Tag Archives: privatization

Amodei Privatization Promoter: This Time It’s Public Land

No trespassing public land Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) is happily promoting his notion that the state of Nevada should control more of the federal land within its borders; the Reno Gazette Journal poses some serious questions:

“U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei has started meetings to transfer millions of acres of public land in Nevada from the federal government to the state.

He is coming off an election win and, more importantly, he was Donald Trump’s Nevada campaign manager through controversy and celebration. Now he may have the juice to finally realize his longtime dream of transferring land controlled by the Bureau of Land Management to the state of Nevada.

While this may bring control over the land closer to home, it will also put Nevada taxpayers at risk and decrease options for outdoor enthusiasts.” (emphasis added)

For the moment, let’s focus on the taxpayers side of the ledger, as summarized in the Gazette Journal editorial:

“There are big costs borne by whoever controls these lands. A few examples include fighting wildfires covering tens of thousands of acres every year; defending lawsuits by ranchers and environmentalists over land use; and simply monitoring tens of thousands of square miles of open range for people who would abuse it. If sage grouse are ever declared an endangered species – as it very nearly was recently – use of the land would be blocked until the species recovers, creating costs and ending any potential revenues. In each of these cases, all American taxpayers currently foot the bills. Under new plans, Nevada taxpayers will be on the hook – either by increased taxes or decreased services.”  [RGJ]

First, a bit of supporting evidence for the Gazette Journal’s editorial position. The newspaper is correct – fire fighting is an expensive business.

The latest statistics available online concerning the total costs for fighting wildland fires show that Nevada had a lucky year in 2015 – California not so much so.  The “Rough” Fire which began on July 31, 2015 and wasn’t contained until October 12, 2015 cost about $120,930,243. [NIFC pdf]  However, a state needn’t be as unfortunate as California and Alaska were in 2015 to have high firefighting expenses.  The 2012 statistics show that Nevada’s Long Draw Fire cost $4,360,000 and the Holloway Complex Fire cost $9,166,719. The Bull Run Fire cost another $4,816,272.  [PSNIFC pdf]

It’s all well and good to complain vociferously about the BLM and the National Forest Service – until the fire starts, the winds increase, and the state (not the national) taxpayers are liable for the associated expenses.  It’s also well worth noting that wildland fires often require multi-agency coordination, such as that provided by the National Interagency Fire Center.  The NIFC includes the Forest Service, the BLM, the National Weather Service, the National Park Service, the BIA, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and FEMA.  Consider for a moment the resources these combined agencies can bring to bear on a fire situation, and how these resources cannot be duplicated by a single state.  In 2015 the Nevada state fire assistance budget for the Division of Forestry was $1,348,200.  The Landscape Scale Restoration budget was $300,000. [FSUSDA.gov pdf]

The obvious way for the State to dodge responsibility for these kinds of expenses is to privatize (aka sell) the formerly public lands.   The Gazette Journal is also correct in citing Texas as an example of a loss of access to formerly public lands.  At present about 90% of the land in Texas is in private hands. [PWD pdf] The unique history of Texas creates a way to compare access in states with federal land management and a state with a traditional state and private management focus. [WOS] Loss of access in Texas spreads as urbanization, suburbanization, and resort development increase.

Anglers in California and Montana do well to hire guides, if for no other reason than not to get hit with trespassing charges in private waters. Want to hunt in Texas – there’s a map for that.  Idaho witnessed one of the more blatant examples of what happens under private ownership to the interests of hunters when ownership changes and the rules change along with it.  172,00 acres of land in Idaho were sold by the Potlatch Corp. to two Texas billionaires – who shut down hunting on their newly acquired property.

There’s something to be said for “freedom, private enterprise, individual responsibility,” and all the other catch phrases of modern Republican parlance.  There are other things to be said when the private owners cut off access to streams and rivers, hunting territory, snow mobile routes, hiking and horse riding trails, and historical or recreational sites.

There are also wildlife management questions to be answered if privatization is the result, even if access isn’t a leading issue.  Who protects the habitat for that which is hunted?  Who protects streams and habitat for trout, bass, and other pan fish?  Who raises the quail? How are these efforts to be coordinated?  Who pays for the coordination? Are these expenses shared nationwide, or is the expense posted to the state or to private entities?’

Privatization is a leading Republican banner …. leading straight for a barbed wire fence with a No Trespassing sign attached.

Comments Off on Amodei Privatization Promoter: This Time It’s Public Land

Filed under Amodei, Nevada politics, Politics, public lands

Amodei’s Land Grab

Amodei Privatization Land “Congressman Mark Amodei will give an update to the Elko City Council Tuesday on possible issues that might impact the City and Elko County, according to Assistant City Manager Scott Wilkinson.

Amodei’s topics have not been outlined for the City. However, past subjects have included lands issues and sage grouse.” [EDFP]

If he’s set on discussing land issues, then we might guess he’s off to thread another precarious choice between the Bundyite Bunch and the BLM.  Back in late April, 2014 Representative Amodei was praising the BLM for backing off the confrontation with the Rampant Bundys, recalling his words:

“That is a leadership-type thing where you say, ‘We are getting our butts kicked and we are taking our team off the field and getting out of the stadium,'” Amodei said, according to the Reno Gazette-Journal. “It’s not a win, but probably the right thing to do under the circumstances.” [LVSun]

Two years later Amodei’s tone changed, he didn’t support the Bundys and he definitely didn’t want to be labeled anti-park:

“Amodei, however, said the (1) report attempts to use the Bundy sideshow to score political points rather than take a serious look at important issues such as (2) land access, ecosystem health and local economies.

“They don’t speak for me on anything to do with public lands,” Amodei said of Bundy and his acolytes. (3) “I want it to be about the resources, not about some guy who is or isn’t paying his grazing fees.” [RGJ] (numbering added)

Parse with us now. (1) When faced with a report bearing uncomfortable factual inclusions, such as Amodei’s opposition to funding and maintaining national parks and monuments, deflect the issue to the Bundy Bunch – who want no federal involvement in public land administration (grazing, forests, parks, monuments, …) and announce one’s inclination to talk about substantive land issues.  The 2nd District Representative had an opportunity to vote on the SHARE Act, a privatization proposal in Congress this year, but was absent for the vote.

“Representative Rob Wittman (R-VA) sponsored H.R. 2406, the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act of 2015, which contains harmful measures undermining the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Wilderness Act, and other bedrock environmental laws. The bill includes language that could allow the use of motorized vehicles, road construction, and other forms of development within protected wilderness areas, and it blocks input from public stakeholders in National Wildlife Refuge management decisions. This legislation also includes provisions that would weaken the EPA’s ability to regulate toxic lead in ammunition, fishing equipment. Additionally, this bill would undermine international commitments to combat ivory trafficking, thwarts our ability to effectively manage marine resources, and cuts the public out of management decisions impacting hundreds of millions of acres of public lands. On February 26, the House approved H.R. 2406 by a vote of 242-161 (House roll call vote 101). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.” [LCV] (emphasis added)

(2) Representative Amodei has the big three listed — “land access, ecosystem health, and local economies.” However, in terms of access notice the underlining in the SHARE bill – when management decisions are to be made the PUBLIC is cut out of the process. This raises the question that if we are speaking of public access to public lands and the public is cut out of the management decision process, then whose access are we talking about?  Since the GOP sponsored bill passed the GOP controlled Congress, then it’s reasonable to assume the GOP doesn’t want input from PUBLIC organizations concerning management decisions – leaving the field (literally?) to the mining, logging, privatization, and other commercial interests?

And, if rivers are dredged or fouled, forests are cut down, wildlife is endangered, hunters are denied access, fishing enthusiasts are turned away, then it must be for the sake of the “local economies?” Unfortunately, Representative Amodei’s comments as reported offer no explication of his priorities.

(3) But then, there’s Representative Amodei’s infamous quote: “…we do understand their frustration with increasingly heavy handed federal agencies that continue to violate the rights of hardworking American farmers and ranchers.” [RGJ] Are heavily armed men taking over a federal wildlife refuge and threatening violence just “frustrated?”  So, perhaps it would be logical to infer that Amodei’s heart is with the “frustrated” members of those “local economies” which seek to exploit public resources?

Amodei is quick to cite his support for the National Park Service budget, and his support for the hazardous fuel mitigation efforts on public lands, but part of what got him on the Anti-Park list is explained: “Amodei landed on the list for sponsoring legislation that would give the state control of 7.2 million of the approximately 58 million acres of federally controlled land in Nevada..[RGJ]

It doesn’t take too much imagination to see that cash strapped states (like Nevada) might not eventually want to capitalize on the exploitation of public lands in the state, quite possibly at the expense of small ranching concerns, outdoor sports participants, and wildlife in particular.

A sneak peak might be on display with his bill to place BLM lands in trust with Nevada tribes:

“The House Natural Resources Committee approved the Nevada Native Nations Land Act, H.R. 2733, which Amodei introduced to provide more opportunities for economic development and protection of natural resources in the regions.

“(Wednesday’s) vote puts us one step closer to placing Nevada public lands back into local control — rather than in the hands of Washington bureaucrats,” Amodei said. “My bill carefully balances the unique needs of our Nevada tribal nations with those of local ranchers, land owners and businesses.” [RiponAdv] (emphasis added)

There he goes again, getting land out from under the “Washington Bureaucrats.”  The only salvation in this legislation is that Native Americans, who generally have a better standard of stewardship than the Koch Brothers,  are the ones holding the lands in trust.  We might also safely conclude that this “one step” is the first of many in which Representative Amodei seeks to place Nevada public lands under local control.

From local it’s one more step to private.

Comments Off on Amodei’s Land Grab

Filed under Amodei, Interior Department, koch brothers, National Parks, Native Americans, Nevada politics, public lands, Reservations, Rural Nevada

Right Wing School Daze in Nevada

School Corridor Lockers And now the National School Boards Association weighs in – along side the National Education Association – that’s not a combination one sees all that often. What might bring them together?  Nevada’s egregious Strip The Schools Funding scheme, or SB 302. (pdf) [RGJ]  Others who’ve found the new private/home school funding scheme an atrocious way to funnel funds away from public education include the NAACP, the SPLC, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.  All these organizations oppose the right wing privatization plan.  They’re right.

The brain fart  child of Republican Scott Hammond (NVS-18) who has an interest in the Somerset Academy (as a founding member), is yet another way to line the pockets of  Floridian entrepreneurs, specifically the Zuluetas who control about $115 million in south Florida real estate, all exempt from property taxes as “public schools.”  [MiamiHerald]  The Zuluetas’s little empire has a fairly broad reach, as explained by the Miami Herald:

Academica’s reach extends from Florida to Georgia, Texas, Nevada, Utah and California, where the company also manages charter schools. But Academica is best known for managing four prominent school networks in Miami-Dade and Broward counties: the Mater Academies, the Somerset Academies, the Doral Academies and the Pinecrest Academies.

In the 2010-11 school year, these four chains had 44 South Florida schools with about 19,000 students. Each network of schools is run by a nonprofit corporation, which in turn is run by a volunteer governing board. These boards set policy for the schools, and also approve the management contracts and property leases — including the land deals with the Zulueta companies. While the teachers and principals work for the nonprofits, Academica routinely vets personnel and recommends principals from within its stable of schools.

As much as the principal characters in the Academica wish to claim altruistic motives and concern for the education of their little enrollees, there have been serious questions about the  “land deals” in Florida – since when have there not been questions about land deals in Florida? – and the connectivity between the academies and the corporation…a corporation which on at least one occasion held a lovely  corporate session in the Bahamas at the expense of the schools. [MiamiHerald] [CIOK] Enough questions were raised to grab the attention of the Feds who investigated Academica. [EdDive]

By April 20, 2014 the Department of Education’s office of inspector general had heard enough to begin an audit of Academica’s dealings. [MiamiHerald]

Little wonder some major organizations have questions regarding the transfer of funds – tax dollars – away from public schools whose lease arrangements, contracts, funds, and all other operations must be conducted in public, as matters of public record, complete with audits.

The byzantine labyrinth of connections between land developers in Florida and education in Nevada might be sufficient to call this inane bit of legislation into question – but wait, there’s more:

“Unless otherwise stated in the legislation, nothing in the legislation will be deemed to limit the independence or autonomy of any participating entity.” [edchoice]

If my reading skills haven’t escaped me this means that the State Treasurer can’t object to public funds being shipped off to the “Flower Child School of Sensitivity and Sensations,” the “Spartan Academy for Children in Need of Physical Restraint,” or parents who believe that everything a child needs to know in life can be taught by learning to knit.  There’s another item in the list that might give some serious militarists pause: What would prevent a “school” from encouraging a “gap year” for a student to “study with ISIS in Syria?”

However, the dubious intent of some recipients of Nevada tax dollars may be a side show.  The real intent is the privatization (and profitization) of American public schools.  If sufficient funds are stripped away from public schools, then their overhead expenses and personnel costs will be such a burden as to precipitate a financial collapse and consequent “need” for “flexible” charter/private education.  The plan is relatively simple, just flood a market with private schools, “market share demonstration sites,” – or call them “investment sites” – and those vulnerable markets will pave the way for the privatization process. [CashKids]

There’s nothing secret about this, the privatization contingent has a road map:

“First, commit to drastically increasing the charter market share in a few select communities until it is the dominant system and the district is reduced to a secondary provider. The target should be 75 percent. Second, choose the target communities wisely. Each should begin with a solid charter base (at least 5 percent market share), a policy environment that will enable growth (fair funding, nondistrict authorizers, and no legislated caps), and a favorable political environment (friendly elected officials and editorial boards, a positive experience with charters to date, and unorganized opposition). For example, in New York a concerted effort could be made to site in Albany or Buffalo a large percentage of the 100 new charters allowed under the raised cap. Other potentially fertile districts include Denver, Detroit, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Oakland, and Washington, D.C.” [EdNext]

Proponents of privatization toss the usual buzz words into the discussion: Choice, Flexibility, Market Share, Free Markets, etc.  What they are NOT inserting is also germane:  Shareholder Value Theory, and Return on Investment.  If privatization is the model, then current financial theory is part of that system, and it isn’t too far fetched to believe that the insertion of the Shareholder Value Theory is part of the mindset of those advocating private education services.   Is it too difficult to imagine what a Martin Shkreli could do with a few schools?

In short, the “Nevada System” under SB 302 is an invitation to corporate cronyism, corporate malfeasance, theoretically valid but ethically unspeakable administration, and good old fashioned chaos.  The National School Boards Assn. and the other organizations are correct in pushing back against this disturbing trend.

Comments Off on Right Wing School Daze in Nevada

Filed under education

Great Retirement Scams: GOP pins hopes on Primerica Testimony?

GRANNY retirement As of 2013 the Census Bureau counts 13.7% of Nevada’s population as aged 65 or over.  The handy Plastic Brain tells us that amounts to 382,435 people.  Unfortunately, there’s a chunk of the 2,839,099 (2014) people in Nevada who have some silly and alarmingly self-serving ideas about how retirees should plan for those Sunset Years; and, more egregious ideas yet about how those under 65 should be planning for their retirement.  These would be the people in the “privatizer and opportunist” category. Let’s take a look at both. First, a quick review of the privatizers and Social Security (and by extension any public retirement program), and then a gander at the opportunists as exemplified by the unfortunate choice of champions brought to us by Senate Republicans.

The Great Scam

FALSE: “Social Security is Going Broke!”  Underpinning the Great GOP Retirement Scam shuffle is the notion that somehow Social Security “isn’t going to be there for young people…” and therefore younger Americans should pile their retirement funds into private sector wealth management schemes.  “But, but, but,” blubber the privatizers, “the Trustees Report and the CBO agree it will be b’b’b’..bankrupt by 2042 or 2052.” [CNNNo they didn’t.

They reported that in order to provide promised benefits for elderly people  the Social Security Administration will have to tap into the reserve fund – it is not – repeat not – going bankrupt. Nor, will those receiving benefits from the reserve funds live forever, thus at some point the system will stabilize. Tapping into the reserve fund – which was put in place to deal with the Baby Boomers – is not the same as “going bankrupt!”  There are some basic facts (of life) to deal with at this point.  The Census Bureau report, An Aging Nation, (2014) explains carefully: 

“In 2050, every age group is projected to be larger than it was in 2012. This is not the case between 2012 and 2030 or between 2030 and 2050. For instance, the number of men aged 48 to 58 and the number of women aged 47 to 58 in 2030 are projected to be smaller than those in the same age groups in 2012 (see Figure 2). This is because large cohorts of baby boomers were in these age groups in 2012, and smaller and younger cohorts will have replaced them by 2030. Similarly, the number of women aged 66 to 77 is projected to peak in 2030 and be smaller in 2050 than it was in 2030, as the smaller birth cohorts born in the late 1970s moves into these age groups.” [Census pdf]

A “smaller” cohort means that once the baby boomers die off, and they will do that because they are human beings, there will be less demand on the system for benefit payments.  That’s what the entire idea of the Trust Fund was based on, the knowledge that the system needed a “savings account” to get past the baby boomer generation.   “But, but, but..” sputter the privatizers, “there won’t be enough young people paying into they system..” Nonsense.  Take a look at this chart from the report on aging: (figure 2)

age structure us population chartSeriously, does anyone really think there are going to be more elderly retired people than younger workers in the foreseeable future?  If someone believes that then I guess I would try to sell them some scammy retirement savings plan!  I could also try to sell them an automatic kitchen gadget that “Cools your water in an instant! No Ice Cubes Required!”

FALSE: “Social Security won’t guarantee your retirement…”  this is right so far because Social Security was never meant to be an entire retirement program – it was meant to keep elderly people out of abject poverty.  However, the rest of the privatizers’ pitch gets more dicey, “therefore we should privatize the system and let people have a Choice…”  There’s a reason Social Security is called a Social Safety Net. It’s the safety net in case all else fails and an elderly person has little else to fall back on.  That we have a Social Security system to keep people from falling into an abyss of poverty doesn’t mean that people can’t choose to augment their retirement plans with pension plans, savings accounts, equity accounts, and all manner of other savings vehicles.  The privatizers would like for us to forget that we already have (and have had for decades) alternative savings plans for retirement!  The privatizers would be perfectly pleased to get all the money that’s paid into Social Security funneled into the hands of Wall Street traders… now there’s a thought that should lower one’s body temperature, or raise the blood pressure?

And now we get to the good part wherein the privatizers and scammers walk the halls of Congress to promote those alternative and supplemental retirement savings financial products.

retire savingsHowever, some of the plans are a dream for some and nightmares for others.  

The Smaller but Painful Scams

Consider:

“Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Tuesday embarrassed Primerica President Peter Schneider, who Senate Republicans had invited to testify against a new regulation designed to protect retirement savings from dodgy investment managers. The Obama administration estimates that Americans lose $17 billion a year from investment professionals who manage retirement accounts by prioritizing their own financial interests over those of their clients. It has proposed a simple solution: making that illegal.” [HuffPo]

Hmm, the Senate Republicans INVITED Primerica’s testimony against a fudiciary responsibility standard? And, what was Primerica testifying against?

“In February, the President directed the Department of Labor to move forward with a proposed rulemaking to require retirement advisers to abide by a “fiduciary” standard—putting their clients’ best interest before their own profits. And today, the Department of Labor is taking the next step toward making that a reality, by issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to require that best interest standard across a broader range of retirement advice to protect more investors.” [DoL] (emphasis added)

Thus, we could assume that the Senate Republicans are in favor of allowing retirement advisers to put their own profits AHEAD of consideration for their client’s best interests?  Okay, so what can happen when an investment adviser steers a client into territory which is not in the best interest of the client but really bolsters the firm’s bottom line?

“A system where firms can benefit from backdoor payments and hidden fees often buried in fine print if they talk responsible Americans into buying bad retirement investments—with high costs and low returns—instead of recommending quality investments isn’t fair. A White House Council of Economic Advisers analysis found that these conflicts of interest result in annual losses of about 1 percentage point for affected investors—or about $17 billion per year in total. To demonstrate how small differences can add up: A 1 percentage point lower return could reduce your savings by more than a quarter over 35 years. In other words, instead of a $10,000 retirement investment growing to more than $38,000 over that period after adjusting for inflation, it would be just over $27,500.” [DoL]

Actually there was more bad news from the Council of Economic Advisers in its report on the Effects of Conflicted Investment Advice on Retirement Savings (2015 pdf).   There’s this conclusion: “A retiree who receives conflicted advice when rolling over a 401(k) balance to an IRA at retirement will lose an estimated 12 percent of the value of his or her savings if drawn down over 30 years. If a retiree receiving conflicted advice takes withdrawals at the rate possible absent conflicted advice, his or her savings would run out more than 5 years earlier.”  And, if this weren’t bad enough, there’s another item: “The average IRA rollover for individuals 55 to 64 in 2012 was more than $100,000; losing 12 percent from conflicted advice has the same effect on feasible future withdrawals as if $12,000 was lost in the transfer.”

Thus, in general terms, retirees are losing an aggregate of some $17 billion from conflicted financial advice, losing a potential of five years worth of retirement savings value, and dropping 12% “in transfer” because of conflicted advice in the process.

And, to dispute this the Senate Republicans hauled in the CEO of Primerica? Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive?

Let’s begin our Primerica Story in Florida in 2002 with a classic case of privatization:  

“Primerica’s legal battles stem from a change to Florida’s retirement system in 2002. It gave employees the option to switch from a traditional pension plan, in which they would receive lifetime benefits based on their salaries and years of service, or convert the value of their pension to a lump sum payment which they could invest in mutual funds and other securities offered through the state retirement system.”

Primerica told potential investors that they could put their pension money into an account which could (note Could) earn more than their pension benefits, and could be inherited by family members unlike standard pension benefits.   What Primerica sort of forgot to tell the state employee  investors was that the market could also go down. South. Pear-shaped. In the commode… And thus it did in 2007-2008.  By July 2013 Primerica was fighting off lawsuits in Florida and allocating $3.9 million to defend its claims in court cases and arbitrations. [Reuters]  As of January 2014 the amount set aside to settle various and sundry complaints against the company climbed to $9.3 million. [BfH]  The 2015 figure for fighting off the litigation was up to $15.4 million. [HuffPo]  And THIS was the company Senate Republicans thought would be a good source of testimony against the fiduciary responsibility rule?

So, what did the Senate Republicans get for their efforts to include Primerica’s CEO Peter Schneider on the witness list?

bamboozalah The Big Bambooza-a-lah began with Schneider’s written testimony:

“We are believers in educating the households we serve about fundamental financial concepts. Our investment education and philosophy is geared toward the needs of middle‐income households, who often are new or less experienced investors.  In that regard, we produce easy to understand educational pieces teaching fundamental investing concepts including the critical importance of taking the steps needed to start along the path of financial security.”

Uh, if your investment education process is “easy to understand” then why the escalating amount of funds the company is plowing into defending the itself  in some 238 cases?  When your defense fund increases by 295% in two years it’s pretty clear someone didn’t have a solid grip on “investment education” or “the fundamental investment concepts.”

Having wailed on about how Primerica was serving the Middle Class, a reference tossed in at just about every possible location in the testimony, Schneider got down to his real complaint “Guv’mint Regulations,” and the favored GOP buzzword, “burdensome.”

Those wonderful, admirable, Middle Class customers would be cheated of their opportunity to invest with Primerica because the rules for investment advice would be too “burdensome.”  Here comes the “Daze and Dizzy:”

“We draw this conclusion first and foremost because the Department’s expanded definition of fiduciary turns into a fiduciary act almost every conversation about an IRA that a financial professional might have. ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code prohibit fiduciaries from receiving commissions and other traditional forms of variable compensation in connection with a covered benefit plan such as an IRA unless what is known as a “prohibited transaction exemption” applies and provides relief.  Effectively, the DOL’s expanded definition of fiduciary makes an exemption from the prohibited transactions rules necessary to continue to effectively serve individuals investing in IRAs. Unfortunately, the exemption the Department has proposed to preserve the commission‐based services for IRAs – the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BIC) – is not operational.”

Translation: A conversation including investment advice for an IRA  would be covered unless there is an exemption, and the “best interest contract is not operational.”  We can take it that “not operational” means it won’t work.

This is followed by more “Daze and Dizzy” as Schneider attempts to explain, and at this point we need to parse the testimony carefully:

Instead, our primary concern is that the requirements and uncertainties of the BIC exemption are so complex and burdensome that the exemption is neither administratively nor operationally feasible. (1)  The trouble is that, from start to finish, the BIC exemption fails to offer certainty.  In operating our business, “certainty” with respect to regulatory compliance matters is critical because a failure to satisfy the proposed exemption may result in steep prohibited transaction penalties, including the forfeiture of compensation and excise taxes, as well as consumer lawsuits for breaches of contract, and potentially even class action lawsuits. (2)   Critically, the technical implementation of the exemption promises to be a substantial burden, and to cause a significant disruption of services to our clients, with no true added benefits in the way of investor protections. (3)

(1)Complex and burdensome,” could any phrase be more illustrative of any and all Republican complaints about consumer protection rules, product safety regulations, clean air and water standards?  This is standard GOP rhetoric, and no more probative because it is repetitive. Nor does this explain WHY the rule, and the exemption, would be a burden to a company intent on supervising its employees and representatives in such a way as to insure they properly represent the risks and rewards of their products.

(2)Creates uncertainty,” and again we have good old reliable Republican boiler-plate.  The well worn phrase has been applied often  to banking regulations (somehow the banks are still with us and doing quite well.) Once more the testimony doesn’t explain WHY anyone should be uncertain – IF the firm were providing the best financial advice it could in the most educational way possible.  If, however, the company was prone to, say, wrap backdoor payments and hidden fees in the fine print then they might be “uncertain” about how much they could get away with.   The fact sheet from the Department of Labor is really clear, for a technical document, about what constitutes investment advice.

(3) More boiler-plate. Now the implementation is a “substantial burden.” Not just any old regular garden variety burden, it’s substantial!  It’s interesting how many investment advisors there are in this country who don’t seem to have any trouble offering investment advice without selling products with hidden fees and backdoor payments.  In this instance old fashioned capitalism works, the firms sell products that people understand, and know both the rewards and the risks involved, then people recommend these firms to their friends and relatives – and so it goes.   If providing clear and honest investment advice without playing backdoor payment and hidden fee games is a “substantial burden,” then perhaps the business isn’t worthy of its clientele?

Then comes the “threat.” Consumers will lose their “freedom” to choose their investment advisers:

“This shift to advisory services is likely to cause millions of small balance IRA owners to lose access to the financial professional of their choice, or any at all. Those with enough investments to meet the account minimums will face higher costs and experience losses in retirement savings. These resulting losses by some estimates could be as high as $68‐$80 billion each year.”

Please. Let’s look at this from the consumer’s perspective – no one chooses to be ripped off. And, if one’s investment advisor is playing games for the firm’s bottom line at the expense of the retiree’s retirement savings then that future retiree should not be prey for the predators.   Is Mr. Schneider serious that NO brokerage firm will consider a small IRA or other investment?  That our little Middle Class man or women will be left shivering in the cold, facing the closed door of Merry, Berry, & Itch LLC, with $1,000 in hand?   Trust me, that money will go somewhere, and if it doesn’t meet Merry, Berry, & Itch’s minimum it will certainly find its way into a money market account at the local bank. If, the amounts do meet the minimum, would there be “higher costs?” Maybe, but they wouldn’t be hidden. Do private retirement accounts invested in equities lose money? Yes, again, but why shouldn’t the customer, the consumer, be made aware of this very fundamental fact?   However, we should observe in Mr. Schneider’s testimony that he presents no substantiation for his assertion that the costs will be higher and the losses any greater, other than his un-sourced “some estimates” phrase.

Senator Warren was correct to make an example of Mr. Schneider and his business model.  It should be noted that (1) the privatizers with their claims of insolvency for both Social Security and state retirement programs are doing a national disservice with false claims intended to frighten people into putting both the social safety net and public pension programs into the hands of the players in the Wall Street Casino; (2) private firms which utilize questionable business practices which involve lots of fine print hiding fees and management charges and which engage in back-door payoffs are not functioning in the customer’s best interests; and (3) trying to pass off clichéd, stale, and trite boilerplate as Congressional Testimony is unhelpful in the legislative process.

Comments Off on Great Retirement Scams: GOP pins hopes on Primerica Testimony?

Filed under Economy, financial regulation, Nevada politics, privatization, public employees, Social Security

Kirner Update and Charter School Follies in the Nevada Legislature

Kirner There’s a difference between stale bread and stale politics; stale bread is useful.

“Well, this: Assembly Member Randy Kirner (R-Reno) is trying hard (perhaps too hard?) to be a “play-a”. He flippantly confirmed to Riley Snyder what we’ve been reporting about him killing Senator David Parks’ (D-Paradise) sexual orientation conversion therapy ban (SB 353). He then claimed he was “worried about litigation costs”, despite the Senate removing the law suit portion of the bill. The truth came out in private later, when he told a visiting constituent he just doesn’t like Senator Parks (and he’s just too obsessed with raiding PERS & busting unions to allow LGBTQ lives to be saved).” [LTN] (emphasis added)

The first indication of threadbare banality is Assemblyman Kirner’s worry about “litigation costs” in regard to SB 353.  This is the second to last resort into which a member of the GOP will dock when a bill or policy is presented that might protect potential victims of discrimination or abuse. (The last resort is “God Says…”)

Our second clue revealing  Assemblyman Kirner’s platitudinous and unoriginal offerings is his adherence to ALEC’s talking points about public employee retirement programs and labor organizations.  It’s fairly easy to spot a Talking Point Politician – when he or she is faced with current facts and social needs, our undaunted culture warrior reverts to hackneyed and uninspired reiterations of someone else’s phrases.  “I’m worried about the costs of litigation,” applied to everything from civil rights law to equal pay for female employees. “I’m concerned about the effect this will have on the free market,” applied to everything from environmental standards to the appointment of consumer protection advocates.   This isn’t politicking, it’s sloganeering.  Real players bring something to the table for discussion – something besides personal animosities and stale talking points.

Industrial education isn’t the same thing as industrialized educationSB 509 is still alive and in the Assembly Education committee. There’s a phrase in the bill which should catch our attention, here’s the LCB analysis:

“Existing law requires an application to form a charter school to be submitted by a committee to form a charter school. (NRS 386.520, 386.525) Sections 21 and 22 of this bill authorize a charter management organization to apply to form a charter school. Section 2 of this bill defines the term “charter management organization” to mean a nonprofit organization that operates multiple charter schools. Section 21 also revises the required contents of an application to form a charter school. Sections 21 and 36 of this bill authorize a charter management organization to request a waiver of requirements concerning the composition of a governing body. Section 22 revises the manner in which a sponsor is authorized to solicit and review applications to form a charter school.” 

Let’s differentiate between EMO’s  (Educational Management Organizations) which are for-profit educational enterprises and CMO’s which are non-profits.  While there is this crucial difference, they share some corporate interests.  One of those interests is the promotion of schools – not school districts.  This becomes an important point when we’re discussing overall school administration because when comparing “successes” schools and school districts are very different creatures.

For example, KIPP (a CMO) operates individual schools in urban areas. However, KIPP doesn’t run school districts. Recently a KIPP school in New Jersey was touted for it’s high performance in Newark, but when a bit of expertise was injected from Rutgers University scholars the results were less than stellar:

“The bottom line is that KIPP schools performance on comparable measures of student growth, controlling for demography, resources, etc., are relatively average (marginally above average). Many district schools, including ones in Newark, far outperform them.” [SchoolFinance]

In other words, anecdotal evidence of high performance (without running a model of demographics across the district to see deviations)  doesn’t mean a particular charter school operation is necessarily “successful” or that its operating plan is better than that which might be achieved by a local district itself.

A few years ago, another CMO, Rocketship was supposed to be achieving “astronomical” results, and was all the rage. [WaPo]  Rocketship used an “industrial model” with lots of computers and an equally large contingent of inexperienced teachers.  Rocketship moved into San Jose, California, but a year later the San Jose Mercury News was headlining, “Rocketship we have a problem.”  It seems that corporations like Rocketship DO have to follow local zoning regulations.  More issues arose with the charter non-profit, and by May, 2014 the Alum Rock CA Board of Education rejected a Rocketship charter, saying (1) it had not made Adequate Yearly Progress, there was no assurance made to investors that the schools would make AYP in the future, students spent a large portion of their day with no licensed teacher (a violation of state law), the CMO offered misleading figures on student-teacher ratios by not including Learning Lab Students in the calculations (creating a 1:37 ratio), and while Alum Rock School District spends about 6% on overhead costs, the Rocketship school was required to set aside 15% for its corporate headquarters.  The final point in the rejection was that for all the Wonders of Technology described in the Rocketship process, the students were actually encouraged to be passive rather than active users of the technology.

A third CMO, Green Dot Schools, has had a similar rocky history.  After much initial ballyhoo, Locke High School in Watts, CA was subdivided into segments under the management of Green Dot. Two years later the segments were themselves closed – for lack of “success” – the result?

“In fact, Animo Locke II, Animo Locke III, and Animo Locke Tech all failed the 2012 WASC accreditation. forcing Green Dot to merge all of the campuses, operationally, into the one school to receive accreditation. Animo Watts will continue to operate independent of the schools located at the main Locke campus.” [Ravitch

Eli Broad and other Silicon Valley ‘reformers’ were challenged by the LA Times:

“Charters claim that their schools score far better than traditional public schools serving similar students. That’s not true. The students at Locke or any of the other at-risk high schools in LAUSD are not “similar students” when compared to those who have left the public schools and moved to the charters. What Broad, Green Dot and the others do not reveal is the scores of those charter students when they were in regular public schools. It’s our belief that those students were already outscoring their fellow students in the traditional schools before they moved into charters. Low-scoring students do not enroll in Broad’s charters. His charters have skimmed off the education-oriented kids who otherwise would be raising test scores for traditional public schools.”

Cracks were showing in 2010, when it was reported that by Parent Revolution’s own definitions 14 out of 15 Green Dot Schools weren’t reaching their promised levels of success, [examiner] and to add substance to the LA Times critique, Green Dot Schools were targeting schools for takeover which were already exceeding Green Dot results. [SeattleEd] (More at MJ 4/1/2011]

By 2013 the Green Dot experiment in Los Angeles was plagued by high teacher turnover, inadequate administration, and unstable evaluation policies.  Meanwhile, a Tacoma, WA middle school is being taken over by Green Dot Schools, but parents are advised that “space is limited.”  [TNTRib]  — not an admonition which can be pronounced by public schools.  The Seattle Times reported that most seats were already taken by April 29, 2015 — ‘lotteries were held for 6 of 8 charter schools.”  There are no “enrollment lotteries” for public schools.

It would indeed be interesting, if JUST ONCE some legislative body decided to put the kind of care, attention, concern, (and potential funding) in the hands of its public school districts as it does into the hands of privatizing and elite exclusionist interests.

Comments Off on Kirner Update and Charter School Follies in the Nevada Legislature

Filed under education, nevada education, Nevada legislature, Nevada politics, privatization, Union busting

The Wreck of the Penn Central: Conservatives want to replicate another financial debacle?

Rail logos Two days ago Fox News was happily promoting the privatization of Amtrak. [C&L]

“Gasparino went on to promote privatization. He said that the northeast corridor, between Washington and Boston, is a “very profitable service” and “there is no rationale why that service cannot be privatized. …If you put private management in there, it would probably be even more profitable and they could pay for even more upgrades.” “I’m not saying privatize the whole thing, at least not at first,” Gasparino said. But he insisted that privatization would make for “a Jet Blue of rail traffic.”

I admit to having “senior moments,” but I haven’t forgotten the fact that the reason Amtrak was created in 1971 was because of the FAILURE of private corporations to run the railroads.

A Bit of History

Once upon a time there was the Penn Central Transportation Company.

“The Penn Central merger was consummated on February 1, 1968, between the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central Railroad. At the end of 1968, the New York New Haven & Hartford Railroad was merged into PC by order of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Financial problems plagued the PC during its first couple years. Even though the merger had been planned for 10 years (on and off) before its inception, many problems faced the combined companies, such as incompatible computer systems and signaling systems.

Penn Central also invested in other companies, such as real estate, pipelines, and other ventures. The idea was to create a conglomerate corporation, with the railroad as one part of it. This diversification program, even 20 years later, is a point of debate over the fall of the PC, as some people say funds that were invested in other companies could have been used to run the railroad.” [PCRRHS]

Take a measure of mergers/acquisitions, add “diversification,” and … the world watched as the newly formed company created “dismal numbers.”  Enter the investment bankers. There were warnings.  One warning came before the big merger, in which it was noted that Penn Central had more than $1 billion in debt which would mature by 1982. When Penn Central finally went into bankruptcy it’s long term indebtedness, including obligations due in one year was an eye-popping $2.6 billion. $1 billion was due in five years; $228 million fell due in 1970; $156 million was due in 1971; $172 million came due in 1972; $270 million due in 1973, with another $160 million due in 1974. [Wreck of PCentral]

How this happened should sound eerily familiar:

“…economist Henry Kaufman says of this period in the late 1960s, “I watched with growing alarm as sources of corporate borrowers – in an effort to circumvent regulatory lending constraints – piled into the commercial market as issuers. The trend continued, and culminated in the collapse of the Penn Central Railroad.” [BuyHold]

And collapse it did, into the largest bankruptcy the nation had experienced up to that point, but not before:

“Penn Central’s subsidiaries were stripped of their treasuries in order to prop up PC’s own earnings. For example, New York Central Transport, a trucking subsidiary, had profits of only $4.2 million and yet paid $14.5 million in dividends to the parent. Despite this kind of maneuvering, the dividend on Penn Central common was slashed from $2.40 to $1.80 in 1969. Chairman Saunders vowed to hike it back up, soon. [It was later learned, however, that insiders at PC were unloading their company stock and bonds while all of this was going on.” [BuyHold]

We had a batch of corporate borrowers trying to get around regulations on lending, combined with a company fiddling the books trying to prop up its earnings reports, and taking on massive amounts of debt.  What could possibly go wrong?   The answer, of course, was “everything.”  June 21, 1970 the company declared bankruptcy.  What of the passengers?

“October, 1970, in an attempt to revive passenger rail service, congress passed the Rail Passenger Service Act. That Act created Amtrak, a private company which, on May 1, 1971 began managing a nation-wide rail system dedicated to passenger service.” [Amtrak]

Where was Wall Street?  Again, Wall Street didn’t appear to be all that helpful, except perhaps to themselves.  Goldman Sachs won “the opportunity” to underwrite Penn Central’s commercial paper in 1968.  We can almost guess what happened next:

“For large fees, Goldman sold the paper to its clients, including big companies such as American Express and Disney, and smaller ones such as Welch’s Foods, the grape-juice maker, and Younkers, a Des Moines retailer. Welch’s and Younkers, particularly, counted on the fact that Goldman told them that the Penn Central paper was safe and could be easily redeemed. Welch’s invested $1 million — some of it payroll cash — and Younkers invested $500,000, both at Goldman’s recommendation.” [TribLive]

After the Penn Central’s bankruptcy filing the SEC conducted an investigation.  This, too, is a bit too common for comfort:

After Penn Central filed for bankruptcy, an SEC investigation discovered that Goldman continued to sell the railroad’s debt to its clients at 100 cents on the dollar — even though, by the end of 1969, the firm knew that Penn Central’s finances were deteriorating rapidly.Not only was Goldman privy to Penn Central’s internal numbers, it also heard repeatedly from the railroad’s executives that it was rapidly running out of cash. [TribLive]

By February 1970 Goldman had about $10 million in Penn Central commercial paper on its books.  On February 5, 1970 Goldman Sachs demanded that the railroad buy back that $10 million inventory at 100 cents on the dollar even though it obviously wasn’t worth that much at that point. Goldman Sachs didn’t tell any of its clients about the offer, nor did it tell the customers that it had already taken care of its own interests before theirs.  Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose? [see also: WaPo 2102]

It doesn’t take too much imagination to see how (1) a boom in commercial paper – indebtedness; combined with (2) underlying debts incurred in operations, mergers, and acquisitions; abetted by (3) investors seeking ways around regulations; and (4) investment banking more interested in self preservation than best business practices combined to create a blockbuster bankruptcy. 

But yet, we have the Cato Institute, the bastion of conservative economic imagination pontificating:

“Budgetarily, Amtrak has become a runaway train, consuming huge subsidies and providing little or no return. Four decades of subsidies to passenger trains that are many times greater than subsidies to airlines and highways have failed to significantly alter American travel habits. Simple justice to Amtrak’s competitors as well as to taxpayers demands an end to those subsidies. The only real solution for Amtrak is privatization.”

The conservatives are missing several points.  The point may not be to “alter” travel habits – but to maintain services which people were already using for their commute to work, especially in the Northeast Corridor.  The rationale for the act included stabilizing services for passengers, the general public, and shippers. [RRA]

Going to Court

Amtrak is a private corporation, albeit one with some very special features.   If we want to get technical about  it, the official name is the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.  In fact, the point was driven home in a legal case two years ago in which the private nature of the NRP Corporation was pivotal:

“A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington today said Congress had improperly delegated to Amtrak, a private corporation, the power to draft performance standards that affected companies whose tracks the passenger carrier uses. Amtrak trains have legal priority over freight.

“Though the federal government’s involvement in Amtrak is considerable, Congress has both designated it a private corporation and instructed that it be managed so as to maximize profit,” U.S. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown said in the ruling.” [Skift]

The case got the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court. [FRAdvisor] Enter the “fish or fowl” phase.  Roger’s decision was “vacated and remanded” on a 9-0 decision.  Could Amtrak “metrics and standards” be set aside because the Congress unconstitutionally delegated power to a private corporation? And the Court said:

“No. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion for the majority. The Court held that, for purposes of determining the validity of the metrics and standards, Amtrak is a governmental entity. The members of Amtrak’s Board of Directors are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and Amtrak is required by statute to pursue broad public objectives. Because of Amtrak’s significant ties to the government, Amtrak is not a private enterprise, and therefore, treating Amtrak as a governmental entity is consistent with the constitutional separation of powers.” [Oyez]

Therefore, what the Cato Institute and its allies are arguing is that the decision in DOT vs. Association of American Railroads (49 USC 24301) should be overturned and the railways should exist without any “regulations” imposed by Amtrak which would be applicable to freight haulers.   Extrapolating the Cato’s position to absurdity, under their reasoning we could revert to the wonderful old days of differing track gauges. 

Riding the Thin Rail

However, perhaps the most crucial point the conservatives are missing isn’t about the legislative and legal nature of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, but why this entity was established in the first place.  Although a person might think we’d have learned something from the financial debacle of 2007-2008, the calls to privatize Amtrak have a remarkably familiar ring.

In a financial atmosphere in which commercial debt is treated as fodder for the creation of derivative financial products, and trading is barely regulated in the face of financialist opposition, and mergers and acquisitions generate incentives for corporate mismanagement, and there isn’t an old school investment bank left on the American landscape because of the casino mentality of Wall Street during the Housing Bubble, are we truly going to believe that privatization is the panacea for all that ails the passenger rail system in the United States?

Comments Off on The Wreck of the Penn Central: Conservatives want to replicate another financial debacle?

Filed under Economy, financial regulation, Infrastructure, public transportation

ALEC assault on Nevada PERS: AB 190

AB 190 AB 190 is hitting the light of day [ltn] – and for those advocates of middle class financial security and adequate pensions for former public employees this bill needs to go back down into its pit.  This bill is a bit of ALEC dreamland:

“…relating to public employees’ retirement; providing for the establishment of a hybrid retirement program for certain public employees; requiring the program to include a defined benefit plan and a defined contribution plan; setting forth the required provisions of each plan; requiring certain public employers under certain circumstances to make additional contributions to the Public Employees’ Retirement System to reduce the unfunded liability of the System;…[ NVLeg]

The Hybrid From Hell

This portion of the bill would create a system similar to the one enacted in Utah, and promoted by ALEC in its “State Solutions for Government Pension Reform.” [ALEC pdf] *See Utah Reform, page 18.

There are a couple of crucial point embedded in the ALEC publication.  First is the notion that defined benefit plans are a “problem.”  It doesn’t matter the fiscal state of the pension benefits program – if it isn’t about to send the state into bankruptcy, there are ways to massage the statistics in order to make it appear the state has a monstrous unfunded liability.   Funding from the Koch Brothers partially funds the NPRI’s conclusion that there is a $41 billion current liability.  And, gee whiz – wouldn’t you have guessed it? – they recommend a Utah style hybrid public pension program. *See DB 12/9/14.

Before grabbing the children and heading for the hills in a panic – consider the possibility that we can make the unfunded liability number really big by reducing the advance funding factors.  Translation, if I were to total up the liability for every public employee, working and retired,  and treat it as if it were all going to be paid out tomorrow morning, the number would be really  big – and really misleading and  inaccurate.

What we need to focus on is how well the program deals with liabilities over time.  So, when AonHewitt did an independent review of the NV PERS system what did it find?

“AonHewitt found that NV PERS “funding levels and the discount rates were not uncommon, where NV PERS differs from others is in its Funding Policy and contribution rules which provide much better than average protection, when compared to similar systems. Continued review and comparisons of costs and benefits with other large plans, actuarial audits, and consistent updating of the Funding Policy facilitates NVPERS ability to remain among the best run large public systems.”  [AonHewitt pdf]

Sorry, privatizers and financialists, there really is no reason to adopt any major changes in the current define benefit plan in Nevada because, as the independent comparative review discerned, Nevada doesn’t have the problems associated with other large pension systems in some other states.

There’s Gold In Those Hills (for Someone)

Thus far, ultra-right organizations such as ALEC and associated think tanks like the NPRI have been beating their drums and issuing reports to friendly news outlets about the Problem – which doesn’t exist in Nevada, in the hopes of promoting ALEC’s agenda that brings us to the second major point of the issue:

ALEC, et. al., want to promote defined contribution plans because there’s money to be made.

“On the private side – Continue to tell workers that they’ll be better off with their “economic freedom” (in a defined contribution plan) to finance their own retirement plans with “flexibility,” and they can use their money as they want – just make the management fee structure so complicated it takes a degree in Finance to figure it out, and then operate on the happy assumption that the financial professional’s first duty is to his own firm’s bottom line not with a specific obligation to cover the future retiree’s bottom.   Give us your money, pay us the fees, and just trust us!  Go quietly, and no one will get hurt?” [DB]

AB 190 is a classic assault on a perfectly good public retirement system which is NOT generating an unwieldy unfunded liability.  If the ultimate purpose isn’t to retain the best features of the current system, but to replace it with defined contributions in the future, then the other motive which springs to mind is that the financialists among us have been ogling the coffers of public employee retirement systems and want very much to dip into them up to at least their elbows, if not their shoulders.

What the advocates of AB 190 want to do is fairly easy to see – ultimately hand over wads of money from the public employees retirement funds to wealth management firms who will exact their fees and transactional costs with less public scrutiny than is required in a publicly managed retirement system.  What could possibly go wrong?

Golden Years or Fleeced Sheep?

Not sure this is the case? Then look at the provision in the bill in which individual trust accounts are inserted. [NV Leg pdf Section 4]  Let’s review two problems associated with the individual trust accounts.  First, how many people have the financial training, experience, or acumen to manage their own trust accounts?   The obvious answer is – not many.

In this instance a newly hired heavy equipment operator for NDOT might be given his “freedom” to establish an individual retirement trust account.  This freedom has a price tag.  There will be transactional and management fees associated with this account. There will be transactional decisions made about the portfolio and contents of the account.  If the basis for the transactional decisions is “proprietary” information within the wealth management firm handling the account, then how is the NDOT employee to determine if the transactions were made in his or her best interests?

This brings us to the second problem, not only do many public employees (or other regular folks for that matter) lack the financial expertise to track their own individual retirement trust accounts, but if the system isn’t very carefully structured, and the contracts exceedingly open – the employee may not be able to find out how and why investment decisions were made on his or her behalf.  However, the wealth management firms will be delighted.

Half of the Research is false, ergo Half the Products are false

If these two problems aren’t enough to may a person queasy, there’s one more issue to explore.  Financial firms are happy to inform investors that their investment decisions are based on empirical research.  Sounds nice, doesn’t it?  Wait.  Evaluating trading strategies has proven to be a mare’s nest of research forms, leading the Journal of Portfolio Management to report that,  “Most of the empirical research in finance, whether published in academic journals or put into production as an active trading strategy by an investment manager, is likely false. This implies that half the financial products (promising outperformance) that companies are selling to clients are false.” [Economist]

Do the advocates of AB 190 comprehend what the JPM author’s are saying when they conclude that:

“In summary, the message of our research is simple. Researchers in finance, whether practitioners or academics, need to realize that they will find seemingly successful trading strategies by chance. We can no longer use the traditional tools of statistical analysis that assume that no one has looked at the data before and there is only a single strategy tried. A multiple-testing framework offers help in reducing the number of false strategies adapted by firms. Two sigma is no longer an appropriate benchmark for evaluating trading strategies.” [JPM]

Let’s translate:  If there is a 50-50 chance that the research is wrong, then there’s a 50-50 chance the financial product sold on the basis of that research will be falsely assumed to be a good product to put in a retirement portfolio.   How is our NDOT equipment operator, our public school teacher, our firefighter, our police officer, our assistant county administrator, our receptionist in the Department of Education, supposed to track his or her retirement account IF the research isn’t made available, and if it is, it might very well be inaccurate?

We might revert to the previous advice from the management firm – give us your money, don’t ask too many questions, go quietly, and no one will get hurt – in this firm. You, might be another matter.

Comments Off on ALEC assault on Nevada PERS: AB 190

Filed under privatization, public employees