Redd Ratt
Mike, I have to agree with Marcia Reback that $580,000 going to point Judith, while the state saw $965,000 is very expensive. Did Marcia Reback approve of this deal as a member of the commission?
michael riley
Excellent Barry
So at last we can have a real discussion and throw into the garbage head the ridiculous notion of comparing the return on our State Pension fund to the S&P 500 or some other stock index.Anyone who managed pension assets and put 100% into stocks would be sued and rightfully so.
So lets accept your premise that we get rid of all or most of the 75 outside managers of our fund. That's all of the following .. U.S.equities, us equity hedge fund,international equity, Private Equity, Venture Capital,Real Estate, Absolute return hedge funds, fixed Income, International fixed income ,hedge fund credit strategies. Instead we have 3 Vanguard Index Funds.
Normal weightings for a pension fund would be 60% stocks and 40% fixed income when speaking in the broad categories. For the following analysis I am going to say 65% stocks 35% fixed income. This will benefit your case as stocks have done well , bonds not so well. In stock weightings we will do a fairly normal 40% us stocks and 25% intl blend.
Barry's Portfolio
40% vanguard s&P 500 index return 15.82% fee .08
25% Vanguard Intl VTSGX return 12.9% fee .16
35% Vangauard aggregate return -1.95% fee .14
total weighted return = 8.87% fee= .121
Raimondo performance return= 11.07% fee= .90
Final analysis
Both the Barry portfolio and the Raimondo portfolio performances are after fee(no need to double count)
Barry return to Rhode Islanders 7.2 billion in assets * 8.87%
= $ 638,600,000
Raimondo return to rhode Islanders 7.2 billion in assets * 11.07%
= $ 797,000,000
Barry you cost us $ 158.4 million dollar or (797 mil- 638.6 mil)
you also took approximately 20% greater risk with your portfolio….
so if you ask me … Gina has a great risk adjusted return
I would be happy to analyze why Siedle ,afscme, Marcia Reback etal think saving $45 million to lose $160 million makes sense but I would need some psychiatrists to help analyze their thinking.
So at last we can have a real discussion and throw into the garbage head the ridiculous notion of comparing the return on our State Pension fund to the S&P 500 or some other stock index.Anyone who managed pension assets and put 100% into stocks would be sued and rightfully so.
So lets accept your premise that we get rid of all or most of the 75 outside managers of our fund. That's all of the following .. U.S.equities, us equity hedge fund,international equity, Private Equity, Venture Capital,Real Estate, Absolute return hedge funds, fixed Income, International fixed income ,hedge fund credit strategies. Instead we have 3 Vanguard Index Funds.
Normal weightings for a pension fund would be 60% stocks and 40% fixed income when speaking in the broad categories. For the following analysis I am going to say 65% stocks 35% fixed income. This will benefit your case as stocks have done well , bonds not so well. In stock weightings we will do a fairly normal 40% us stocks and 25% intl blend.
Barry's Portfolio
40% vanguard s&P 500 index return 15.82% fee .08
25% Vanguard Intl VTSGX return 12.9% fee .16
35% Vangauard aggregate return -1.95% fee .14
total weighted return = 8.87% fee= .121
Raimondo performance return= 11.07% fee= .90
Final analysis
Both the Barry portfolio and the Raimondo portfolio performances are after fee(no need to double count)
Barry return to Rhode Islanders 7.2 billion in assets * 8.87%
= $ 638,600,000
Raimondo return to rhode Islanders 7.2 billion in assets * 11.07%
= $ 797,000,000
Barry you cost us $ 158.4 million dollar or (797 mil- 638.6 mil)
you also took approximately 20% greater risk with your portfolio….
so if you ask me … Gina has a great risk adjusted return
I would be happy to analyze why Siedle ,afscme, Marcia Reback etal think saving $45 million to lose $160 million makes sense but I would need some psychiatrists to help analyze their thinking.
barry schiller
On low fees, Mike R makes a good point its not a good idea to put all pension fund resources in stocks. But firms such as Vanguard have a wide selection of low cost diversified bond funds as well as real estate to balance a portfolio at low cost. I juat don't see why the public needs to pay 2%+ plus 20% of profits. The lead sentence on the post, if accurate, says fees of about $580,000 were paid on an investment of about $5 million. The time frame is not given but it shows the order of magnitude of the problem, if Vanguard's .14% were used on $5 million over 7 years that would total about $50,000 not $580,000.