Sorry, Ted -- most public pensions have too-small contributions, so yes, they did require higher contributions.
You keep harping on poor asset management, but it would do you well for you to point out which pension plans you think actually have good asset management practices. I think you will find those plans have modest benefit guarantees as well as very substantial contributions, so they aren't tempted to chase yield in alternative asset classes.
In the case of Dallas Police & Fire, they had an insane DROP guarantee -- 8% [compounded] that retirees could pull out as a LUMP SUM. That was the origin of all the other woes of the system. Yes, that benefit is now cut off, but that is part of the overhang here, and what led the plan into the heinous asset-side shenanigans in their search to support the "guaranteed" 8% returns.
There is a history for this particular plan, and ignoring that does not help anybody.
Sorry, Mary Pat, my $1 trillion in forensic investigations reveal the greatest driver of pension underfunding is mismanagement of assets. Perhaps my next post will explain more about asset management forensic protocols.
How can we , the legitimate pension recipients , rescind the stollen pensions from bad actors who have falsified their credits? Some recipients got pension credits completely outside of their major Line of employment.
Push for a forensic audit of the pension, including investments and benefit payments.
Sorry, Ted -- most public pensions have too-small contributions, so yes, they did require higher contributions.
You keep harping on poor asset management, but it would do you well for you to point out which pension plans you think actually have good asset management practices. I think you will find those plans have modest benefit guarantees as well as very substantial contributions, so they aren't tempted to chase yield in alternative asset classes.
In the case of Dallas Police & Fire, they had an insane DROP guarantee -- 8% [compounded] that retirees could pull out as a LUMP SUM. That was the origin of all the other woes of the system. Yes, that benefit is now cut off, but that is part of the overhang here, and what led the plan into the heinous asset-side shenanigans in their search to support the "guaranteed" 8% returns.
There is a history for this particular plan, and ignoring that does not help anybody.
Sorry, Mary Pat, my $1 trillion in forensic investigations reveal the greatest driver of pension underfunding is mismanagement of assets. Perhaps my next post will explain more about asset management forensic protocols.
How can we , the legitimate pension recipients , rescind the stollen pensions from bad actors who have falsified their credits? Some recipients got pension credits completely outside of their major Line of employment.