge to destroy contract law Detroit will be coming to your city soon enough. Enjoy.

  26. SeeSaw Says:

    The money to pay for the pensions comes from taxes, and your taxes are not going to go down. If the pensions are lowered, the taxes will stay the same. The money will just be spent on other budget items. You will have the same tax burden; the pensioners will have less; and the economy will be negatively affected. You continue to flout your opinions, TL, because you have nothing else, based on facts, to say.

  27. Tough Love Says:

    Larry, You’ve got that backwards. The bankruptcy Court’s (well deserved and eminently just) approval of forced Public Sector pension reductions will SAVE, not destroy our cities.

    Necessary services will continue and be paid for via the ELIMINATION of the unjust excesses being taken AWAY from Public Sector workers.

    As you said ….Enjoy !

  28. Larry Fernsworth Says:

    Still touting Detroit as the blueprint for the future of American cities are we. Bankrupt indeed. Get back on your meds pal.

  29. Tough Love Says:

    Larry, I’m not “touting it”..

    You guys, the Public Sector Unions are the CAUSE of Detroit’s financial problems.

  30. spension Says:

    Perhaps the bankruptcy court can decide the issues of some local jurisdictions… however, obligations of a sovereign state cannot be so resolved. We are the `United States’ where state still means something closer to `sovereign’. And that is why sovereign default is the only reliable way to adjudicate state-level default.

  31. Tough Love Says:

    Spension, The States have more wiggle room anyway.

    Many of the cities in distress (do to the greed of these Unions and the self-interest of our bribed politicians) are approaching the end of the line, A few biggies that may follow Detroit are Chicago, LA, and Philadelphia.

  32. Captain Says:

    “Larry Fernsworth Says: “Theft? Among other things you have a misunderstanding of that word. “”

    That’s right Larry, I said THEFT. If you don’t like “THEFT” maybe you can accept FRAUD, or Collusion among the members and the Pension Board (We can call it White-Collar crime).

    Larry, this statement is only half true: “Pensions do not belong to taxpayers or those they elect. They are the excusive property of those of us who earned them.”

    While the pensions may be earned the funds in the pension plan do NOT belong to you, beyond your contribution (or the contribution the city made on your behalf). But, If you would like to take ownership of the entire plan, by all means be my guest.

  33. SeeSaw Says:

    You need mental health counseling, Captain, for your propensity to pin irrational hate-tags on people you don’t even know, just because they have a pension. The State of CA owns the plan and the 1.6 members are stakeholders in the plan. Feel free to become a stakeholder in CalPERS, if you are eligible. If you are not eligible, you are spending a lot of time obsessing over something that really doesn’t pertain to you.

  34. Tough Love Says:

    SeeSaw …… “owns”…really ????

  35. L Fernsworth Says:

    Captain, This is to advise you it appears some lunatic has access to your computer and is using it to distribute vile hate speech. As always,@#$% &^% too. TL ,Communication problem : I don’t speak gibberish. Talk to the Captain. 10-8

    On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Calpensions wrote:

    > ** > Tough Love commented: “SeeSaw …… “owns”…really ????” >

  36. Bille Says:

    I have to laugh. Showing a 10 year chart and calling it “historical funded ratios” is RIDICULOUS and it is not “historical”. It is short-term or even near term. What did you know by age 10? For some of you I realize that you stopped maturing about that age but for everyone else you didn’t know what you knew at age 20 or 30 or 40 or 50. Now that would be historical. It’s like standing on the side of mounting and depending on which way you are facing your predict you are always only going up or always only going down.

    This chart is “Hysterical” not “historical”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: