Any other deep thoughts to share on this cold December morning?
63 Comments
- Don't Worry, Be Happy - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 8:45 am:
Tom’s right - let’s take a hammer to the pension fund managers. After all, if they’d been as good generating returns for the pension funds as they are generating returns for themselves, our pension funds would be overfunded by now.
Put them on an incentive plan. For average returns (compared to the industry average), they don’t get paid any fees. Zero, zip, nada. For better than average, give them a percentage. That’s pure capitalism … rewards for results.
What RNUG said. I think Illinois would do well to end the culture where the likes of Stu Levine muscle pinstripe patronage to pay-to-play sugar daddies like Rauner.
Who needs, them, anyway? What do they bring to the table for their 2% off the top and 20% of gains?
You have just as good a shot with index funds as you do with the political hustlers. Heck, Illinois bonds pay well — they should be a part of any state pension funds portfolio. They’re guaranteed.
I’m not sure if this tweet was snark or not, but many government agencies have policies in place that require a periodic rotation of investment advisors, fund managers, auditors, etc. The purpose is to make sure that the relationship doesn’t get too cozy and that fresh perspective is injected into the process every so often. It’s a meritorious idea.
- Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 9:08 am:
Maybe we can just bypass them and go into the private equity business. That’s where the money is, right?
Right on Thomas C. Bowen. Most intelligent thing I’ve seen on here in weeks.
And not only term limits for pension fund managers like Bruce Rauner, but let’s really take a sledgehammer to their compensation. Just pay him what the average state worker makes and give him a 401K. After all, how hard can it be to invest money for a pension fund? They are very limited to very safe investments and strategies, as they should be.
- Give Me A Break - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 9:16 am:
Deep Thought For The Day: For the Love of Pete, the House is doing a hearing today. Does anyone really think the media or the public are paying attention to them a week before Christmas?
What were the returns the Rauner firm made for the pension funds? The tweet is silly, without knowing that info. If the returns outperformed the market indexes, why would anyone want to change firms. If the returns underperformed the market indexes, why weren’t the politicians asking questions?
This looks like what’s referred to as a “drive by” tweet to me. You’re not stuck with any of them for government mandated terms. You get to move the money to the better performers. Their fees are pretty standard from place to place. It’s the performance that counts. I’m not sure what this guy’s point is.
I am not a Rauner supporter, but many of the above comments in my view betray a Bruce mindset.
Pension practitioners think in terms of generations but the political timeline of ‘until the next election’ is nearly as bad as the business model which thinks in terms of quarterly reports.
Active managers are evaluated on how far they beat passive investments. Moving money and changing managers involve costs.
The systems need to be funded and left alone. Their long view will meet the challenge.
I always thought the State’s money woes were the result of the officers watching the money are not required to be experts in that particular field. For example, the State Treasurer was never a true banker/finance/MBA; the Comptroller has never been a CPA; and the Auditor General does not have a CPA/CIA background. Naysayers will say that their staff does, but the problem is that the boss overrules his staff.
- Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 10:00 am:
Oh cmon. If you’ve got an investment firm turning in consistently strong returns, it would be idiotic to get rid of them. Clearly, bad firms should be dumped, but it’s hard to evaluate given that a venture or PE fund returns get judged in the long run, not the short run. You wouldn’t want a firm that just focuses on short term flips and not long term value.
“If the Elected Officials outperformed their Colleagues, why would anyone want to change Elected Officials. If the Elected Officials underperformed their Colleagues, why weren’t the Voters asking questions and being active?”
Better.
To that, shouldn’t we all be judged on performance, and not dictated as to how long you are “useful” and let the Free Market decide?
Otherwise, why have elections, just have 8 year terms with no chance at Re-election?
The scam is that these pay-to-play guys sell you a bill of goods that they can outperform the market over a long period of time to justify their cut.
Show me. Warren Buffett knows a thing or two about investing. In their famous bet, he’s comfortably ahead with his S&P Index than Protege and its hedge funds.
Term limits are questionable, and would not solve the problem Soccertease @ 9:58 raises. We have way too many elected officials, including judges. It results in undue partisan influences in elections for positions that require objective competence.
There is just no way the vast majority of voters can make rational decisions about who to vote for, unless they were retired. Party affiliation means little in todays changed world, where big campaign money controls the course of elections. Most positions like the ones Soccertease mentions should be selected by bipartisan commissions on the basis of specific criteria and qualifications.
Illinois really needs reform in the election process. We need to lower the boom on these kinds of systemic flaws that invite excessive corruption.
Actually, there needs to be a regular review of the performance and fees. Bid the work at least every other year.
Let the financiers engage ‘in a race to the bottom’ as far as their fees go. I bet we can find someone hungry to do the work for 20% less than what is currently paid.
Of course that means the folks in charge have the gumption to rock the boat against their bosses wishes…..
- Walter Mitty - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 10:34 am:
Again, tear down success. If he was successful, there should be a correlation to the funds being successful. If there is no direct correlation, that’s not his fault. Like my kid’s when they lose a game. Do better..Don’t ever blame the ref. The only blame is the elected officials that hired them period. Free market. One should ask the author, if you were going in for surgery, the best surgeon, or the C student who’s “turn” it is? Hypocrisy on anyone that can say otherwise. Or do you want 1% returns on the “magic” plan to save the pensions? Sorry. Cranky. Cheap shot. No different than thinking an $18 watch makes you common…
=“If the Elected Officials outperformed their Colleagues, why would anyone want to change Elected Officials. If the Elected Officials underperformed their Colleagues, why weren’t the Voters asking questions and being active?”=
That is about as silly, as the tweet. There is no comparison.
Here’s a deep thought… I noted CME trading volume earlier this week was over 11,000,000. What if there was a 10c fee on each trade executed? Limit it to institutional trades. The big boys wouldn’t notice/care and it might be a tidy revenue stream. How about that Bruce?
I was thinking the same thing. Should there be term limits on hedge fund managers making millions off the state pension systems ? Why only elected officals ? I guess multi-millionaires that are “much smarter” than the rest of us should be exempt from such consideration. In reality, elected or private sector, these guys like Rauner are all insiders that find ways to enrich themselves at the taxpayers expense. Maybe there should be a time limit on the amount of time multi-millionaires that made their fortunes bilking the taxpayers should be allowed to keep the money.
“What if we put term limits on pension fund and money managers like Bruce’s old firm? Same principle applies: shake things up right?”
I think Rep. Fortner proposed this very idea in a post last year…
- CollegeStudent - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 10:41 am:
=Who looks at their own portfolio and says, “Gee, it’s doing quite well, but it’s time to shake things up a bit!”????=
I suspect it’s more common than you think. Although typically the investors try to shake things up at the company they are invested in. It’s not enough for a company to simply show a profit in today’s investment climate-the profit has to continually grow as well.
All the arguments above why it makes no sense to establish by law a term limit on investment managers or agents, apply equally well to term limits on elected officials.
The reason I said that is because the concept is where I believe Mr. Rauner would be inconsistent (or maybe not! Ask him reporters). The point of term limits isn’t to remove bad politicians, it’s to devolve power away from incumbents thereby neutralizing the incumbency advantage and spreading around the burden of lawmaking to more people.
The same concept should be kosher then to professional managers, CEO’s, businesses, contract holders, etc if he was intellectually consistent.
An “incumbent” is always going to enjoy an advantage. First mover principle, experience, relationships, name/brand recognition, etc. Bruce doesn’t believe that the “little guy” has enough to topple those things in the political realm, so I think he should bring his wonderful innovation to all parts of government and the private sector.
Longstanding relationship? Good work product? Innovative approach? Not worth keeping those because of the risk of calcification and the eventual lackadaisical approach to business, government, etc. Better to make it that you only get to have things for a short period of time to foster more innovation, turnover, and activity in the economy/government.
Dare I say, this is a very socialistic notion. Spread around the “wealth” of opportunity.
What a coincidence that switching to a DC plan would result in Mr. Shake and Bake and his buddies making even more money off of the working public employees that he loves to demonize. What a piece of work.
Pension funds should be in total stock market index funds. No mgmnt required, extremely low fees.
- Walter Mitty - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 11:10 am:
O Puppy
switching to a DC plan would result in Mr. Shake and Bake and his buddies making even more money off of the working public employees that he loves to demonize.
And save the state in the process. I don’t know if many of us agree. But with all the ad’s… Ask your neighbors if they would like our state to be able to have a substantial change? My guess is absolutely. The message resonates. How many folks have a defined benefit retirement plan not in government? Getting it implemented and passed, is not all that relevant when your’s is the only voice… I keep saying, we may not like him. But he’s acting like the front runner.
It’s not a bad idea though.
Look at what happened to the college savings fund.
Maybe Bruce would have done better than Oppenheimer Funds?
I’m not a fan of “What if” questions. I prefer… “We’re Hiring/Electing Mr./Mrs. FillIn Blank to go to Springfield to implement their campaign platform”
It’s easy to sit there and say you’d like to have more money. And I guess that’s what I like about it. It’s easy, just sitting there, rocking back and forth, wanting that money.
This episode of Frontline does a fine job of conveying the value of investment managers and where their otherworldly compensation comes from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement-gamble/
(If you’re in a big hurry, just jump to 19m 53s.)
“The major problem with term limits is it leaves the next level down, the aides and lobbyists, in de facto control of things”
This is one valid way of looking at things.
However, there is also validity to the argument that long term relationships between certain powerful, crafty politicians and certain entrenched special interests can create unsavory situations which are not in the best interests of the entire state.
As in many things in life, the concept of term limits is a complicated situation, regarding whether or not it would augment good government.
Would Illinois be better off if someone like Madigan was never able to garner so much power and control?
If term limits were enacted, would a lobbyist be able to get that much power? Doubt it.
=== However, there is also validity to the argument that long term relationships between certain powerful, crafty politicians and certain entrenched special interests can create unsavory situations which are not in the best interests of the entire state. ===
Agreed.
Like Rahm Emanuel, Bruce Rauner and interests like, oh, say, the Noble Network charter schools?
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 2:05 pm:
Don’t feed the trolls, Especially on the Tweeters.
In point of fact, all the stock and bond managers used by the Illinois pensions are “at will” and can be terminated without cause at any time. They are routinely changed if they aren’t performing or if their style of investing has fallen out of favor. To word’s point,index funds are a significant component in their portfolios as well.
The private equity, hedge fund, and other private market investments are in a sense term limited because the funds have a more or less fixed life. The investor can choose not to reinvest when the investment firm raises their next fund.
However, to terminate any investment on a fixed date for reasons unrelated to its performance or organizationl concerns is absolutely foolish.
The discussion of investing all pesnion assets in stock index funds is beyond the scope of this post, but that’s another bad idea. See countryboy’s post above.
The problem with the “if it was good enough for Reagan,” logic is that it wasn’t. Reagan was pretty vocal about his desire to repeal the 22nd Amendment.
Can’t I just tweak those responding a little more, so I can hear about the term limits? lol
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 2:14 pm:
RNUG, forgot to say that a number of stock/bond managers are on a performance fee basis with a low base fee and no real payday unless they beat the performance benchmark.
word, the last time I checked (and it’s been a couple years) all the IL pension funds held Illinois bonds. One thing to remember about that 2 and 20 or 1.5 and 15 fee structure is that the general partner never gets a taste of the “20″ until the limited partners have earned a “hurdle rate” of 7-8% on their full investment, then the profit sharing kicks in, 80-20.
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 2:15 pm:
Willy, fire away. Least I can do after yesterday lol. AA
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 2:21 pm:
It is fashionavle to bemoan the smallness of our elected leaders compared to the size of the challenges we face,
I bemoan the fact that while the greatest leaders are humble women and men who credit others for their success and look in the mirror when asking what went wrong, the electorate often rewards candidates who claim the lionshare of any success and are quickest to point the finger at others when things go awry.
Until voters are willing to accept responsibility for errant choices and commit to making wiser ones, systemic change is wholly unlikely.
So, term limits, they are sesigned to take away voting options, because people are not smart enough to vote the way some may want, and can’t beat those they agree with?
–If it was good enough for Ronald Reagan, it’s good enough for me! lol–
Reagan voted for his role model, FDR, four times.
If Reagan could have run in 1988, he likely would have won all 50 states (he won 49, including Massachusetts, in 1984).
Downstater, what was the good reason again for the 22nd Amendment? Why weren’t the people allowed that choice?
And what is it any of yours, or my, business, to tell citizens what other qualified citizens they can vote for? And what’s the good reason of removing the right of running for office for some qualified citizens?
The good people of South Carolina sent Strom Thurmond to the Senate for 49 years. He would not have been my choice if I lived there, but that’s democracy.
Term limit the leaders (Leadership is not made through direct election from the voter.) and the state-wide elected officials. That breaks-up most of the problems being discussed.
Except that even MJM’s chief critics note that his power comes in handy when you are trying to pass pension reform or need a hero to stand up to a corrupt govenor.
Rauner sure didnt object to MJM’s power when he was laundering big checks through his astroturf education group to elect House Democrats and curry favor.
Bowen’s tweet strikes at the point that there is apparently hardly a single position that Rauner has taken on a major issue that does not reek of hypocrisy.
Rauner certainly is not the first hypocrite to run for statewide office, and he may not even be the worst (that one has to go to Rod). But he is probably the most well-rounded virtuoso of hypocrisy.
Truly, listening to Rauner prattle on every day about corrupt or incompetent career politicians is like listening to a bartender complain about drunks.
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 7:25 pm:
Welcome back Cinci. Where do you stand on term limits like say, limits on a candidate dropping the term “Jim Edgar” in camapign speeches?
Just wondering.
I have missed you. Honestly, I am trying to help the “3″, and I hope your Crew is getting that Field Organization set. Winning it in the Precincts never was more important, even more important than 2010.
Days are burning, my friend.
Godspeed,
OW
- Just The Way It Is One - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 7:48 pm:
There ya go Thomas Bowen. Sounds good to me. After all, who says the Rich should ALways get richer?! Let’s bring out the Sledgehammer, shall we?! Oh, and another thing–if he was to read your suggestion, I’m sure Jack Handy would be proud…!
AA, thanks for bringing the brains to the discussion on investment managers.
You’re the biggest of big hitters when it comes to those who want to get their learn on.
I committed to Soccermom for Commenter of the Year a few days ago, and she, in true Illinois fashion, immediately offered to get me loaded at Marion Street Something-Something Market in Oak Park.
I live in Oak Park, but I’m more of a Forest Park kind of guy when it comes to taverns.
But Soccermom, you’re still on the hook for your corrupt, pay-to-play, quid-pro-quo, hocus-pocus-animosus Willie-Lump-Lump corruption (that’s my tribute to Harold; the dude could ball when it came to dialogue).
See, AA, Soccermom knows how to roll; after the fact. Rod wouldn’t be going gray out in Colorado if he had her game.
- Don't Worry, Be Happy - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 8:45 am:
Tom’s right - let’s take a hammer to the pension fund managers. After all, if they’d been as good generating returns for the pension funds as they are generating returns for themselves, our pension funds would be overfunded by now.
- Downstate - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 8:52 am:
I’m a Bruce supporter and I think that idea makes sense.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 8:55 am:
Put them on an incentive plan. For average returns (compared to the industry average), they don’t get paid any fees. Zero, zip, nada. For better than average, give them a percentage. That’s pure capitalism … rewards for results.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 9:04 am:
What RNUG said. I think Illinois would do well to end the culture where the likes of Stu Levine muscle pinstripe patronage to pay-to-play sugar daddies like Rauner.
Who needs, them, anyway? What do they bring to the table for their 2% off the top and 20% of gains?
You have just as good a shot with index funds as you do with the political hustlers. Heck, Illinois bonds pay well — they should be a part of any state pension funds portfolio. They’re guaranteed.
- Anon - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 9:08 am:
I’m not sure if this tweet was snark or not, but many government agencies have policies in place that require a periodic rotation of investment advisors, fund managers, auditors, etc. The purpose is to make sure that the relationship doesn’t get too cozy and that fresh perspective is injected into the process every so often. It’s a meritorious idea.
- Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 9:08 am:
Maybe we can just bypass them and go into the private equity business. That’s where the money is, right?
- too obvious - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 9:15 am:
Right on Thomas C. Bowen. Most intelligent thing I’ve seen on here in weeks.
And not only term limits for pension fund managers like Bruce Rauner, but let’s really take a sledgehammer to their compensation. Just pay him what the average state worker makes and give him a 401K. After all, how hard can it be to invest money for a pension fund? They are very limited to very safe investments and strategies, as they should be.
- Give Me A Break - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 9:16 am:
Deep Thought For The Day: For the Love of Pete, the House is doing a hearing today. Does anyone really think the media or the public are paying attention to them a week before Christmas?
- too obvious - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 9:20 am:
#TurnTheTableOnBruce
#ShakeupRobberBaron
#GreedNotsoGood
- Downstater - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 9:21 am:
What were the returns the Rauner firm made for the pension funds? The tweet is silly, without knowing that info. If the returns outperformed the market indexes, why would anyone want to change firms. If the returns underperformed the market indexes, why weren’t the politicians asking questions?
- PoolGuy - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 9:27 am:
what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. wish i was having goose for christmas dinner. no one likes goose.
- In the Middle - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 9:38 am:
Downstater is right… ridiculous tweet.
Who looks at their own portfolio and says, “Gee, it’s doing quite well, but it’s time to shake things up a bit!”????
Make judgments based upon performance, and in the world of finance, past performance isn’t hard to nail down.
- A guy... - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 9:58 am:
This looks like what’s referred to as a “drive by” tweet to me. You’re not stuck with any of them for government mandated terms. You get to move the money to the better performers. Their fees are pretty standard from place to place. It’s the performance that counts. I’m not sure what this guy’s point is.
- countryboy - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 9:58 am:
I am not a Rauner supporter, but many of the above comments in my view betray a Bruce mindset.
Pension practitioners think in terms of generations but the political timeline of ‘until the next election’ is nearly as bad as the business model which thinks in terms of quarterly reports.
Active managers are evaluated on how far they beat passive investments. Moving money and changing managers involve costs.
The systems need to be funded and left alone. Their long view will meet the challenge.
- Soccertease - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 9:58 am:
I always thought the State’s money woes were the result of the officers watching the money are not required to be experts in that particular field. For example, the State Treasurer was never a true banker/finance/MBA; the Comptroller has never been a CPA; and the Auditor General does not have a CPA/CIA background. Naysayers will say that their staff does, but the problem is that the boss overrules his staff.
- Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 10:00 am:
Oh cmon. If you’ve got an investment firm turning in consistently strong returns, it would be idiotic to get rid of them. Clearly, bad firms should be dumped, but it’s hard to evaluate given that a venture or PE fund returns get judged in the long run, not the short run. You wouldn’t want a firm that just focuses on short term flips and not long term value.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 10:03 am:
“If the Elected Officials outperformed their Colleagues, why would anyone want to change Elected Officials. If the Elected Officials underperformed their Colleagues, why weren’t the Voters asking questions and being active?”
Better.
To that, shouldn’t we all be judged on performance, and not dictated as to how long you are “useful” and let the Free Market decide?
Otherwise, why have elections, just have 8 year terms with no chance at Re-election?
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 10:19 am:
The scam is that these pay-to-play guys sell you a bill of goods that they can outperform the market over a long period of time to justify their cut.
Show me. Warren Buffett knows a thing or two about investing. In their famous bet, he’s comfortably ahead with his S&P Index than Protege and its hedge funds.
- cod - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 10:26 am:
Term limits are questionable, and would not solve the problem Soccertease @ 9:58 raises. We have way too many elected officials, including judges. It results in undue partisan influences in elections for positions that require objective competence.
There is just no way the vast majority of voters can make rational decisions about who to vote for, unless they were retired. Party affiliation means little in todays changed world, where big campaign money controls the course of elections. Most positions like the ones Soccertease mentions should be selected by bipartisan commissions on the basis of specific criteria and qualifications.
Illinois really needs reform in the election process. We need to lower the boom on these kinds of systemic flaws that invite excessive corruption.
- Plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 10:28 am:
Actually, there needs to be a regular review of the performance and fees. Bid the work at least every other year.
Let the financiers engage ‘in a race to the bottom’ as far as their fees go. I bet we can find someone hungry to do the work for 20% less than what is currently paid.
Of course that means the folks in charge have the gumption to rock the boat against their bosses wishes…..
- Walter Mitty - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 10:34 am:
Again, tear down success. If he was successful, there should be a correlation to the funds being successful. If there is no direct correlation, that’s not his fault. Like my kid’s when they lose a game. Do better..Don’t ever blame the ref. The only blame is the elected officials that hired them period. Free market. One should ask the author, if you were going in for surgery, the best surgeon, or the C student who’s “turn” it is? Hypocrisy on anyone that can say otherwise. Or do you want 1% returns on the “magic” plan to save the pensions? Sorry. Cranky. Cheap shot. No different than thinking an $18 watch makes you common…
- Downstater - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 10:37 am:
=“If the Elected Officials outperformed their Colleagues, why would anyone want to change Elected Officials. If the Elected Officials underperformed their Colleagues, why weren’t the Voters asking questions and being active?”=
That is about as silly, as the tweet. There is no comparison.
- Lobo Y Olla - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 10:38 am:
Here’s a deep thought… I noted CME trading volume earlier this week was over 11,000,000. What if there was a 10c fee on each trade executed? Limit it to institutional trades. The big boys wouldn’t notice/care and it might be a tidy revenue stream. How about that Bruce?
- AFSCME Steward - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 10:39 am:
I was thinking the same thing. Should there be term limits on hedge fund managers making millions off the state pension systems ? Why only elected officals ? I guess multi-millionaires that are “much smarter” than the rest of us should be exempt from such consideration. In reality, elected or private sector, these guys like Rauner are all insiders that find ways to enrich themselves at the taxpayers expense. Maybe there should be a time limit on the amount of time multi-millionaires that made their fortunes bilking the taxpayers should be allowed to keep the money.
“What if we put term limits on pension fund and money managers like Bruce’s old firm? Same principle applies: shake things up right?”
- Lobo Y Olla - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 10:39 am:
I think Rep. Fortner proposed this very idea in a post last year…
- CollegeStudent - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 10:41 am:
=Who looks at their own portfolio and says, “Gee, it’s doing quite well, but it’s time to shake things up a bit!”????=
I suspect it’s more common than you think. Although typically the investors try to shake things up at the company they are invested in. It’s not enough for a company to simply show a profit in today’s investment climate-the profit has to continually grow as well.
- walkinfool - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 10:44 am:
All the arguments above why it makes no sense to establish by law a term limit on investment managers or agents, apply equally well to term limits on elected officials.
That’s the point of the tweet.
- Tom B. - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 10:56 am:
The reason I said that is because the concept is where I believe Mr. Rauner would be inconsistent (or maybe not! Ask him reporters). The point of term limits isn’t to remove bad politicians, it’s to devolve power away from incumbents thereby neutralizing the incumbency advantage and spreading around the burden of lawmaking to more people.
The same concept should be kosher then to professional managers, CEO’s, businesses, contract holders, etc if he was intellectually consistent.
An “incumbent” is always going to enjoy an advantage. First mover principle, experience, relationships, name/brand recognition, etc. Bruce doesn’t believe that the “little guy” has enough to topple those things in the political realm, so I think he should bring his wonderful innovation to all parts of government and the private sector.
Longstanding relationship? Good work product? Innovative approach? Not worth keeping those because of the risk of calcification and the eventual lackadaisical approach to business, government, etc. Better to make it that you only get to have things for a short period of time to foster more innovation, turnover, and activity in the economy/government.
Dare I say, this is a very socialistic notion. Spread around the “wealth” of opportunity.
- Obama's Puppy - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 10:56 am:
What a coincidence that switching to a DC plan would result in Mr. Shake and Bake and his buddies making even more money off of the working public employees that he loves to demonize. What a piece of work.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 11:00 am:
===That is about as silly, as the tweet. There is no comparison.===
Nah, it works.
Changing horses because it is required and not based on merit is pretty spot on.
- Tom B. - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 11:05 am:
===Changing horses because it is required and not based on merit is pretty spot on.===
Bingo Willy. You hit it right on the head.
- Pensioner - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 11:07 am:
Pension funds should be in total stock market index funds. No mgmnt required, extremely low fees.
- Walter Mitty - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 11:10 am:
O Puppy
switching to a DC plan would result in Mr. Shake and Bake and his buddies making even more money off of the working public employees that he loves to demonize.
And save the state in the process. I don’t know if many of us agree. But with all the ad’s… Ask your neighbors if they would like our state to be able to have a substantial change? My guess is absolutely. The message resonates. How many folks have a defined benefit retirement plan not in government? Getting it implemented and passed, is not all that relevant when your’s is the only voice… I keep saying, we may not like him. But he’s acting like the front runner.
- D.P.Gumby - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 11:12 am:
I’d prefer limits on campaign expenditures and length of time for running of TV commercials!!
- Archiesmom - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 11:22 am:
The same people who agitate for term limits vote their incumbents back in time and time again because their guy is ‘different’. Forgive my cynicism.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 11:29 am:
Tom B. - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 10:56 am:
The major problem with term limits is it leaves the next level down, the aides and lobbyists, in de facto control of things.
- Pete - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 11:56 am:
Elections are not Quality Based Selections.
It’s not a bad idea though.
Look at what happened to the college savings fund.
Maybe Bruce would have done better than Oppenheimer Funds?
I’m not a fan of “What if” questions. I prefer… “We’re Hiring/Electing Mr./Mrs. FillIn Blank to go to Springfield to implement their campaign platform”
- Jack Handy - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 11:56 am:
It’s easy to sit there and say you’d like to have more money. And I guess that’s what I like about it. It’s easy, just sitting there, rocking back and forth, wanting that money.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 12:39 pm:
>Implying someone is a hypocrite
>Comparing apples to oranges
Well, it is from the twitters after all….
- MrJM - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 12:53 pm:
This episode of Frontline does a fine job of conveying the value of investment managers and where their otherworldly compensation comes from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement-gamble/
(If you’re in a big hurry, just jump to 19m 53s.)
– MrJM
- skeptical spectacle - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 1:20 pm:
“The major problem with term limits is it leaves the next level down, the aides and lobbyists, in de facto control of things”
This is one valid way of looking at things.
However, there is also validity to the argument that long term relationships between certain powerful, crafty politicians and certain entrenched special interests can create unsavory situations which are not in the best interests of the entire state.
As in many things in life, the concept of term limits is a complicated situation, regarding whether or not it would augment good government.
Would Illinois be better off if someone like Madigan was never able to garner so much power and control?
If term limits were enacted, would a lobbyist be able to get that much power? Doubt it.
Still it is a complicated issue.
- olddog - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 1:45 pm:
=== However, there is also validity to the argument that long term relationships between certain powerful, crafty politicians and certain entrenched special interests can create unsavory situations which are not in the best interests of the entire state. ===
Agreed.
Like Rahm Emanuel, Bruce Rauner and interests like, oh, say, the Noble Network charter schools?
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 2:05 pm:
Don’t feed the trolls, Especially on the Tweeters.
In point of fact, all the stock and bond managers used by the Illinois pensions are “at will” and can be terminated without cause at any time. They are routinely changed if they aren’t performing or if their style of investing has fallen out of favor. To word’s point,index funds are a significant component in their portfolios as well.
The private equity, hedge fund, and other private market investments are in a sense term limited because the funds have a more or less fixed life. The investor can choose not to reinvest when the investment firm raises their next fund.
However, to terminate any investment on a fixed date for reasons unrelated to its performance or organizationl concerns is absolutely foolish.
The discussion of investing all pesnion assets in stock index funds is beyond the scope of this post, but that’s another bad idea. See countryboy’s post above.
- Bill F. - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 2:06 pm:
The problem with the “if it was good enough for Reagan,” logic is that it wasn’t. Reagan was pretty vocal about his desire to repeal the 22nd Amendment.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 2:12 pm:
- AA -,
Can’t I just tweak those responding a little more, so I can hear about the term limits? lol
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 2:14 pm:
RNUG, forgot to say that a number of stock/bond managers are on a performance fee basis with a low base fee and no real payday unless they beat the performance benchmark.
word, the last time I checked (and it’s been a couple years) all the IL pension funds held Illinois bonds. One thing to remember about that 2 and 20 or 1.5 and 15 fee structure is that the general partner never gets a taste of the “20″ until the limited partners have earned a “hurdle rate” of 7-8% on their full investment, then the profit sharing kicks in, 80-20.
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 2:15 pm:
Willy, fire away. Least I can do after yesterday lol. AA
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 2:21 pm:
It is fashionavle to bemoan the smallness of our elected leaders compared to the size of the challenges we face,
I bemoan the fact that while the greatest leaders are humble women and men who credit others for their success and look in the mirror when asking what went wrong, the electorate often rewards candidates who claim the lionshare of any success and are quickest to point the finger at others when things go awry.
Until voters are willing to accept responsibility for errant choices and commit to making wiser ones, systemic change is wholly unlikely.
- Juvenal - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 2:31 pm:
Tom B. -
With all due respect, there is a deeper, darker purpose to term limits.
The more open seat races you have, the more opportunities the kabillionaires have to buy elections. Ditto the other special interests.
The insurance industry can never hope to beat Mary Flowers, but make that an open seat race and it is all theirs.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 4:05 pm:
==Until voters are willing to accept responsibility for errant choices and commit to making wiser ones==
Exactly. Term limits are a lazy attempt to do something voters can’t manage to do on their own through the electoral process.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 4:13 pm:
So, term limits, they are sesigned to take away voting options, because people are not smart enough to vote the way some may want, and can’t beat those they agree with?
Hmmm.
I hope I get to keep the right to vote next.
- Downstater - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 4:20 pm:
Oswego Willy will be leading the effort to change term limits for the President of the United States! Stay tuned for more dribble from Oswego Willy.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 4:24 pm:
- Downstater -,
If it was good enough for Ronald Reagan, it’s good enough for me! lol
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 4:42 pm:
–If it was good enough for Ronald Reagan, it’s good enough for me! lol–
Reagan voted for his role model, FDR, four times.
If Reagan could have run in 1988, he likely would have won all 50 states (he won 49, including Massachusetts, in 1984).
Downstater, what was the good reason again for the 22nd Amendment? Why weren’t the people allowed that choice?
And what is it any of yours, or my, business, to tell citizens what other qualified citizens they can vote for? And what’s the good reason of removing the right of running for office for some qualified citizens?
The good people of South Carolina sent Strom Thurmond to the Senate for 49 years. He would not have been my choice if I lived there, but that’s democracy.
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 5:00 pm:
Term limit the leaders (Leadership is not made through direct election from the voter.) and the state-wide elected officials. That breaks-up most of the problems being discussed.
- Juvenal - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 5:33 pm:
@Cincinnatus-
Except that even MJM’s chief critics note that his power comes in handy when you are trying to pass pension reform or need a hero to stand up to a corrupt govenor.
Rauner sure didnt object to MJM’s power when he was laundering big checks through his astroturf education group to elect House Democrats and curry favor.
Bowen’s tweet strikes at the point that there is apparently hardly a single position that Rauner has taken on a major issue that does not reek of hypocrisy.
Rauner certainly is not the first hypocrite to run for statewide office, and he may not even be the worst (that one has to go to Rod). But he is probably the most well-rounded virtuoso of hypocrisy.
Truly, listening to Rauner prattle on every day about corrupt or incompetent career politicians is like listening to a bartender complain about drunks.
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 7:25 pm:
Welcome back Cinci. Where do you stand on term limits like say, limits on a candidate dropping the term “Jim Edgar” in camapign speeches?
Just wondering.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 7:38 pm:
- Cincinnatus -,
I have missed you. Honestly, I am trying to help the “3″, and I hope your Crew is getting that Field Organization set. Winning it in the Precincts never was more important, even more important than 2010.
Days are burning, my friend.
Godspeed,
OW
- Just The Way It Is One - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 7:48 pm:
There ya go Thomas Bowen. Sounds good to me. After all, who says the Rich should ALways get richer?! Let’s bring out the Sledgehammer, shall we?! Oh, and another thing–if he was to read your suggestion, I’m sure Jack Handy would be proud…!
- Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 9:13 pm:
No term limits, but impose commercial limits.
Maybe a campaign gets 5 ads. They can be as long as they want, but only five.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 10:40 pm:
AA, thanks for bringing the brains to the discussion on investment managers.
You’re the biggest of big hitters when it comes to those who want to get their learn on.
I committed to Soccermom for Commenter of the Year a few days ago, and she, in true Illinois fashion, immediately offered to get me loaded at Marion Street Something-Something Market in Oak Park.
I live in Oak Park, but I’m more of a Forest Park kind of guy when it comes to taverns.
But Soccermom, you’re still on the hook for your corrupt, pay-to-play, quid-pro-quo, hocus-pocus-animosus Willie-Lump-Lump corruption (that’s my tribute to Harold; the dude could ball when it came to dialogue).
See, AA, Soccermom knows how to roll; after the fact. Rod wouldn’t be going gray out in Colorado if he had her game.
Salud, to the both of you. Lucky to know you.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 11:28 pm:
===I have missed you.===
He didn’t go anywhere.
:)
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 9:09 am:
Probably my third post in a month, Rich, but I do read every day.
Willy, 89 days, but who’s counting…
AA, is that any way to say hello?
All, I DO miss the give and take…