SBCERS Projected Payroll, UAAL and Employer Contributions Alternative 4 from 2009.

 SBCERS Projected Payroll, UAAL and Employer Contributions Alternative 4, What a bleek out look for Santa Barbara tax payers. We are a Billion dollars under funded and will still be a Billion under funded in 2028. You see the current Board of Supervisors would have you think you are up to date but there not being truthful.
  Well as luck would have it I just caught the tail end of some one being sworn in as the new Santa Barbara city councilman. Of course that happen only after I had flipped from the news channel that said our city charter was not clear on how to about filling this vacancy.The old city councilman Das Williams was just elected to a State Assemble seat so his departure is what created this void. Now the oath that the city councilman took is was what really grabbed me. You see as it turns out as a Santa Barbara city councilman you are responsible to just two things. The United States and California Constitutions, nothing more and nothing less. So than I ask myself where the hell does all the confusion come from with all our elected officials and there actions? The first question I wonder is why our elected officials where not better educated on just what to do should Das Williams have one his election? Personally I think the whole thing is a dog an pony show and something should have been put together for the public to vote on during the last election and solve any protocol confusion. Which than makes me wonder sense that was not done may we challenge in Court any of the upcoming decisions based on the pirated city councilman?This is no different than a possible open election for Superior Court judge being circumvented by the Governor. Why is it that time after time our elected officials are afraid of being elected? Now today s just "voted" in councilman really knows how to inspire confidence when his first statement after having been chosen was that even he felt he was not the most qualified candidate. Why is it elected officials seem to think they know better than us and yet we have a pension fund crisis?

Now if you saw my last posting you are aware I called into question the assets per member value that I found and I will tell you why. You see if you multiply the assets per member by the actual members for 2004. You will find that the pension fund is actually worth 1.7 Billion dollars an not the reported just under 1.4 Billion dollars. An better yet the SBCERS pension fund would exceed 100% funded. Contradiction after contradiction but even that statement is false. What we really have exposed is one crime after another that is being allowed not just by our elected officials, oh no but by all of us as well. After all we are the ones that allow the crimes and officials to go on unaccounted for!. In my mind what I see as far as how we try and solve problems in Government or from the public's stand point is we tend to start at the present and go forward. Never checking to see if the foundation that the actual problem is built on is a factual one. Because that is how I approach when should a Superior Court Judge seek reelection. Or what a pension fund value should have been in the past before I go and try to solve anything for the future. How can throwing more money be the answer to an already triple funded pension fund that has actually exceeded it's performance requirements?


Now some of you might remember a few months back I created a chart on my own reflecting what I felt the SBCERS pension fund value and LIABILITY should be based on my research.
So sometime has passed since than and I feel even more confident that I am closer to the truth than anything that the media has put out that's for sure. As always I ask that you share my postings with as many as you can but only if I have earned that favor with my hard work. Of course I believe in "Magic" but more hard work is what we need. R. Kelly has a new song out that reminds me of days gone by. I would cry in my beer about that but someone has my Oldies hint hint.

Happy Holidays to All



Larry Mendoza



                              Click on any picture and they will open up to there own window.

I start in 1989 and base my numbers on a document I found filed on Wall Street in the bond market. That document is included in this posting for your review. How do I come up with a fully over funded SBCERS pension fund that has over a BILLION DOLLARS in reserve? The pension fund obligation was formulated by starting at 225 Million and adding 8.16% percent growth per year.

Compare the value given the SBCERS pension fund value to my chart and the bond market document, why all the variances in value. Look at how our county goes about reporting year to year value to the different agencies it must file with!

The values found in my SBCERS pension chart are taken from the second paragraph found in the 1989 Bond market filing.
The picture below was presented to the Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors during the year 2009. Time to ask the Supervisors, Whats Changed?

SBCERS Projected Payroll, UAAL and Employer Contributions Alternative 4. If we leave with the current funding status look at the projected underfunded value as recently presented to the Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors. We all are in serious trouble at least until 2028 and not just in this County. California wake up we need our economy back and our children s schools properly funded. We deserve a better future than the one we are currently being promised.

LACERA breaking down the math and investment returns. I feel over 7 billion dollars has gone unreported not only to pension holders but to the tax payers that provide it.

What is the organizational structure of the State Controller’s Office and how does it relate to the California Public Pensions? Well one section of the Controllers office is the Audits Division, which can investigate whether taxpayers dollars are being spent as the law intended. I only ask this since they have collected data  and issued a California Public Pension report now for 30 years, but I cannot find were they have investigated any of them? My gathering of reports and data here today will clearly show the habitual misrepresentation of pension fund value by todays subject the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association. I was able to find my data from the Municipal Bond Market on Wall Street than cross checked those figures with the ones being reported to our California State Controllers Office. I did search for older audits from the LACERS web site but none were available. I was also able to search though the various California County Grand jury's and reports they issued as well for helpful information like what I found below.

 http://www.sbcgj.org/2000/aud_fin.htm.
California Counties With Assets In Excess 0f $800 Million

Annualized Returns for Period ending 6/30/00

Combined the Counties below had a yearly investment rate of return over a 5 year span of 14.84%

In other words during this 5 year window the funds in these Counties out performed there previous 50 years !Or on average each of these California public pension funds grew 100% from there value on 06/31/95  

                              

COUNTY	ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS	FUND BALANCE (market value)	1 YR RATE OF RETURN	3 YR RATE OF RETURN	5 YR RATE OF RETURN
Los Angeles	88,420	$30.3 billion	15.2%	14.6%	15.7%
Orange	20,357	$4.8 billion	11.85%	12.70%	14.46%
San Diego	16,910	$3.7 billion	15.75%	14.59%	16.02%
San Bernardino	15,529	$3.6 billion	9.74%	12.70%	14.12%
Sacramento	10,547	$3.3 billion	9.54%	13.19%	15.41%
Alameda	9,859	$3.8 billion	10.88%	13.10%	15.36%
Contra Costa	8,475	$2.5 billion	6.6%	13.0%	15.7%
Kern	6,853	$1.4 billion	9.43%	11.4%	13.62%
Ventura	6,840	$2.1 billion	7.2%	12.9%	14.8%
Fresno	5,899	$1.3 billion	8.4%	11.8%	14.0%
San Joaquin	4,835	$1.3 billion	7.93%	10.17%	13.71%
Santa Barbara	4,500	$1.2 billion	6.7%	12.1%	14.5%
San Mateo	4,400	$1.2 billion	6.8%	10.5%	15.3%
Stanislaus	4,281	$900 million	6.58%	10.86%	13.49%
Sonoma	4,236	$928 million	8.78%	12.92%	15.81%
Marin	2,885	$955 million	10.7%	12.7%	15.2%

So lets add the total for our 16 Counties in two areas and see what we get. Participants for all 16 Counties = 214,826 and Market Value for those same 16 = 63.2 Billion dollars . Than if we divide participants by members we get Assets Per Member @ 294,191 WOW That is almost 1 Million dollars in assets for every 3 participates. Now if that assets per member figure seems like I am not presenting fact here than think about this. In the 2000/2001  California State Controllers audit of the pension funds the LACERA fund reported assets per member @ 252,917.$ and thats documented.

I was able to find that as of 06/30/1995 the LACERA pension had a value of just over 18 billion dollars. Now if you look up at that chart from the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury you see that the LACERA fund was reported to have grown at an average rate of 15.7% per year from 06/95 through 06/00. So lets do some simple math and round off and see what we come up with.

1995-18. Billion X 15.7 = 20.8 Billion X 15.7 = 24. Billion X 15.7 = 27.88 Billion X 15.7 = 32.25 Billion X 15.7= 

37.89 Billion dollars in June of 2000.  An those figures I just shared do not reflect the close to 1.5 billion dollars made by the County in the form of yearly contributions. If you look between the chart above and the State Controllers reports below they are reporting between 30 and 31 Billion dollars, it seems they like to round off too. Now that little example may seem a bit simplistic to some of you and I am sorry but here is why. If the fund was 100% funded back in 06/95 and doubled over the next 5 years than I must ask you all this. Why did the funded ratio never exceed 103.3% at any point from 06/95   to 06/00? Seems to me when your fund is performing at almost twice the assumption rate for five straight years your funded ratio would reflect that achievement? The fund performance was too strong over those five years I have mentioned and the math will not allow our elected officials to get away with there fraud and corruption.

So next lets see what the  LACERA Pension reported to the California State controllers office over a 3 year period. Now when you look at each years review you will find the Actuarial Value of Assets and the Actual Present Value billions of dollars off. I tried making a mini chart so that when you print the next three pictures it will be very easy to follow along. 
Summary of Funding Position

Year

Reported.......Actuarial Accrued Liability...../Actuarial Value of Assets....../Funded Ratio 
2001 06/30/00 .. 24,730,380,000 $..... ….25,426,507,000 $ …......102.9%...
2001 06/30/00 Actual Present Value ...31,565,347,566...Investment return of 16.2%
2000 06/30/99 .. 22,784,706,000 $ .....….23,536,116,000 $ ..........103.3%...
2000 06/30/99 Actual Present Value .......28,043,306,581..Investment return of 13.8%
1999 06/30/98 ...20,959,946,000$............20,851,133,000 $.............99.5%

1999 06/30/98 Actual Present Value....25,492,178,491...Investment return of 15.4%
1998 06/30/97 ...19,383,641,334 $..........19,642,355,400 .$............101.3%

1998 06/30/97 Actual Present Value...22,854,669,909..Investment return of 17.4%
1997 06/30/96 ...17,277,650,440 $............17,724,743,800 $............102.6%




Please print the next 3 pictures so you may see first hand the contradictions of value year to year.
If you are viewing these pictures at my blog www.santabarbaracriminalcourtcorruption.blogspot.com
You may click on any one of them and they will open up to there own window so you may save print them.

 

http://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD-Local/LocRep/retirement_reports_retirement0001.pdf

Under "Summary of Funding Position" we have two 1998 years being reported and no 1997. Under "Value of Assets " the growth rate between years should be between 2.8 and 5 Billion dollars based on the yearly investment return average of 15.7%

http://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD-Local/LocRep/retirement_reports_retirement9900.pdf

Under " Summary of Finding Position" for the year 06/30/99 shows a value in the 23.5 Billion range, Also under Summary the year 1996 was removed? However under "End of Year Net assets held for Pension we have 31.5 Billion? an 8 Billion dollar difference.  

http://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD-Local/LocRep/retirement_reports_retirement9798.pdf

Just like the year above we have a difference in value from the Summary section to the Net assets of almost 6 billion dollars. That is a full 20% difference and it it not my job to explain why. 

 Below is the location that I was able to find a true value of the pension fund as reported by Los Angeles County for June of 1995.

http://emma.msrb.org/MS121150-MS96458-MD187579.pdf

This document Verifies an 18 Billion dollar pension as of 06/30/95

The information from the bond market indicates that 54% are Retired members. The information from the State Controllers report indicates that only 34% of the LACERA pension are retired members. 

9.4 Billion dollar value as of 06/90 and grew to over 30 billion by 06/00. And even with that great growth I feel the numbers are still far to small in 2000 and tax payers have been taken advantage of by over 7 BILLION DOLLARS!!!.

      In closing we can read this report and that report but regardless once you apply the math nothing makes sense. That math will not allow for the fraud and corruption that total  Billions of dollars.

LACERA breaking down the math and investment returns. I feel over 7 billion dollars has gone unreported not only to pension holders but to the tax payers that provide it.

What is the organizational structure of the State Controller’s Office and how does it relate to the California Public Pensions? Well one section of the Controllers office is the Audits Division, which can investigate whether taxpayers dollars are being spent as the law intended. I only ask this since they have collected data  and issued a California Public Pension report now for 30 years, but I cannot find were they have investigated any of them? My gathering of reports and data here today will clearly show the habitual misrepresentation of pension fund value by todays subject the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association. I was able to find my data from the Municipal Bond Market on Wall Street than cross checked those figures with the ones being reported to our California State Controllers Office. I did search for older audits from the LACERS web site but none were available. I was also able to search though the various California County Grand jury's and reports they issued as well for helpful information like what I found below.

 http://www.sbcgj.org/2000/aud_fin.htm.
California Counties With Assets In Excess 0f $800 Million

Annualized Returns for Period ending 6/30/00

Combined the Counties below had a yearly investment rate of return over a 5 year span of 14.84%

In other words during this 5 year window the funds in these Counties out performed there previous 50 years !Or on average each of these California public pension funds grew 100% from there value on 06/31/95  

                              

COUNTY	ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS	FUND BALANCE (market value)	1 YR RATE OF RETURN	3 YR RATE OF RETURN	5 YR RATE OF RETURN
Los Angeles	88,420	$30.3 billion	15.2%	14.6%	15.7%
Orange	20,357	$4.8 billion	11.85%	12.70%	14.46%
San Diego	16,910	$3.7 billion	15.75%	14.59%	16.02%
San Bernardino	15,529	$3.6 billion	9.74%	12.70%	14.12%
Sacramento	10,547	$3.3 billion	9.54%	13.19%	15.41%
Alameda	9,859	$3.8 billion	10.88%	13.10%	15.36%
Contra Costa	8,475	$2.5 billion	6.6%	13.0%	15.7%
Kern	6,853	$1.4 billion	9.43%	11.4%	13.62%
Ventura	6,840	$2.1 billion	7.2%	12.9%	14.8%
Fresno	5,899	$1.3 billion	8.4%	11.8%	14.0%
San Joaquin	4,835	$1.3 billion	7.93%	10.17%	13.71%
Santa Barbara	4,500	$1.2 billion	6.7%	12.1%	14.5%
San Mateo	4,400	$1.2 billion	6.8%	10.5%	15.3%
Stanislaus	4,281	$900 million	6.58%	10.86%	13.49%
Sonoma	4,236	$928 million	8.78%	12.92%	15.81%
Marin	2,885	$955 million	10.7%	12.7%	15.2%

So lets add the total for our 16 Counties in two areas and see what we get. Participants for all 16 Counties = 214,826 and Market Value for those same 16 = 63.2 Billion dollars . Than if we divide participants by members we get Assets Per Member @ 294,191 WOW That is almost 1 Million dollars in assets for every 3 participates. Now if that assets per member figure seems like I am not presenting fact here than think about this. In the 2000/2001  California State Controllers audit of the pension funds the LACERA fund reported assets per member @ 252,917.$ and thats documented.

I was able to find that as of 06/30/1995 the LACERA pension had a value of just over 18 billion dollars. Now if you look up at that chart from the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury you see that the LACERA fund was reported to have grown at an average rate of 15.7% per year from 06/95 through 06/00. So lets do some simple math and round off and see what we come up with.

1995-18. Billion X 15.7 = 20.8 Billion X 15.7 = 24. Billion X 15.7 = 27.88 Billion X 15.7 = 32.25 Billion X 15.7= 

37.89 Billion dollars in June of 2000.  An those figures I just shared do not reflect the close to 1.5 billion dollars made by the County in the form of yearly contributions. If you look between the chart above and the State Controllers reports below they are reporting between 30 and 31 Billion dollars, it seems they like to round off too. Now that little example may seem a bit simplistic to some of you and I am sorry but here is why. If the fund was 100% funded back in 06/95 and doubled over the next 5 years than I must ask you all this. Why did the funded ratio never exceed 103.3% at any point from 06/95   to 06/00? Seems to me when your fund is performing at almost twice the assumption rate for five straight years your funded ratio would reflect that achievement? The fund performance was too strong over those five years I have mentioned and the math will not allow our elected officials to get away with there fraud and corruption.

So next lets see what the  LACERA Pension reported to the California State controllers office over a 3 year period. Now when you look at each years review you will find the Actuarial Value of Assets and the Actual Present Value billions of dollars off. I tried making a mini chart so that when you print the next three pictures it will be very easy to follow along. 
Summary of Funding Position

Year

Reported.......Actuarial Accrued Liability...../Actuarial Value of Assets....../Funded Ratio 
2001 06/30/00 .. 24,730,380,000 $..... ….25,426,507,000 $ …......102.9%...
2001 06/30/00 Actual Present Value ...31,565,347,566...Investment return of 16.2%
2000 06/30/99 .. 22,784,706,000 $ .....….23,536,116,000 $ ..........103.3%...
2000 06/30/99 Actual Present Value .......28,043,306,581..Investment return of 13.8%
1999 06/30/98 ...20,959,946,000$............20,851,133,000 $.............99.5%

1999 06/30/98 Actual Present Value....25,492,178,491...Investment return of 15.4%
1998 06/30/97 ...19,383,641,334 $..........19,642,355,400 .$............101.3%

1998 06/30/97 Actual Present Value...22,854,669,909..Investment return of 17.4%
1997 06/30/96 ...17,277,650,440 $............17,724,743,800 $............102.6%




Please print the next 3 pictures so you may see first hand the contradictions of value year to year.
If you are viewing these pictures at my blog www.santabarbaracriminalcourtcorruption.blogspot.com
You may click on any one of them and they will open up to there own window so you may save print them.

 

http://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD-Local/LocRep/retirement_reports_retirement0001.pdf

Under "Summary of Funding Position" we have two 1998 years being reported and no 1997. Under "Value of Assets " the growth rate between years should be between 2.8 and 5 Billion dollars based on the yearly investment return average of 15.7%

http://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD-Local/LocRep/retirement_reports_retirement9900.pdf

Under " Summary of Finding Position" for the year 06/30/99 shows a value in the 23.5 Billion range, Also under Summary the year 1996 was removed? However under "End of Year Net assets held for Pension we have 31.5 Billion? an 8 Billion dollar difference.  

http://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD-Local/LocRep/retirement_reports_retirement9798.pdf

Just like the year above we have a difference in value from the Summary section to the Net assets of almost 6 billion dollars. That is a full 20% difference and it it not my job to explain why. 

 Below is the location that I was able to find a true value of the pension fund as reported by Los Angeles County for June of 1995.

http://emma.msrb.org/MS121150-MS96458-MD187579.pdf

This document Verifies an 18 Billion dollar pension as of 06/30/95

The information from the bond market indicates that 54% are Retired members. The information from the State Controllers report indicates that only 34% of the LACERA pension are retired members. 

9.4 Billion dollar value as of 06/90 and grew to over 30 billion by 06/00. And even with that great growth I feel the numbers are still far to small in 2000 and tax payers have been taken advantage of by over 7 BILLION DOLLARS!!!.

      In closing we can read this report and that report but regardless once you apply the math nothing makes sense. That math will not allow for the fraud and corruption that total  Billions of dollars.