Saturday, August 27, 2011

These 3 attachments are all I need to prove fraud with the SBCERS pension fund. Simply follow my instructions and see for yourself

This is very simple people the data included in the 2009 County Employer Cost Chart does not match earlier reports from Santa Barbara County Officials. 

The 2009 chart gives funded ratios that drastically differs from those found on archived reports for 12/86 12/88 and 12/90. . 
The 2009 chart shows that on 12/31/86   our SBCERS pension was only  67.10% funded vs, the archived State Controllers Audit which shows a 102% funded pension. The 2009 shows that on 12/31/88 the SBCERS pension was 67.20% funded vs, the archived Controllers Audit for the same year shows a 91.00% funded Pension. 2009 for 12/31/90 shows 61.40% vs. the archived Controllers Audit shows 82.9% funded pension..
All I ask is that you please give me the time to do only one thing. Simply open the attachments ( employer history cost and the 90/91 file) and compare side by side the reported funded ratio levels. The SBCERS is the 4th county on the 90/91 attachment. It is that simple. Of course I have a million other things that my research has produced but I know you are extremely busy so I want to keep this as brief as possible. 
So who retroactively altered the pension values and funded ratios? I think the altering of funds values and funded ratio levels happen between 1995 and 1996.

I have done the math and these contradictions create a 2 billion dollar difference. Now the pension works as designed and there is no need for the county employees to be afraid of us exposing the corruption. Except that there is another group of people who believe that the practice of spiking their pension has created the mess we are  in. and that is not true. The 3rd attachment will show you how many years " excess returns" have been pulled from the pension. I think that chart will shock you as well. Well have a great weekend and you can call me anytime on my cell.

Larry "Magic" Mendoza

Open this file and compare the data for the years

To what is reported on the chart below. Click on each file or picture to and that will open up to it's own window if you are @ 
2009 Santa Barbara County Employers Cosy history, This also contains altered SBCERS pension funded ratio data from 1986b through 2009 

A History of Excess Funds that were Removed from the SBCERS Pension Fund! 

Pension spiking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pension spiking is the process whereby public sector employees grant themselves large raises or otherwise artificially inflate their compensation in the years immediately preceding retirement in order to receive larger pensions than they otherwise would be entitled to receive. This inflates the pension payments to the retirees and, upon retirement of the "spikee", transfers the burden of making payments from the employee's employer to a public pension fund. This practice is considered a significant contributor to the high cost of public sector pensions. Several states including Illinois have passed laws making it more difficult for employees to spike their pensions.[1]
Pension spiking is largely seen in public sector and is an example of the principal-agent problem. In the classic principal-agent problem, a principal hires an agent to work on his behalf. The agent then seeks to maximize his own well being within the confines of the engagement laid out by the principal. The agent, or bureaucrat in this instance, has superior information and is able to maximize his benefit at the cost of the principal. In other words, there is asymmetric information.
In the case of pension spiking the general public (the principal) elects officials to hire the bureaucrat who then hires the public servants, who are the ultimate agents of the general public. Thus, the principal is three steps removed from the bureaucrat. In the case of pension spiking, the public has allowed a pension system to be created which is based on the compensation in the last year of service and delegated the setting of this cost to the bureaucrat.[2] The bureaucrat, who will often himself or herself benefit from a spiked pension or the same laws permitting pension spiking, fails to stop the practice, a clear conflict of interest.

Here is what you have in the documents I gave you.
1- a 1986 California State Controllers Audit page that reviews the S.B.C.E.R.S. pension.
2- a 1995 California State Controllers Audit page that reviews the S.B.C.E.R.S. pension.
3- a 1996 California State Controllers Audit page that reviews the S.B.C.E.R.S. pension.
4- a 2009 Contribution rate paid to the pension 1986-2009 made for the S.B.C.E.R.S. Retirement Board.
5- Copies of letter from the State Controllers showing where my pension audit data came from.
6- Pension fund status taken from a 1992 Bond offering by Santa Barbara County found on Wall Street 

Find the official statement, continuing disclosures and trade price information for a specific bond, note or other 
municipal security (for best results, use CUSIP number). For more information on finding an official statement,

Peter you can also click on these files and follow the funded status year by year as reported to the State Controllers office.

I have parked all my pension audits on my blog with links to each file for that particular year/

California Public Retirement Systems Annual Audit Reports 2007-08 – 1997-98. Also Past Fund Values from 1996-97 – 1978-79 for 5 California County Pensions; Los Angeles(LACERA), Santa Barbara(SBCERS) Ventura(VCERA), Kern(KCERA), and Contra Costa(CCCERS) County

Please click on any  orange highlight and that PDF file will open for your review.

California Public Pension Funds Yearly Audits from the Office of the California State Controller. Pubic Pension Reports County by County and City by City @

California Public Retirement Systems Annual Reports

 1996-97  Fund Values for 5 California County Public Pensions; Los Angeles(LACERA), Santa Barbara(SBCERS) Ventura(VCERA), Kern(KCERA), and Contra Costa(CCCERS) County

S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!

No comments: