Sunday, July 3, 2011

My SEC complaint against Santa Barbara County and the SBCERS Pension Retirement Board;

My SEC complaint against Santa Barbara County and the Pension Retirement Board;
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Complaint form; what are you complaining about?
  I have some serious concerns that for years Santa Barbara County has repeatedly misrepresented their (SBCERS) pension fund value and funded ratio to the Municipal Securities as well as its residents. I have also included 4 attachments’ for your review. I do this so that all my data and claims can be verified as true and correct. Once that has been established I would expect some type of action or investigation would be called for on your part. I would thank you in advance for all your time and effort with this matter.

The first document I have attached for your review was taken from a 91-92 Bond market offering. In the picture from that offering one can see where Santa Barbara County represents that on 12/31/86 the SBCERS pension was 102% funded with a value that exceeded 225 million dollars. Here is a link that will allow you to see the full Bond offering that this attachment was pulled from.

 Now in attachment two what we have is a year to year account of Santa Barbara County employee contribution cost related to the SBCERS pension fund. For example Row 2 of this chart gives the actuarial valuation date. So we can follow along 12/86 and find contribution rates, funded ratios and unfunded liabilities. It is because of the contradictions between attachment one and two that I am filing this complaint. Here we can see under 12/86 this document claims the SBCERS pension was only 67% funded and had an unfunded liability of over 112 million dollars. If this were true than that would make the financials reported to you in attachment one fraudulent.

 Now attachment 3 was supplied to me by the California Controllers office just last week and their audit also shows the pension was 102% funded in 1986 matching attachment one.

    Also during my research I confirmed that during a recent 21 year span ending in 2008 the pension funds yearly net return on investments averaged 9.3%. This investment performance was well above the assumption target rate of 8.16% the county had been seeking. So based on this and my proving the pension was 102% funded in 1986. Santa Barbara County should have then been required to contribute at only the minimal level. That yearly contribution rate would have averaged out to just under 12% of payroll over 21 years. However during this time Santa Barbara County averaged a contribution rate of 17% or a full 30% more than what was required of them. The 21 year net return on investment data was taken from attachment four.

   This brings me to my final and most pressing concern about the fraudulent practices of both the Santa Barbara Retirement Board and the elected officials of Santa Barbara County; THE COST OF IT ALL!. If the fund was exceeding their target assumption rate while at the same time being over funded. How can there currently be a 1 Billion dollar unfunded future liability?  In 2009 the Retirement Board acknowledged that even after recent policy changes made for a deficit that does not exist. There will still be a 900 Million dollar unfunded liability in 2028 for our now adult children to deal with.

  When you combined the funds outstanding investment return history with the County’s practice of over funding, there can be no unfunded future liability, IT IS JUST NOT MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE!

 In closing I hope my facts and findings that I have presented here fall under the S.E.C. and you are able to investigate the fraudulent practices of Santa Barbara County.

TCR Submitted Successfully - Reference Number: TCR1309684521923

1- Santa Barbara Bond offering document from 1991-92 showing that in December 1986 the SBCERS Pension was 102% funded with a 225 million dollar value.

2- A Santa Barbara County Employer Contribution history report for the SBCERS pension. That also includes funded and unfunded ratios and the yearly effect they have on the contribution rates paid by Santa Barbara County. This document contradicts the first and third attachments. This document reports that in December 1986 the county pension was only at a 67% funded ratio. Yet the County’s contribution rate to the pension fund that year was actually reduced.  

3- This attachment has data taken from the 1986-87 Audit compiled by the California State Controllers office. This document confirms the financial statement and funding status found in document 1

4- July 1st 2009 Santa Barbara County Board of Retirement’s response letter, addressing concerns from a 2008-09 Grand Jury report;
Response to finding 4 (found on page two)
“We disagree wholly with the finding. As reported in the 2006 actuarial experience study, as of June 2005 the fund’s 18-year compound average net return on assets was 9.7%. Since that time the fund earned 10.8% in 2006 and 17.2% in 2007, and lost 7.1% in 2008.”  
    Well please correct me if I am wrong but doesn't that translate to a 21 year compound average net return on assets of 9.3% ending in 2008?

attachment two

Attachment one

No comments: