I really wish I was producing more postings than I have been lately because my pension research and findings are cutting edge and much-needed. No one person or Government Agency has been able to unravel and explain the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement Systems (SBCERS) current value crisis better than I. All my conclusions are fact based and verifiable through uncovered County, State, and Wall Street documentation. I might add that regardless of where I located these documents. The figures that appear in them were all originally provided by our elected county officials.
Moving forward many of you have been sharing a bleak report on the ALLEGED California Pension future unfunded liability’s that was created by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. Portions of this report were recently included the in a Santa Barbara News Press story, I reviewed the article and as far as I am concerned Stanford has grossly mislead the public.
. In fact last December CalSTRS Responded to Stanford’s findings by saying “the study’s findings are based on improbable scenarios and unrealistic assumptions and miss the mark”. Based on the mathematical factors used by Stanford I have to agree with CalSTRS stance. You see no matter how many times Stanford runs their calculations there can only be one conclusion; a huge negative deficit.
I could try to convince you of this but I would rather concentrate on my own incredible pension findings. Boy my work would be a lot easier if my pension findings came with a Stanford logo with it. I mean here I am under educated with poor grammar habits and sadly a terrible at spelling (Spell Check I know). Regardless of all my faults not one person or County agency has come forward to challenge any of my findings.
As a matter of fact when I approached the California State Controllers office they had no answers for me. In one email an employee with the Controllers office wrote, ”I’ve got a question on our retirement publications – and specifically about the Santa Barbara County System. Apparently, originally reported amounts for actuarial accrued liability and the actuarial value of assets were retroactively changed in reports issued for subsequent years. (The years I’m looking at are from 1988 – 1996.) Can you refer me to someone who can provide an explanation or some background? Terry, the following response should address the question of why there are differences with any of the ten years worth of reports for SB.
Just this past week I had a long conversation with a very strong community leader and we covered some of my pension findings. I acknowledged to this person that I am aware that it would be political suicide to attack our elected county officials with my pension findings. That regardless of the huge impact this could have not only on our County but our Country I just do not have the political clout to overcome the opposition. However I also inform my friend that they still need to be well versed with our county pension situation. Because there is one person who truly does have the power to change the political climate of our entire State if she so desires. Of course I am referring to that Montecito spitfire Carole Lieff. She and I have talked some in the past and I truly feel she is the key to my future success. Her blog is tilted Carole Lieff/ Santa Barbara watch dog! And can be found @ http://carolelieff.com/about/
.Carole I do owe you an apology for my actions the last time we spoke but you were incorrect with your assumptions. Now like then I implore you to allow me just one hour of your time so that I may present my findings to you and put all your doubts to rest. Carol I see on your blog you enjoy the million dollar art deal, well with your expertise we will be returning over TWO BILLION DOLLARS to the residents of Santa Barbara County.
Because of the sheer volume of abuse with our pension and the documentation that has been created to support the fraud I do under stand why it has taken so long for people to join my bang wagon. For example Page five of this report (http://www.countyofsb.org/uploadedFiles/SBC/RPAAC/C%20-%20Employer-Employee%20History%20of%20Costs.pdf) which represents the Employer Cost History for the SBCERS. Based on this document Santa Barbara County has been dealing with and committing additional funds to the pension for the UAALdebit since 1988. Now if you review the document used in the next paragraph you will see that the County is also committed to an additional 20 years of UAAL payments ending in 2028. Let me translate what the county would have you believe based on the data in these two documents. These documents state that Santa Barbara County will have made 40 years of additional payments to the pension above the normal contribution rate (UAAL) and still end up with a ONE BILLION DOLLARS UAAL deficit. If we cannot prove my findings it is time to shut the pension down.
Even with all the documentation I have already produced I still have to over come the public’s insistence that the cause of our pension’s deficit is poor investment returns. And the only fix to correct the poor funding and UAAL levels still consist of annually increasing the contribution rate until the Unfunded (UAAL) payment is greater than the normal contribution rate. Yes its true if you review page 15 of this October 2009 document (http://www.sbcag.org/Meetings/SBCAG/2009/10October/Item%206E%20Staff%20Report%20re%20SBCERS%20%20Investment%20Losses.pdf
) you will see that starting in 2010 through 2022 the Employer UAAL Contribution payment is considerably larger than the Employer Normal Cost. Then If you compare the two category’s total cost starting with 2008 and ending in 2028 you will find that the pension situation has been allowed to deteriorate so badly that we must now commit more money to the unfunded payment than we pay for our current county work force during that time frame.
In closing please keep an open mind and remember this data was also provided by our County elected officials. I have found that the pension fund not only works it has produced some incredible results. Like a 20 year net return on assets of 10.10% annually (ending June 2007), and the 24 year net return on pension assets ending June 2012 is 8.5%. So how can this county explain the constant need for additional funds for the alleged UAAL side of the pension while earning an outstanding 25% more than the desired assumption rate? And all the while the County is also claiming to be contributing above the normal contribution rate as represented in the two documents I referenced in the last two paragraphs.
Please do not over think this because I can present about 30 different value challenges all backed with documentation. The abuse is just that prevalent.
If you have found value with the data in this posting please share it with has many friends and family as possible.
S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!
To verify the 24 year 8.5% return on assets go to the 2011 Valuation report @ http://sbcers-trustee.com/Documents/2011-10-26-002b-BOR-ActuarialValuationJune30,2011.pdf and review the 24 year return on assets average on page 26.
To confirm the 10.10% 20 year return on assets average you can go to https://magicinsantabarbara.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/2007-actuarial-valuation.pdf