CAFR1 NATIONAL POST

CAFR1 NATIONAL POST

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I tried to post the following comment on the NY Post site several times and got - " Your comment included text not permitted by our language filter. Please avoid use of inappropriate language on our site in the future. Thanks." or I hit post and it appeared as if it took but nothing posted.

I even took out the links and got the same.

Looks like the NY Post does not want this disclosure made by CAFR1 shared with their readers in reply to an article they wrote. The shame is their article was a good article but had a shell game presentation pitting taxpayers against government employees. What I brought forward below is that both are getting screwed somewhat equally.

Sent FYI from.

Walter Burien - CAFR1.com
---------------------------------------------

Comment I tried to Post at the following NY Post article: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/you_pay_the_price_hNooJsBk9MtO67HvinglHP?sms_ss=digg#postyourcomment
--------------------------------------------

Now for the rest of the Story, the shell game for profit being played against the government employee and the taxpayer:


1. When they say guaranteed an 8% return that is an actuarial projection of return being used. What is not being said is "the real rate of return being accomplished. At the end of 2001 and 2008 they took a hit. Otherwise, including 2009 / 2010 they have been accomplishing a 12% to 16% "real" rate of return. Do most of the government employees and taxpayers know this? No they do not.


2. What are the standing balances of these funds??? Look and you will be amazed at the massive power bases maintained by each. Go through the listing of domestic and international investments in each as can be viewed in each. The way to view is to access each funds own Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) Each separate fund prepares one. As an example here is the NY State Employees Retirement Fund CAFR listing of investments held for 2009 - http://www.osc.state.ny.us/retire/word_and_pdf_documents/publications/cafr/asset_listings_09.pdf and also for reference here is the 2001 report - http://cafr1.com/STATES/NEWYORK/RETIREMENT/NYRINV2001.PDF

Now search; find the CAFRs; and pull up the other specific fund's mentioned in the article to see what their standing truly is.


3. Local governments set their pension funds up as "Strictly Participatory". What that means is like buying a ticket to ride a train from points A to D. When you reach point D you get off. You do not try to walk off with the seat you were sitting in. You do not own any part of the train, you only had a ticket to ride the train. The government employees do not own 1c of those funds, they just have a ticket to ride under contract. The local governments own these massive billion dollar funds. This gives these local governments strong motivation and intent to play actuarial projection games to say they are short when in fact they may be on the mark or even 50% to 100% over funded. The bigger the fund the bigger "their" power base is for world acquisition and conquest... Taxpayers "and" the government employees get the shaft in this respect.

4. In light of the above and in consideration of government's "collective" ownership of investments the private sector pension funds never stood a chance of performing well. Quite the contrary, their balances were constantly hit being that they were up against these massive government funds that were driving the world markets up and down in which through the use of derivatives the government players made money on the upside or even when they caused a short or long term collapse.

Of course there is LAW in this country (Larceny And Willingness)

Did you hug your local government appointed or elected attorney today, the ones that are running the complete show in Government at this time?

If not, you probably had good probable cause not to.


TREASON: "Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Sir John Harrington, 1561-1612