• Become a Nevada Shooters Forum Supporter!
    Click HERE for details!

One View: Nevada PERS in great shape (2016)




Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
Two years later with a robust stock market and healthy economy, I am sure Nevada PERS is even doing better.



Regarding Timothy Bauer's Tuesday, Feb. 9 letter ("PERS future solvency in question"):

In 2015 Nevada PERS came under attack by the lobbying dollars of powerful Wall Street firms seeking to bleed our public pension funds of massive "management" fees. As explained in John Bogle's "The Little Book of Common Sense Investing," the key factor determining investment success is to minimize or eliminate these fees which Nevada PERS has been doing with great success for decades.

Bauer repeats the tired implication that Nevadans should be alarmed about PERS's "unfunded liability" — he complains that "if all benefits came due today, PERS would pay less than 72 cents on the dollar". Pundits like Bauer have to manufacture impossible scenarios to create the illusion of a crisis when none exists. All benefits will not come due today or on any other day because public workers will not all retire on one day thus leaving our state and local governments unstaffed. Funding PERS retirement benefits over time is equivalent to paying down a mortgage on your home and it allows a valuable benefit to be funded at a cost that is very low relative to that benefit.

Letter: PERS future solvency in question
Social security tax rates are 12.4 percent (shared equally between participating employees and their employers). By not participating in Social Security, Nevada's public employees save 6.2 percent in taxes, which means their employers can pay them 6.2 pecent less without reducing their take home pay. Of course, our public employers ALSO save their 6.2 percent half of social security taxes. Social Security is a "pay as you go" system: The taxes coming in are used immediately to pay benefits; the money is not invested like PERS contributions are.

Bauer cries foul on the basis that public employers and employees contribute 28 percent of the employees' salaries to PERS each year to fund future retirement benefits. The contribution percentage was substantially raised several years ago to accelerate the payoff of the unfunded future liabilities of the PERS fund from 30 to 20 years. It could be argued that this is an overaggressive approach but it was done in response to complaints from people like Bauer.

Eighty percent of PERS retirement benefits are paid from investment returns. It would therefore take five times as much money for Nevada public employees to pay salaries high enough to compensate for the elimination of PERS retirement benefits.

Bauer makes the vague implication that the trend is ominous but in fact there is no cause for concern and ample reason to rejoice. Nevada PERS continues to be one of the best-managed public pension funds in the country, performing in the top 10 percent by delivering average investment returns over the past 31 years. It offers a valuable benefit to public workers at a discounted cost. Nevada public employee retirees pump money back into the economy, which helps all of us. The fund is expertly managed at low cost and is well on its way to 100 percent funded status. It is truly unfortunate that most private employers have eliminated defined benefit plans in favor of 401(k)s, and this is one of the main reasons why wealth and income in the United States have become so concentrated in the top 1 percent. Nevadans should be grateful that our state has such a valuable asset in its Public Employees' Retirement System.

Trevor Alt is a firefighter for the City of Reno.
 
#3
Well it's no California, or Illinois, or Connecticut. But give Sisolak time, I'm sure he'll take us there.
Um, CalPERS is doing pretty well. They are at over 350 Billion in assets, is earning more than its paying out and continues to invest 10% back into the state that supports infrastructure, 100,000s of jobs, businesses and commerce. The last number I saw was 28 Billion, but cant find the article at the moment.

2018- Pension fund hits milestone: It’s earning more money than it’s paying out
Calpers Reports 8.6% Gain on Investments, Beating Its Target
CalPERS Reports Preliminary 8.6 Percent Investment Return for Fiscal Year 2017-18
 

tuolumnejim

Very Active Member
Forum Supporter
#4
Um, CalPERS is doing pretty well. They are at over 350 Billion in assets, is earning more than its paying out and continues to invest 10% back into the state that supports infrastructure, 100,000s of jobs, businesses and commerce. The last number I saw was 28 Billion, but cant find the article at the moment.

2018- Pension fund hits milestone: It’s earning more money than it’s paying out
Calpers Reports 8.6% Gain on Investments, Beating Its Target
CalPERS Reports Preliminary 8.6 Percent Investment Return for Fiscal Year 2017-18
Lol no its not they've been cooking the books for years, as the old saying goes "robbing Peter to pay Paul" and they are very adept at it.


Borenstein: Ain’t seen nothing yet; California pension cost rise just starting
 

4D5

uber Member
#5
Cooking the books is right.
This February 2018 article seems to indicate CALPERS is in serious trouble.
An excerpt says... "The new report warns that pension costs are becoming “unsustainable.”
Kalifornia is sinking so fast, I hope it doesn't suck Nevada in with it.
 

Cirdan

Very Active Member
#6
Um, CalPERS is doing pretty well. They are at over 350 Billion in assets, is earning more than its paying out and continues to invest 10% back into the state that supports infrastructure, 100,000s of jobs, businesses and commerce. The last number I saw was 28 Billion, but cant find the article at the moment.

2018- Pension fund hits milestone: It’s earning more money than it’s paying out
Calpers Reports 8.6% Gain on Investments, Beating Its Target
CalPERS Reports Preliminary 8.6 Percent Investment Return for Fiscal Year 2017-18
Did you read your links? Yes, they have $350B in assets, but that's still only 71% of what they need. Have to look at BOTH assets and liabilities. They're also raising contribution requirements to the counties and cities. All are in dire financial straits due to significant increases in pension costs.
 
#10
I realize that..I was questioning who would give a cr p about what some californicator thinks about anything going on in NV.
Well, someone else did bring it up in post #2, so then the conversation turned. But since were at it, CalPERS did invest 1.1 BILLION into some Las Vegas reality, so the people of Nevada have been benefiting from that...

CalPERS invest 1.1Billion into Las Vegas Miracle Mile Shopping Strip

CalPERS is betting big on Las Vegas real estate, purchasing a glitzy retail and nightlife complex on the Strip where entertainers such as Britney Spears and Jennifer Lopez regularly perform.

California’s giant public pension fund recently bought Las Vegas’ high-profile Miracle Mile Shops for a reported $1.1 billion. It’s one of the largest real estate deals CalPERS has made since the property bubble burst nearly a decade ago.

CalPERS purchased the 200-store mall, next to Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino, through a company called Institutional Mall Investors LLC. Institutional Mall, which owns 21 shopping centers, is a partnership between the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and Chicago-area real estate firm Miller Capital Advisory Inc.

The sellers, a partnership based in New York, announced the completion of the deal last week. Financial terms weren’t released, and CalPERS declined to comment. But the Las Vegas Review-Journal, quoting anonymous sources, said the deal was worth just under $1.1 billion.
 
#11
Lol no its not they've been cooking the books for years, as the old saying goes "robbing Peter to pay Paul" and they are very adept at it.

Borenstein: Ain’t seen nothing yet; California pension cost rise just starting
LOL, an opinion piece written to bait and brainwash. As for the books being cooked, really? Can you actually show that or just some random idea here? Like I posted above, CalPERS is doing pretty well and even investing in Nevada, with that in mind, I would just sit back and hope they continue to do well. And CalPERS invested 1.1 BILLION into Nevada, who else has done that....anyone?
 
#13
LOL, get kicked out of Calguns and spout your drivel here OP................way to go(y)
Nice troll. People were posting false information there and once you correct them with facts, they dont like it and report it until Admin caves. Just like liberals with gun control. CalGuns is part of the problem in CA, not the solution.
 
Last edited:
#14
Did you read your links? Yes, they have $350B in assets, but that's still only 71% of what they need. Have to look at BOTH assets and liabilities. They're also raising contribution requirements to the counties and cities. All are in dire financial straits due to significant increases in pension costs.
They dont need to be at 100% When you say that they are only at 71% of what they need you are mis-informed. They are still recovering from the Great Recession where they lost 11B in the Real Estate fund. Thats also not confirmed about raising the contribution cost to the cities. They are doing well as they are taking in more than putting out. Sorry, CalPERS is doing well and thriving, cant make this stuff up.
 
#16
Funny the sacbee a month later said there were she concerns about calpers

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article204340914.html

Many local governments can’t make their calpers payments. That sounds sustainable.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.sacbee.com/opinion/california-forum/article209303974.html

Guess it depends on who you ask.
Both are those article are old and not accurate anymore. The sales tax never went through. And the town stopped paying it portion to the system, it was the town's fault,. not CalPERS. Youre Googling and posting old information. Gov Brown is also using the "pension crisis" to raise more money for the bullet train. Any tax he pushes will be re-directed to the train. The link I posted is the most accurate where CalPERS is healthy and taking in more money then it is sending out. The whole "pension crisis" is over now.

Also, the state is currently doing pretty well, that the pension program will get help if needed- California’s state budget is so flush words can’t describe it
 
Last edited:

Kinoons

Obsessed Member
Forum Supporter
#18
Both are those article are old and not accurate anymore. The sales tax never went through. And the town stopped paying it portion to the system, it was the town's fault,. not CalPERS. Youre Googling and posting old information. Gov Brown is also using the "pension crisis" to raise more money for the bullet train. Any tax he pushes will be re-directed to the train. The link I posted is the most accurate where CalPERS is healthy and taking in more money then it is sending out. The whole "pension crisis" is over now.
Both of my articles were in mid 2018 and more recent than the initial article you posted from the sac bee (feb 2018).

So which is it? Is the first article you used from Feb 2018 new enough but my articles from March and April 2018 are not?
 
#19
And as of 6 years ago the LVRJ isn’t impressed with NVPers. Has that changed?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.re...c-employee-compensation-needs-reform-now/amp/

Well, that was SIX years ago and the newer Reno article was 2 years ago, so you need to decide who to believe after a record year in the stock market.

Of course you like it. Enables firefighters to retire after 30 years at 48-50 and pull 100k on the public dine for another 20-30 years while having another job.
When did I say I liked it? I dont know of any firefighters that are retiring at 48. And if any of them do retire at 50, they are usuaily injured and have cancer and die. As for "pull 100k on the public dine for another 20-30 years while having another job", I didnt say that, you did. But I do know that the public benefits from the pension program in the long haul long after the pensioner dies. So who really wins?
 
#20
Both of my articles were in mid 2018 and more recent than the initial article you posted from the sac bee (feb 2018).

So which is it? Is the first article you used from Feb 2018 new enough but my articles from March and April 2018 are not?
Your first article is bogus because a town in CA failed to make the payments, so it falls on the town failing not CalPERS. You were doing a little mis-direct there. As for the second article, I cant bring it up now because of the free view limit by the Sac Bee, I forgot what it said. But anyways, the bottom line is that CalPERS is doing healthy and even investing over a billion in Las Vegas, so there is a win.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.