"You advocate a "well-managed pension," but can you name one at the state level?"
No, my friend, I cannot. As I explain in Who Stole My Pension?, gross malpractice generally practiced prevails at all public pensions at this time. I will soon post the findings of my forensic investigations of three state pensions--Rhode Island, North Carolina and Ohio--all horribly managed.
"DC isn't inherently less efficient than DB." You're right about this too. The problem with 401ks used to be they paid high retail mutual fund expenses--which were far higher than fees on traditional separate accounts in pensions. But now pensions are in alternative investments that have far greater fees than even retail mutual funds.
DC isn't inherently less efficient than DB. In both, you're investing in mostly the same markets during working years for payout in retirement. DC is much more transparent as to investments and fees. And it is less transparent than DB in terms of benefits that can be provided, and transitioning from DB to DC makes it easy to disguise a benefit cut. But why wouldn't the reasons that have influenced transition to DC in the private sector, where costs are more accurately measured, also apply to the public sector? You advocate a "well-managed pension," but can you name one at the state level? The incentives of all players are aligned toward mismanagement (and you have profited from exposing the results, right?).
At present, the pension system lacks adequate transparency. Instead of discouraging individuals from profiting by revealing fraud, shouldn't the incentives be restructured to ensure ample motivation for whistleblowers to come forward if issues arise?
I wasn’t discouraging anyone. If there’s fraud, it should be exposed and even rewarded. I was making the point that calling for a “well-managed pension” seems disingenuous since they’re rare in the public sector as he knows firsthand based on how much money he’s made exposing fraud and corruption. (Saying that DB is inherently better than DC is also not true -- there are pluses and minuses and higher benefits or greater efficiency isn’t inherently either.) DC, being more transparent, is likely to result in less corruption. If minimizing corruption is a goal, he should be advocating DC.
"You advocate a "well-managed pension," but can you name one at the state level?"
No, my friend, I cannot. As I explain in Who Stole My Pension?, gross malpractice generally practiced prevails at all public pensions at this time. I will soon post the findings of my forensic investigations of three state pensions--Rhode Island, North Carolina and Ohio--all horribly managed.
"DC isn't inherently less efficient than DB." You're right about this too. The problem with 401ks used to be they paid high retail mutual fund expenses--which were far higher than fees on traditional separate accounts in pensions. But now pensions are in alternative investments that have far greater fees than even retail mutual funds.
DC isn't inherently less efficient than DB. In both, you're investing in mostly the same markets during working years for payout in retirement. DC is much more transparent as to investments and fees. And it is less transparent than DB in terms of benefits that can be provided, and transitioning from DB to DC makes it easy to disguise a benefit cut. But why wouldn't the reasons that have influenced transition to DC in the private sector, where costs are more accurately measured, also apply to the public sector? You advocate a "well-managed pension," but can you name one at the state level? The incentives of all players are aligned toward mismanagement (and you have profited from exposing the results, right?).
At present, the pension system lacks adequate transparency. Instead of discouraging individuals from profiting by revealing fraud, shouldn't the incentives be restructured to ensure ample motivation for whistleblowers to come forward if issues arise?
I wasn’t discouraging anyone. If there’s fraud, it should be exposed and even rewarded. I was making the point that calling for a “well-managed pension” seems disingenuous since they’re rare in the public sector as he knows firsthand based on how much money he’s made exposing fraud and corruption. (Saying that DB is inherently better than DC is also not true -- there are pluses and minuses and higher benefits or greater efficiency isn’t inherently either.) DC, being more transparent, is likely to result in less corruption. If minimizing corruption is a goal, he should be advocating DC.