no_vaseline_IHB
New member
So, three guys. Got it.
July 28th California goes bust
- Thread starter usctrojanman29_IHB
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
OMG!!! sorry but this lady needs to lose her home. she rolled the dice hard like a lot of Californians lost. pay up sweet cheeks or GTFO!!!
Robert C. Dynes MISCELLANEOUS UC SAN DIEGO $472,683
WTF is MISCELLANEOUS? Just does, you know, stuff that needs doin over at UCSD for $472k!!!! sign me up
Just give it a few weeks. This state is about to get flushed down the toilet. All these idiots have decided to play chicken now that they cant borrow their way out of this.
Lets see who blinks first. All I know is if they try to put any more "Fees" on the taxpayers
there is going to be a huge public outcry.
dr. robert dynes is the former chancellor or president of ucsd. he resigned few yrs ago and received a buyout that generated some controversy. interesting that he's still being paid.
i'm not bothered by top execs at calpers being paid what they're paid. i know $600k sounds like a lot but that salary to be the CIO of an investment fund with nearly $200B in assets under mgmt is a bargain for the state. it comes out to 0.0003% of AUM for CEO pay. pension and univ endowment investment officers are practically working for free when the heads of any investment company with half that amount of assets are on, or close to being on, the forbes 400.
$500k/yr for the responsibility those guys carry doesn't bother me as a taxpayer. on the other hand, i'm really annoyed at the tens of thousands redundant, unnecessary public jobs that pay $50k/yr + overtime + benefits + pension for twiddling your thumbs. and it's not so much annoyance at the ppl who perform these jobs, but the inefficiencies and bureaucracy that necessitate their jobs.
These guys can not be compared to CEOs of investment firms, unless you compare them to the CEOs of investment firms that have lost money consistently for years.
IMO, none of the folks on that list should get paid more than $60,000 of taxpayer dollars. And if they don't like it, let them go get a job in the private sector so they can see what they are worth.
Same thought here. That last thing you want is for the fund manager to make so little, that some Wall St. dude selling magical new product X can easily sway his investment decision with some stupid perk thing like dinner or whatever.
freedom, anon - the guys who are hired to run pensions like calpers aren't schmoes that get swayed by big swinging d**ks from the Street. despite their relatively low pay, most of them tend to be independently wealthy. they take the public jobs to validate their former careers in banking, money mgmt, or academics. it's a prestige thing. if anything, calpers is the BSD. $200B tends to make your voice get heard and any institutional salesman bends over backwards when calpers is a client.
so awgee has a point in that we should disappointed in the mgmt of our public pensions. regardless of what their peers earn, these officials are still paid a nice lil wage. and for all their brain and purchasing power, they blew it by believing the same basic RE-never-goes-down junk that got everyone else in trouble. between 2004-2007, you could have sold outhouses to calpers at a negative cap rate.
look at the bio of dr. read, calpers CIO during the RE bubble yrs. with half a dozen masters degrees you should expect he wouldn't drink the kool-aid like eveyrone else (RE), but unfortunately...
http://www.gsm.ucdavis.edu/Connections/index.aspx?id=2596
for what it's worth, i still think he'll manage to find a job that pays him $60k, in any economy. ;-)
I'd rather see the pay tied to performance stripped of the politics and in the 8 figure range. Frankly, I don't believe people do charity work. They do ego work.
The worst managers are the people that want to be managers. The bankers that want to be BSDs, well...
sugarspunZ_IHB
New member
Anonymous said:
OMG!!! sorry but this lady needs to lose her home. she rolled the dice hard like a lot of Californians lost. pay up sweet cheeks or GTFO!!!
Anonymous_IHB
New member
California’s Credit Rating May Be Cut by Moody’s (Update2)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4XlBNyYJk5I
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4XlBNyYJk5I
usctrojanman29_IHB
New member
They should just downgrade California debt to junk status and get it over with.Anonymous said:
upperlowerclass_IHB
New member
freedomCM said:
Robert C. Dynes MISCELLANEOUS UC SAN DIEGO $472,683
WTF is MISCELLANEOUS? Just does, you know, stuff that needs doin over at UCSD for $472k!!!! sign me up
bltserv_IHB
New member
usctrojanman29 said:
Just give it a few weeks. This state is about to get flushed down the toilet. All these idiots have decided to play chicken now that they cant borrow their way out of this.
Lets see who blinks first. All I know is if they try to put any more "Fees" on the taxpayers
there is going to be a huge public outcry.
acpme_IHB
New member
upperlowerclass said:
dr. robert dynes is the former chancellor or president of ucsd. he resigned few yrs ago and received a buyout that generated some controversy. interesting that he's still being paid.
i'm not bothered by top execs at calpers being paid what they're paid. i know $600k sounds like a lot but that salary to be the CIO of an investment fund with nearly $200B in assets under mgmt is a bargain for the state. it comes out to 0.0003% of AUM for CEO pay. pension and univ endowment investment officers are practically working for free when the heads of any investment company with half that amount of assets are on, or close to being on, the forbes 400.
$500k/yr for the responsibility those guys carry doesn't bother me as a taxpayer. on the other hand, i'm really annoyed at the tens of thousands redundant, unnecessary public jobs that pay $50k/yr + overtime + benefits + pension for twiddling your thumbs. and it's not so much annoyance at the ppl who perform these jobs, but the inefficiencies and bureaucracy that necessitate their jobs.
awgee_IHB
New member
acpme said:
These guys can not be compared to CEOs of investment firms, unless you compare them to the CEOs of investment firms that have lost money consistently for years.
IMO, none of the folks on that list should get paid more than $60,000 of taxpayer dollars. And if they don't like it, let them go get a job in the private sector so they can see what they are worth.
freedomCM_IHB
New member
Are you serious Awgee?
You really want someone willing to take 60k to manage 200B? 200B that if it is lost, you as a citizen are responsible for making whole?
You really want someone willing to take 60k to manage 200B? 200B that if it is lost, you as a citizen are responsible for making whole?
Anonymous_IHB
New member
freedomCM said:
Same thought here. That last thing you want is for the fund manager to make so little, that some Wall St. dude selling magical new product X can easily sway his investment decision with some stupid perk thing like dinner or whatever.
acpme_IHB
New member
awgee said:
freedom, anon - the guys who are hired to run pensions like calpers aren't schmoes that get swayed by big swinging d**ks from the Street. despite their relatively low pay, most of them tend to be independently wealthy. they take the public jobs to validate their former careers in banking, money mgmt, or academics. it's a prestige thing. if anything, calpers is the BSD. $200B tends to make your voice get heard and any institutional salesman bends over backwards when calpers is a client.
so awgee has a point in that we should disappointed in the mgmt of our public pensions. regardless of what their peers earn, these officials are still paid a nice lil wage. and for all their brain and purchasing power, they blew it by believing the same basic RE-never-goes-down junk that got everyone else in trouble. between 2004-2007, you could have sold outhouses to calpers at a negative cap rate.
look at the bio of dr. read, calpers CIO during the RE bubble yrs. with half a dozen masters degrees you should expect he wouldn't drink the kool-aid like eveyrone else (RE), but unfortunately...
http://www.gsm.ucdavis.edu/Connections/index.aspx?id=2596
for what it's worth, i still think he'll manage to find a job that pays him $60k, in any economy. ;-)
freedomCM_IHB
New member
I would rather the state (representing me, joe taxpayer) hire someone who needs the job, rather than someone who is doing charity or comparing the size of his or her balls with the big boys.
Anonymous_IHB
New member
Hmm public service huh? And still things go south for the taxpayer.
Why does that sound familiar .... and why do I not feel reassurred ...
Goldman Sachs Executives Gifted With Public Purpose
Why does that sound familiar .... and why do I not feel reassurred ...
Goldman Sachs Executives Gifted With Public Purpose
acpme_IHB
New member
the problem is what would someone who's qualified to manage that much money require in compensation? what would it cost to pry someone like bill gross away from his job, esp when these type of guys can be knocking on the door of forbes 400 in their current gigs. avg returns on few hundred million of AUM with hedge fund or PE-type fees produces a very, very lucrative business without having to deal with the state politics and bureaucracy. bonuses for the avg employee at GS last yr were close to $200k, and that's 50% lower than the prior yr and in a scenario which the entire financial system nearly disintegrated. a low level trader on wall street probably makes more than most pension or univ endowment CIOs.
unless the taxpayers are willing to see eight-figure salaries on public payrolls, the only guys willing to do the job will be doing it "out of charity". not saying its the way things should be, just the way it is unfortunately...
unless the taxpayers are willing to see eight-figure salaries on public payrolls, the only guys willing to do the job will be doing it "out of charity". not saying its the way things should be, just the way it is unfortunately...
No_Such_Reality_IHB
New member
acpme said:
I'd rather see the pay tied to performance stripped of the politics and in the 8 figure range. Frankly, I don't believe people do charity work. They do ego work.
The worst managers are the people that want to be managers. The bankers that want to be BSDs, well...
graphrix_IHB
New member
Screw Bill Gross, lets go John Paulson on CalPers. $200bil is huge compared to the chump change or $36bil (more likely over $50bil now) that Paulson manages, but here is my solution to CalPers...
First, it is run like a hedge fund, so lets manage it like a hedge fund and pay like a hedge fund. You take $100bil of the fund and invest it in treasuries and various "safe" corporate bonds returning an average of 5%. Then you hire 10 people to manage $100mil each, and pay them a salary of $120k and 20% of the profits like a hedgie. Yeah, the management fee of 1% is higher than the $120k a year, but the real money is in the returns.
Lets say acpme is one of the managers. In his first year he loses 20% using index funds and buying high dividend stocks that keep dropping in value (sorry acpme, someone had to be a loser here). Now he is down to $80mil, and he can't get his 20% until he goes over his benchmark of $100mil. He could get even more risky and lose it all, or he could rethink his investments and get back above the benchmark.
Now, lets say I manage a fund, and I am like John Paulson. My return was a staggering 500% in my first year because I bought CDS on Lehman and shorted Bear Stearns. I get paid my $120k, and $100mil, but CalPers still gains $400mil.
At the end of the year, if everyone else gained 0%, CalPers gains $380mil plus the $5bil in interest on the bonds even after all of the salaries of the other managers. Even if acpme invests in a landscrew deal in BFE from Lennar, and loses all $100mil because the deal goes BK, then CalPers would still net over $298mil, plus the $5bil in interest from the bonds.
The problem is/was CalPers is/was poorly managed, by too many acpme's who keep/kept chasing the samedream nightmare of RE. It is/was poorly diversified, chases/chased too many high hope returns, and doesn't/didn't invest enough in less risky assets. The problem could be solved, but you can't be pissed when one of the managers rakes in $100mil, and some here think 0.5% of that is bad.
First, it is run like a hedge fund, so lets manage it like a hedge fund and pay like a hedge fund. You take $100bil of the fund and invest it in treasuries and various "safe" corporate bonds returning an average of 5%. Then you hire 10 people to manage $100mil each, and pay them a salary of $120k and 20% of the profits like a hedgie. Yeah, the management fee of 1% is higher than the $120k a year, but the real money is in the returns.
Lets say acpme is one of the managers. In his first year he loses 20% using index funds and buying high dividend stocks that keep dropping in value (sorry acpme, someone had to be a loser here). Now he is down to $80mil, and he can't get his 20% until he goes over his benchmark of $100mil. He could get even more risky and lose it all, or he could rethink his investments and get back above the benchmark.
Now, lets say I manage a fund, and I am like John Paulson. My return was a staggering 500% in my first year because I bought CDS on Lehman and shorted Bear Stearns. I get paid my $120k, and $100mil, but CalPers still gains $400mil.
At the end of the year, if everyone else gained 0%, CalPers gains $380mil plus the $5bil in interest on the bonds even after all of the salaries of the other managers. Even if acpme invests in a land
The problem is/was CalPers is/was poorly managed, by too many acpme's who keep/kept chasing the same
acpme_IHB
New member
thats the thing with performance based compensation, it creates a moral hazard. there is every incentive to make the riskiest investments and judges mgrs based on short-term returns. make the biggest bets and shoot for the ten bagger. if you fail, you get fired and move on (unless you're proposing we make mgrs personally liable for the millions they might lose.) if the bet pans out, you've made a fortune. no one would have praised you for betting solely on risk-free assets over the last decade. you would have been laughed at or fired because your peers were producing 10%+ in equities or 25%+ in RE. of course, by the end of the decade you might be the best performer of the bunch but what employer would give you such a long leash?
usctrojanman29_IHB
New member
Fitch downgrades California general obligation bonds to BBB (two notches above junk status). Looks like the State is issuing IOUs again.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFtGuPKB2uWE
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFtGuPKB2uWE