Discussion in 'Central States Pension Fund Discussion' started by I got nothing, May 31, 2016.
I'd like to research this, can you give me the names of the trustees appointed by Reagan?
So you didn't answer his question .
The first article was 1978. Reagan took office in 81.
The second and third article were RICCO court cases about taking over the Teamsters. The only Reagan appointee named was Meese, and it said he had disassociated himself from the case, so there goes that argument.
None of the three articles had anything to do with why CSPF is in financial ruin, or the West would be also. I REALLY hope you have something better to present to the Treasury, or we'll all lose...
When was the last time the CSPF was fully funded? What year?
Someone please tell me that I'm misunderstanding this 'restitution' case???
It appears, to me, that the retirees group case is: We made money as an illegal money launderer for the Mafia. We lost money while the Government made us play legally. So we think the Treasury should make Northern Trust and G Sachs should write us checks.
I don't see any way that's a winning case.
You are SO ignorant as to what the retirees are doing to help save even your pension you froze....you have no idea, so stop making yourself look even worse.....kk
"Since 1982, under a consent decree with the federal government, the fund has been run by prominent Wall Street firms and monitored by a federal court and the Labor Department."
"New managers -- first Morgan Stanley and later Bankers Trust, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan " they were appointed by President Reagan as Trustees to oversee the investments of CSPF to settle a 1978 lawsuit....KK
The conversation is between he and I...so butt out! IF YOU KNEW ANYTHING about the Pension reform campaign, you would have known it started with the lawsuit in the late 70's with Carter, and Reagan trusteed it when he came into office....I am sending Super Course all the info I can send him as he ASKED for the information....I have met him at a COO years ago and I know what kind of Teamster brother he is....unlike a quitter like some people....kk
KK, do you know when was the last time CSPF was fully funded? Was it fully funded in the 90's?
So apparently I must have it described correctly, since you don't dispute my conjecture, and only continue to insult????
This is from your article:
Federal law calls for fiduciaries to invest pension assets the way a "prudent man" would, and the strategy used for Central States would certainly be familiar to wealthy individuals, philanthropic trusts, university endowments and other pension funds. The fund's investment results in recent years closely track median annual returns for corporate pension funds, according to Mercer Investment Consulting.
So, not only does the article you posted not blame anyone (let alone Reagan)- it says what was done was the norm to be expected.
How does that bring restitution to the CSPF? If you cant convince me- how can you convince judges?
I see what you're saying here jimmy. The thing I find troubling is how to interpret "prudent man". I think they didn't take into consideration the demographics of the fund and the decreasing contributions with rising retirees. Certainly a "prudent man" considering those factors would have gone conservative to preserve capital and avoid risk. Just like a senior citizen shouldn't invest in risky assets chasing higher returns by putting capital at risk, the fund should have done the same. Comparing it to corporate pension funds of companies in with a younger work force in a healthier business environment, in my opinion, is a stupid defense. A "prudent man" would have reduced risk. It also looks like a lot of it was designed to accrue fees.
It was close to 84% during the 94 strike and then the benefit was raised after the strike to the best of my knowledge...kk
The problem in that scenario isn't the investments, but that the IRS banned overfunding, and CSPF used that ruling to create 'at any age' payouts, at a time when union company after union company closed. We as Teamsters, were led to expect twice as much as the Fund could deliver. That's not the investment firm's fault- it's OUR'S. No investment could have doubled our money and that's what we needed, apparently.
All the articles posted on this page of the thread indicate that the managing firms were appointed by an agreed upon Independent Counsel, and that no improper investing was accused until the cuts were brought up. We're all wanting full payouts; but going before the GAO with 'they screwed us' as the main argument probably won't win....
I apologize for butting in- but you just made my point. We raised payouts. Then the Tech Bubble burst, collapsing the economy. In an 8 yr period where Transcon/PIE, Preston, ANR, CF, Crouse, and Churchill closed and retirees almost doubled. And then 911 hit. There wasn't enough money for the promises.
K. K. if I didn't know any better. I'm betting Jimmy G. and S. C. are just jealous of your superior intelligence. That's why they lash out at your post. They just don't understand the new math. Keep up the fight Bro
I don't know where I lashed out. I'm not in CSPF, but as a 40 year Teamster I'm interested. I asked KK some questions which he graciously answered. That's a discussion, not lashing out.