In a message dated 2/4/05 6:35:53 PM US Mountain Standard Time, gclari@(SNIP).com writes:
> Walter:
>
> What do you think of Galveston County in Texas and Chile in the
> management of their retirement funds?
>
> Gary Cauchi
> Sanger, California
>
----------------------------------------
WALTER BURIEN'S REPLY
---------------------------------------- Mr. Cauchi:
Never looked at, and have not heard anything about what you asked before.
So I just did a Google search on < Galveston County Texas retirement fund > and got 42300 hits per their privatization of SS for "County" government employees.
I looked and the articles are about three counties that bumped SS for a pension style management.
The key to your question is answered by "who" did this and "who" was it for?
It was three "government" entities for themselves, and I will quote from two paragraph clips below in my article posted at;
http://cafr1.com/SS.html #1: If the public starts trading their SS funds, government management is no longer in a conflict of interest. Then government's "other" managed funds are now free to take advantage of the public's ignorance in trading funds and thus the public except for a rare few can say bye, bye to their account balances after the trap is sprung and market losses orchestrated by our own government eats the public alive.
And:
#2: Look closely at the State Retirement Fund CAFRs after 911. As the public's 401K plans for the next two years shot for the floor with an overall loss on average of 40% to 60% of their values, the numerous State retirement fund multibillion dollar portfolios made a very good profit. The pre 911 annual returns were from 23% to 14% and then averages post 911 went to 12% to 5% annual returns. I have not yet seen one State Government Retirement Fund to date that had a net loss after 911.
-----------------
So, when fishing what do you do to catch the minnows?
You throw chum out in the water to start the minnows feeding, then comes the net, then the minnows are caught, and you do with them as you will.
Or, in other words what I said in #1 above, having the effect of what I said in #2 above.
The KEY to success or failure for the public is; What side of the fence will their funds be managed on?
Myself having been a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) of 14 years 1978-1992, and the National Sales Manager for the US Trading Championship, US Investing Championship, and Money Managers Verified Ratings for 10 years 1982-1992, I have watched the Big Fish, herd, bait, and eat the minnows very consistently for quite a few years.
So, the real question is; Will the management of the public's funds be in the top of the food chain or at the bottom? Results are the only thing important in reality. Whether it be to meet SS benefits, or as I have proposed with the CAFR1 Plan to make government self sufficient without Taxation.
The markets in all respects for the public have developed into an insider manipulation "winner" takes from the "looser" scenario, or the Vegas mentality of the House (Institutional) taking from the Foolish (the public).
This is not what it should be, or could be. With the dollar being a productivity backed currency, "THE PRODUCTIVITY" should be the determining factor of profit or loss in the markets. With the US Economy being a ten Trillion dollar a year economy, and the value of US possessions being astronomical, productivity results properly managed through return can fund and drive SS and all of government's budgetary requirements without taxation through the CAFR1 Plan.
As I brought forward in #2 above, Government Pension Fund management in adverse conditions on average did rather well after 911 Vs the public's 401K plans on average being slammed to the floor.
Here the answer, solution, and final effect is clear per funding SS or in fact funding government's ongoing budgetary needs using the "Pension Fund Management Principle."
If the exact same pooled management having commingled averages with the funds coming from the model of government pensions was used, then yes you can expect the results to be productive and positive to meet their end need.
The disadvantage to the public that has existed for the last 100 years is that of the predator fish (government Institutional Fund Management) and the minnows (the Public's dismal results and losses in trading the markets -- investing) has to be taken out of the scenario for the final ends of productive results for SS or the CAFR1 Plan to be beneficial to the public and not just become another feeding grounds for the predator fish.
The model used and the same in "participation" fund management is where the success or failure rests.
I hope my comments above have answered your question.
Yours Truly,
Walter J. Burien, Jr.
http://CAFR1.com 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
