Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Lincoln Chafees legacy....Do not trust this man

       The City and Towns in Rhode Island have had 5 years of positive capital markets (up over 100% since 2009)  tailwinds like  that should have produced windfall profits strengthening municipal  pension plans and vastly improving the stability of funding promises to public workers. In 2011 Rhode Island officials and the nation were still struggling and Rhode Island had several cities on the verge of collapse. Central Falls made headlines nationwide and was placed into receivership. Central Falls has since emerged from bankruptcy and twice the general assembly has appropriated additional funds to Central Falls employees from State Taxpayer dollars. This two time bailout is a very dangerous precedent and Rhode Island taxpayers statewide may now be asked to pay for all municipal bailouts including the very shaky cities of West Warwick, Coventry, Johnston, Pawtucket and Providence.
     Together these towns account for as much as $3.5 billion in unfunded pensions and $2 Billion in OPEB. This problem is larger than the State pension liabilities which were so much in the news the last few years and are also backed by State Taxpayers. Accounting rules, unrealistic projections, purposeful underfunding and fraud have all contributed to the present condition. So what has been done during the Chafee administration to address this? What has our General Assembly done? On the eve of Chafee’s new central Planning experiment RhodeMap RI, all Rhode islanders would do well to consider the Track record of this administration in addressing an obvious and critical problem like Municipal debt and potential bankruptcy. In 2011 Lincoln Chafee after being elected with 36% of the vote was cheered on by Progressives and Mayor Avedesian and the Providence Journal for his bold plan to fix cities and towns.  http://www.warwickri.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1204:governor-chafees-plan-to-save-our-cities-and-towns&catid=76:mayorscottavedisian&Itemid=40

Most of Chafee’s term was like his website, filled with self-promotion and  dutiful adherence to some un-named social agenda. Whether it was the death penalty, holiday trees, his repeal of E-verify, promoting Obama Care and the health exchange he was not lacking an agenda. He used slick marketing to promote these treasured but incomplete ideas and RhodeMap RI is his final effort to impose his values on Rhode Island whether we really like it or not.  When forced to deal with substantive issues affecting all Rhode Islanders like municipal Bankruptcy Chafee used the same tactics as seen above. Chafee has repeatedly said he favors the slow and steady approach to solving problems. That would be fine if he ever actually solved the problem. 

Lets look at the Municipal Debt problem that Chafee has now distanced himself from because the slow and steady approach has been an outright disaster leaving Cities and Towns more vulnerable than ever to recession after 5 years of expansion. RI  Governors efforts including having meetings, forming commissions, gathering data and most of all doing absolutely nothing. A Municipal Crisis Pension Commission was formed that basically rehashed what Ernie Almonte had reported to the General Assembly and every City and Town since 2007. After 3 years there were no new rules, no consensus on appropriate accounting. Mayors on the “critical status” list didn’t even attend. Chafee appointed Rosemary Booth Gallogly the States Revenue Director who behaved like a teacher handling the after school detention class.  Apparently her goal was to waste 3 years and accomplish nothing. Here is the before and after picture of cities and towns with and without required GASB 68 changes now in effect  3 years after Chafee attacked the Crisis and declared 2011 “the year of Cities and Towns” .

Governor Lincoln Chafee October18, 2011
“The largest threat to having this story repeat itself would be our failure to comprehensively address pension reform. We all know that there are dangerously underfunded municipal pension plans. As Governor of this great state and captain of the ship, I clearly see these icebergs ahead. If you have any doubts, please read Auditor General Dennis Hoyle’s September 2011 report on municipal pensions. This study is a thorough and very sobering analysis detailing our deeply troubled independent municipal pension funds.
Honest, comprehensive reform means a top-to-bottom effort that doesn’t simply ignore these local plans because they aren’t operated by the state. We can’t have true pension reform if our cities and towns are neglected.
The Auditor General recently determined that 24 of Rhode Island’s independent municipal pension plans are in grave danger because of inadequate funding levels. These include Coventry Police at 16.5%, Cranston Police & Fire at 15.8%, and Smithfield Police at 11.4%. And it is important to bear in mind that these estimates are based on overly optimistic figures for rate of return and mortality expectations, so in reality some are even less adequately funded.
I believe that these debts represent the most alarming aspect of Rhode Island’s pension crisis, with many of the municipal plans in far worse shape than the state system. To ignore the pension crisis gripping our cities and towns would be dishonest and closing our eyes to reality. Failure to address these problems now threatens to leave the local property taxpayer bearing all the burden down the road.”

Mission Accomplished?
Pension Funded Ratio
Pension Funded Ratio
2014(est) pre Gasb
GASB 68 Pension Funded Ratio 2014
West Warwick

According to Morningstar a healthy Pension Funded Ratio is > 80% funded today
According to Moody’s a healthy Pension Funded ratio is > 70% * funded today
According to Rhode Island Chafee and Gallogly a healthy ratio is > 60% in 20 years 2034
76% is the median funded ratio of the Top 25 cities in the United States.

Total Failure in pensions followed by his RhodeMap RI

Look at the ridiculously low standards and goals set by Chafee and Gallogly for the commission and city officials to achieve. Sadly, the government planners completely whiffed on those goals.  After three years of studies and commissions and shoddy reports and every City is worse off after the Governors Declaration in 2011. He promoted the State Pension Reform that ignored the Cities, he touted reforms in Providence by Angel Taveras that did nothing and he had the advantage of 4 years of the greatest bull market in a century to help increase pension assets.  Yet Chafee’s self-declared #1 focus, the crisis of municipal pensions, remains a disaster in 2014. Does Mattiello and the House really want to adopt  Lincoln Chafee’s 5 year  social equity laced economic development Plan … known as  RhodeMap RI ?

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Wainwright,Providence, renaissance Saga: Cianci& Lombardi hire lies again

                                                           The suckers

FEBRUARY 28, 2006
The Board of Investment Commissioners meets this day at 2:30 o’clock P.M., in The Conference Room, Third Floor, City Hall.
PRESENT: Vice-Chairman Alex Prignano, Stephen T. Napolitano, Allan M. Edwards and Myrth York – 4.

MAYOR CICILLINE: Please call the roll.
On motion of Mr. Napolitano, Seconded by Ms. York, it is voted to authorize the investment of $20 million dollars in the Renaissance Institutional Equity Fund (RIEF).
AYES: Mayor Cicilline, Vice-Chairman Prignano, Mr. Napolitano, Mr. Edwards and Ms. York – 5.

                                                            The pitch

MAYOR CICILLINE: And do you generally keep that ratio?
MR. DWYER: It’s pretty – yeah. That – that will generally not – not change either. So, what does it all mean? What are our sort of performance – our goals? We are – we’re shooting to outperform the S & P 500 at a minimum of about 600 basis points. Based on the long terms of the S & P 500 performance, that means we’re looking for a return somewhere in the mid teens, about a year in, year out basis. And then as far as volatility, we’re looking to do about two thirds volatility in the market, and that would mean somewhere, you know, high single digits, low double digit volatility. In other words, let’s say we get – for us a normal year would be return of about 15%, volatility of about 9%, and that would be something that we would be – we would be quite satisfied with. As I mentioned, we are about $4.6 billion dollars in assets, and you will find yourselves, if you were to choose to – to subscribe to the fund, with quite a few familiar institutional investors, including, for instance, Harvard University has recently subscribed to the fund, and other sort of pension plans and similar endowments and foundations. So, that is – that’s the sort of story in summary, and maybe – maybe you could ask some more specifics questions, or if anything was unclear, you could ask questions. -22- February 28, 2006 


* authors note:Wainwright ,the adviser, was sued by several clients over investments steered to Bernard Madoff. They settled out of court for 2.5 million dollars

                                      Here's the full text of that meeting in 2006
    best read while listening to the "Music Man"

VICE-CHAIRMAN PRIGNANO: I think the Mayor is going to join us,
because I’d like to have him the Mayor hear the presentation. -2- February 28, 2006
MR. BERTONAZZI: Okay. Certainly. You have your flashes in front of you. We’ll talk about that quickly, and we’ll have our representative from Renaissance come in in a little while. To cut to the chase, we’re having a very strong year-to-date. I’m quite pleased. Up 4.3% year-to-date, up another sixty basis points month-to-date. The things I would like to point – and that’s, by way of comparison, the S & P is up 3.7 through that same time. So, again, beating the market pretty handily as we have been able to do pretty – pretty regularly in – in many environments anyways. What I would point out is that there’s a little difference lately, perhaps the world has changed a little bit lately in that you know in the last several meetings, meeting after meeting, I’ve been telling you that value has been outperforming growth. Well, that’s still true in the large cap area but in the smaller cap area, recently there’s been a flip flop, and smaller growth, that asset class, has started to outperform small value. And that – that’s what I wanted to point out. So, if you look at Columbia ValuPath, it’s up 5.1 year-to-date, and – and SSGA Mellon are up around two, 2.8 respectively. I happen to have the index. The Russell 1000 Value is up over five, and the Russell 1000 Growth is up 2.75 year-to-date. So, large value continues to outperform large growth, and we see that in our managers as well. However, on the small cap side, it’s – it’s not quite as acute, and even in some areas, growth is outperforming value. And you can see that in McKinley versus Boston Partners let’s say, small value. They’re up five and a half. Their index is up more but McKinley is up 12.6 year-to-date. Its index is up 8.5.
MR. EDWARDS: And you’re going to carry that flag a little bit, aren’t you.
MR. BERTONAZZI: Oh, but it can reverse. Don’t worry. I’m sure the next time I talk it’ll reverse.
MR. NAPOLITANO: This is your favorite investment, McKinley, isn’t it?
MR. BERTONAZZI: So, I’m pleased – -3- February 28, 2006

MR. NAPOLITANO: They must have heard you.
MR. BERTONAZZI: That’s right. I think they heard you, Allan. I called them up and I said, look, you better have some good returns soon. So, things are – things have been strong there. So, our small and mid cap has been helping on the growth and the value side so far, and that’s a pleasant thing to see. Brandes, our international manager, is up 5.8 year-to-date. They’re – the index is up 6.2. Currency still is helping explain, the dollar is actually strengthened a little bit since our last meeting, not a lot but a little bit, and that’s – that’s holding back Brandes a little bit. I’m pleased with 5.8% but in a different environment they might be up seven or eight or something like that. Your bonds, everybody knows interest rates have been going up, even at the back end of the curve a little bit, and bonds are not performing, doing much of anything. Loomis, for –
MR. EDWARDS: Keeping it stable.
MR. BERTONAZZI: Loomis is up .1. The index is actually down seventeen basis points, so – which is the Lehman Brothers U.S. Intermediate, U.S. Government Credit Index. That’s what we base them on. So, their index, their market is actually down seventeen bits year-to-date, and they’re up ten basis points year-to-date. So, okay, they’re out performing a little bit, which I’m happy about, but the general point is is that bonds are just kind of treading water so far this year. Similarly with – with our international bonds up .1%, again, the strengthening of the dollar has taken some of the gains they had earlier in January and – and eliminated them.
MR. EDWARDS: So, we made 4.3%. We’re running at a run rate of 4.3% even though we took out five million – 5.3 in benefits –
MR. NAPOLITANO: Um-hum, yeah.
MR. EDWARDS: -- and – and domestic fixed down five million. -4- February 28, 2006

MR. BERTONAZZI: Yeah, we’ve just took another 5.3 million for benefit payments, Joe Chiodo –
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, but I’m saying we’re still ahead of the S & P even though we’ve taken that money out.
MR. BERTONAZZI: Yes, well, that’s the returns on the dollar is time weighted as opposed to dollar rated. So, the dollars, which have been invested, have grown by 4.3%. So, that number takes into account the fact that there have been outflows.
MR. EDWARDS: That’s what I’m saying.
MR. NAPOLITANO: Yeah. Right.
MR. EDWARDS: So, that’s very good.
MR. BERTONAZZI: Oh, yes, I’m very pleased, very pleased.
MR. EDWARDS: That’s very good.
MR. NAPOLITANO: Excellent.
MR. EDWARDS: I mean if we had that in there, we’d probably be up another, you know, maybe a hundred –
MR. BERTONAZZI: Yeah, we – we would have that –
MR. EDWARDS: -- a hundred basis –
MR. BERTONAZZI: -- we’d have 310 million in there.
MR. EDWARDS: That’s what I’m saying.
MR. BERTONAZZI: We would. The dollars would be higher but the return would still be 4.3%. It wouldn’t be 6%.
MR. EDWARDS: No, no, no, not six but it would be some change in that wouldn’t there?
MR. BERTONAZZI: No, the number, that 4.3% would remain unchanged –
MR. EDWARDS: Oh, because you took it out. That’s when you measured it. -5- February 28, 2006

MR. EDWARDS: Okay, sorry.
MR. BERTONAZZI: So, it’s – everything is – everything just takes account the flow, it’s time weighted –
MR. BERTONAZZI: -- numbers is what it’s called.
MR. BERTONAZZI: And you can also see that our hedge funds, our low vol hedge funds are helping us this year. Remember those are mostly designed to act like bonds or better, and be low volatility, stable bond like returns, maybe a little better sometimes. And they’re up in, you know, in the two and 4% range, 2½ to 3.8% range year-to-date. So, I’m happy to report that as well.
MR. EDWARDS: Can I ask a question? What is our – what is the exact number of our unfunded liability?
VICE-CHAIRMAN PRIGNANO: It’s – it’s about six hundred and twelve million.
MR. EDWARDS: It is? Because we had a dispute downstairs with me and John. I thought it was in the sixes. He thinks it’s in the fives. What is it really? I just really want to know because if I asked – someone asks us here –
MR. EDWARDS: -- we should really know –
MR. EDWARDS: -- what it is.
VICE-CHAIRMAN PRIGNANO: About six hundred and twelve million.
MR. EDWARDS: Six hundred and twelve million.
MR. EDWARDS: Okay. -6- February 28, 2006

VICE-CHAIRMAN PRIGNANO: Something like that. But recently, it was 654 million dollars last year but it took a turn down, three reasons, less retirees than anticipated, more retiree deaths than anticipated, and – and this is probably an artificial – it is definitely artificial because the police haven’t had a raise for two years and the firefighters six years because of arbitrations and contract problems. The salary growth has been artificially low. So, that’s brought that number down. If there’s a settlement with those guys or the salaries pop, then that number probably will go back up again from six sixteen up to –
VICE-CHAIRMAN PRIGNANO: So, that’s where we are. I think it’s six sixteen but it dropped from six fifty-four into the teens because of that. Hello, Mayor.
MR. NAPOLITANO: Hello, Mayor.
VICE-CHAIRMAN PRIGNANO: What we did is we did our regular flash report because remember at the last meeting we had a group that we wanted to come in, that Renaissance Group –
VICE-CHAIRMAN PRIGNANO: -- and I wanted you to –
VICE-CHAIRMAN PRIGNANO: -- see the presentation.
MR. EDWARDS: I have to leave so I’d like to get them in here.
MR. BERTONAZZI: I’m ready to roll when you guys are.
MAYOR CICILLINE: Can we ask them to come in?
MR. BERTONAZZI: The gentleman who represents Renaissance, and if you are done – would you like to move on from the flash.
VICE-CHAIRMAN PRIGNANO: Do you have one of these for the Mayor?
MR. BERTONAZZI: Oh, absolutely. -7- February 28, 2006

VICE-CHAIRMAN PRIGNANO: And I don’t know, if you were just about finished, you might as well finish it.
MR. EDWARDS: Can I – I just want to ask permission from the Chairman is that I would like to go to that as soon as we can because I really have another –
MR. EDWARDS: -- and I came up here to listen to them.
MAYOR CICILLINE: So, let’s go to – you don’t mind, you’re –
MR. BERTONAZZI: Oh, no, not at all.
MAYOR CICILLINE: Let’s do that.
MR. BERTONAZZI: I’ll go get Dave Dwyer.
MR. EDWARDS: Mayor, we’re doing extremely well. We’re up 4.3%. The S & P was at 3.7. Even with money being, as you can see, the right – far right column in where the – that is, we’ve taken some money out, that’s a time weighted number. So, and the other thing that’s very interesting is that McKinley, who I’ve been beating up on, must have been –
MR. NAPOLITANO: -- listening, yeah.
MR. EDWARDS: -- must have been listening. So, they’re up 12%.
MAYOR CICILLINE: They’re nervous.
MR. NAPOLITANO: A little nervous.
MS. YORK: Well, they have a relatively small holding compared to some of the others.
MR. EDWARDS: Well, we’ve taken some money away from them to do other things –
MR. NAPOLITANO: Right. -8- February 28, 2006

MR. EDWARDS: -- and it’s been, you know, that in itself tells someone you better get cranking. A very subtle way.
MR. NAPOLITANO: But this economy is not supposed to be doing what it’s doing. You know, I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop.
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, I am, too.
MR. NAPOLITANO: It just doesn’t make any sense.
MR. EDWARDS: Well, housing starts are –
MR. NAPOLITANO: -- down. They’re going right down.
MR. EDWARDS: Well, Europe – Europe right now is – is expecting the United States to keep raising interest rates.
MR. EDWARDS: So, what you’re seeing now is that more dollar flow will come from the European countries and, you know, international markets and to our dollar, which will make our dollar stronger, and theirs weaker. So, there seems to be trend afoot, which is very, you know, you don’t know what’s going to trigger – whether it’s port security or another – another disaster. Hello.
MR. BERTONAZZI: Why don’t you sit here. This is David Dwyer from Renaissance. He’s going to present the RIEF fund today, as I told you about last time.
MR. EDWARDS: Hello, David.
MR. BERTONAZZI: This is the Board of Investment Commissioners, Mayor Cicilline is the Chair.
MR. DWYER: Hi, how are you.
MR. EDWARDS: Before we move to this, has there been any decision, I mean we talked about this the last time, and was there a decision that there was a certain amount of capital coming from here to there or – I’m sort of – I just want refresh my memory. -9- February 28, 2006

MR. BERTONAZZI: The minimum investment is twenty million, which I had recommended, and I –
MR. EDWARDS: Because as David is talking, I want to understand that what is.
MR. BERTONAZZI: And if you recall, I – I passed out a spread sheet to you again showing where I would generate those funds from each manager.
MR. EDWARDS: Right, right.
MR. BERTONAZZI: Which I had passed out last time, and brought another copy today that you can refer to during the discussions if you wish. But in the meantime, if it’s okay, I’ll pass it over to David. He can introduce himself and the fund, and he’s going to plan on speaking to you and going through the book roughly and loosely for about fifteen or twenty minutes, and then we’ll keep it brief and save – save some times for questions as well.
MR. DWYER: And please feel free to interrupt if anything’s unclear. Obviously, an interactive presentation is always a more informative one. I’m going to assume that you don’t know a great deal about Renaissance, so what I plan on doing is giving you a little story about how the organization is zero, so I’m going to assume that you know nothing about Renaissance.
MR. DWYER: So, I’m going to give you a little bit of the story about how the organization formed. We’re a little bit different than most investment firms. I’m certainly going to give you some sense of the type of person our founder is, a guy by the name of Jim Simons. I’m going to go over briefly some of the areas that I think that the firm differentiates itself, and then I’m going to talk quite specifically about the fund, which we call the Renaissance Institutional Equity Fund, which I will call by an acronym RIEF going forward. Does that sound fair?
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah. -10- February 28, 2006

MR. DWYER: So, Renaissance is – is one of the older firms in the hedge fund business for sure, and I’ll give you a sense of its roots. It was founded by a guy by the name of Jim Simons. Jim studied at MIT. He was a mathematician, and this was all the way back in the 1960s. He spent some time as a professor at Berkley. He returned to MIT and taught math there, and wanted to do something a little bit different, worked for the government, and he helped create and break code in the nineteen – early 1970s, and was actually awarded a – something called the Veblen Prize, which a rough equivalent of the Nobel Prize but for mathematics specifically. And for that you are a – you are given a medallion, and remember that word medallion. It’s going to have some significance to the story. So, he’s an award winning mathematician, worked for the government, was a professor in a couple of places. In the early ‘70s, he actually settled at the State University of New York, Stony Brook. SUNY Stony Brook, I don’t know if anyone of you know where that is but it’s about half way out on Long Island on the north shore, and there he became Chairman of the Math Department, and thought he had settled down into a nice – a nice life in academia. But as he discovered during the 1970s, he felt that he could make some money in trading commodities and currencies using some sort of early and somewhat crude mathematical systems, systems that’s helped – tried to explain the price of oil, or try to explain where the dollar was going, through some basic quantitative methods, and low and behold, he – he had some early successes doing so. So, he began to be a little more serious about it, and he would – began to recruit other people who had some quantitative skills, and the firm, which we call Renaissance Technologies, really traces its roots to these early efforts, and really quite specifically, the modern firm was born in 1982, with a hedge fund, which we call Medallion. And I will talk to you quite specifically about Medallion. Over the years Jim has continued to bring talented and bright people into the organization. He’s a quite good managerier of scientific talent, and -11- February 28, 2006

the firm has grown considerably. In fact, today we have 71 PhDs in the firm, in a firm of about 220 people. And those PhDs tend to come either from the sciences, let’s say physics, from statistics, from mathematics, and we have quite a few computer scientists. So, we’re definitely sort of an intellectual type firm in that sense.
MR. EDWARDS: How do you get along with each other?
MR. DWYER: It is not as rosy as – as – you know, I’m not going to paint the picture that, you know, sort of these hard driven scientists all, you know, sit around and hold each others hands during the day. It’s quite a competitive place but the key is is that the environment is quite open, so people are encouraged and compensated to work together to achieve investment returns rather than being sequestered, each and every one of them doing their own little thing. So, it’s competitive but Jim has managed to have it, organizationally have it be cohesive.
MR. EDWARDS: How old is Jim?
MR. DWYER: Jim is 67 years old.
MR. NAPOLITANO: A mere wisp of a child.
MR. EDWARDS: What’s that?
MR. NAPOLITANO: A mere wisp of a child.
MR. DWYER: So – so, to this day, I mentioned all the PhDs. We’re a firm of about 220 people, and about 160 of those people are to this day out in Long Island in Stony Brook, where the main focus of our investment organization is. We do have an office in Downtown Manhattan. It is for the most part administrative, you know controllers, accountants, legal people, finance people, et cetera. We also have a small research office. It’s at Berkley, California. But for the most part, we are based in Stony Brook, California – I mean Stony Brook, New York.
MR. EDWARDS: What is the total amount of money you raised there? I mean that you manage at a time. -12- February 28, 2006

MR. DWYER: We have two funds. The first fund, Medallion, currently has $5.3 billion dollars in assets. The second fund, which is open to new investors, which we call RIEF, is currently about $4.6 billion dollars in assets.
VICE-CHAIRMAN PRIGNANO: Dave, how big is that fund going to be?
MR. DWYER: That fund, there’s been much in the press about that fund, because when Jim launched the fund he had a number – he threw out a number of a hundred billion dollars. We don’t know how big it’s going to be but the important thing is that we’re opening up this fund to institutional investors, and we don’t want to have to close it real suddenly, or put you under sort of undue pressure to make a decision because the fund is going to close next week, et cetera. We believe that we’ll raise probably about ten billion in assets, and then we hope that we’ll compound through performance and continue to grow into the – into the foreseeable future. But it’s a difficult question to answer, you know, exactly how big it will be. Let me give you a sense of Jim’s perspective to give you some reason why he is cognizant of capacity issues. So, there are two funds, the Medallion Fund and the RIEF Fund. To compare and contrast the two funds, Medallion is the first fund, the original fund. It invests in all assets classes and it in trades in a very short term nature. The RIEF Fund invests currently in U.S. equities, although some day we may go overseas, and it trades much more slowly, and much more moderately. So, Medallion is the aggressive, you know, very much high octane fund. RIEF is the more institutional, lower volatility fund. When Medallion closed, it closed in 1993 at $280 million dollars, which at the time was a pretty big hedge fund. It, as I mentioned to you, is currently 5.3. Over the course of that growth period, we didn’t raise another dime. We also returned about $5 billion dollars to external investors. So, in Jim’s mind, you can have a fund that can be very small, but if your performance is really big, and you’re up 20% a year and 20% a year, it can grow still considerable. So, he wanted to make sure that in this new fund, we didn’t just open one day and close the next. He -13- February 28, 2006

wants to make sure that this is available to a broad range of institutional investors. Hopefully, that makes your – you – makes that a little bit clearer. So, let me tell you a little bit about – about sort of what we do that’s different than most people. The first thing that – that are sort of our smart people work on is we try to develop signals that will explain the future of the marketplace. Really, on a stock by stock basis, we try to come up with a sort of a series of signals that will predict which stocks will do better than the other, and it’s something that we’ve been doing now for about twenty years. So, no one signal actually ends up predicting exactly what a stock will do, but if we can get, you know, let’s say two thirds of the stock right, it ends up producing a very good performance series. So, the first thing is signals. The second thing, and it’s extremely crucial to us, because for us costs are something that we want to manage, is that we develop models that will help predict how much our trading will cost us, because you could have the best signals on earth, and then put out a bunch of trades, and as those trades are so expensive, that they end up destroying sort of what return you would have had, then you’re right back in – into where you started. So, we put a lot of money in trying to predict not just sort of the transaction costs of a trade, but how much it will cost in terms of market impact, what the price of the stock will do, we try to buy it, et cetera. So, cost models are very important to us. The third, and I’m going to talk to you about risk all the time, is we have our own proprietary, self-made risk models, which help us predict the volatility of our portfolio. And it is an extremely important thing to us, because when I talk to you about the statistics not only of the Medallion Fund but of the current fund, we want to be less volatile in the market. We want to, in fact for the RIEF Fund, have two thirds the volatility of the S & P 500, and we’re now about seven months under way, and we have actually been below that target. So, really the three things we’re looking for are signals that will predict the return of a – of a stock in our whole portfolio, and number two is what the cost will be of trading our portfolio, and number three is what we think – what -14- February 28, 2006

we think the riskiness of our portfolio is, and that’s what we have a team of people working on. So, I guess at this point let me make sure that you are clear of what the characteristics of the RIEF Fund is, or are.
MR. EDWARDS: Why do you call it the RIEF Fund?
MR. DWYER: RIEF, it’s just an acronym for Renaissance Institutional Equity Fund.
MR. EDWARDS: Okay. And then you used the term earlier that it was a hedge fund. This is not a hedge fund.
MR. DWYER: In my mind it’s not a hedge fund because it always is a – a net long the market. In other words, if you give us a dollar of capital, we will always have a dollar exposure to the equity market. However, the way that we do that is by being 175% long, and 75% short. And that long/shortish, some people consider that to be a hedge fund. In our mind, it’s – it’s – we just sort of dialed the –
MR. EDWARDS: So, you do short stocks?
MR. DWYER: We do short stocks, that’s correct.
MR. EDWARDS: And you short stocks in the RIEF Fund.
MR. DWYER: That is correct.
MR. BERTONAZZI: Yes, and they will have more than – they will use leverage; borrowed money to buy more stock than your capital could buy on its own.
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah but you could –
MR. BERTONAZZI: If you give them a million, they’ll buy a million seven fifty long, and they’ll short 750,000 stock for a next exposure of a million but 250 gross exposure, which is quite characteristic in most hedge funds.
MR. EDWARDS: You know, what’s interesting to me, David, is that – is your organization because what I always look for when we’re giving money to -15- February 28, 2006

somebody is the longevity of that. It’s seems like you’ve been extraordinarily successful here. And –
MR. DWYER: You’re on page number five.
MR. EDWARDS: Well, I went – I jumped to page five, yeah, but I also look at your – who develops the signals, the models, and you have your own risk models. Has this all been developed by Mr. Simons and his – all the math – 71 PhDs or –
MR. DWYER: That is correct.
MR. EDWARDS: Okay. So –
MR. DWYER: Really, when you look at the – the area that’s labeled technical operations run by two gentlemen named by Peter Brown and Bob Mercer, each of them have been there about thirteen years, they developed most of those things that I talked about in that section.
MR. EDWARDS: Okay, and they’re – and – so this new fund, I mean you’re very committed going forward, and everybody’s committed to this. Also, I believe in the Wall Street Journal that someone is from the key people of this particular fund has left. One of the things that I worry about when we give money out to individuals, or to people like your – organizations like yourself, is that the person that’s the genius here decides to go somewhere else to start something.
MR. DWYER: Right.
MR. EDWARDS: So, I’m – I’m looking –
MR. DWYER: Well, let me answer it this way, the firm, you know, Jim Simons founded the firm but unlike some hedge funds, he’s not the hundred percent owner of Renaissance. What he has done is he owns a little bit less than half the firm, and the rest of the firm is distributed across seventy or so key individuals, in a sort of, in a partnership like structure. So, where as obviously Jim is an important person, so are each one of those scientists, each of whom has an ownership stake, and are less likely in that sense to leave. -16- February 28, 2006

MR. EDWARDS: But he’s built a good base.
MR. DWYER: He has built a good base.
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, he’s built a good following. He’s got – he has succession built into the – into his model.
MR. DWYER: He has succession built into his model. Most definitely the two gentlemen under technical operations Peter Brown and Bob Mercer play a role in that.
MR. EDWARDS: Where do you fit in this?
MR. DWYER: Um, I – well, what my role is is that I am responsible for in a sense for liaising with institutional clients. The scientists are not necessarily the best presenters.
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, I understand that. I have – I have about four PhDs who work for –
MR. DWYER: And some of them English is not their natural skill so.
MR. DWYER: So, my role is to help work in a sense with clients.
MR. EDWARDS: And collaborate between both, and come out to us and talk to us.
MR. DWYER: That’s right. That’s correct.
MR. EDWARDS: I just want to understand, are you the gentleman that’s going to be in constant contact with Eric.
MR. DWYER: That is correct. That is correct.
MR. EDWARDS: So, you will be the liaison of this RIEF Fund with Eric and – and his staff.
MR. DWYER: I – I will do that, yes.
MR. EDWARDS: Okay. -17- February 28, 2006

MAYOR CICILLINE: But if – but if we’re interested in – if some of us are interested in hearing directly from some of the scientists, then obviously we can make those arrangements as well.
MR. DWYER: Yes. I mean –
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, that’s what I want to do.
MR. DWYER: It’s actually – it’s actually quite interesting.
MAYOR CICILLINE: No, I’m serious.
MR. DWYER: You have to make a trip to – you have to go out to – to Long Island, and it’s a little inconvenient. You can take a ferry across from Bridgeport, Connecticut but it’s a nice spot, and we’ll give you a tour of the facilities, and you can talk, you know, straight to the – straight to the scientific –
MR. EDWARDS: I only have one question on this, and then another question to Eric. Why haven’t we seen this fund before?
MR. BERTONAZZI: This fund has just recently come into existence. Medallion was closed to new investors three years –
MR. EDWARDS: Before we – before –
MR. BERTONAZZI: -- and if – believe me, if I could have got you into Medallion, I would have.
MR. EDWARDS: Were you in Medallion?
MR. BERTONAZZI: Some of our private clients have been in Medallion for many, many years, but no other clients could we get in, or really anybody could get in, and now this new institutional fund designed for folks like the City of Providence, has come into existence in the last several months.
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, I find it quite interesting, David, that you have 71 PhDs. You know, I’ve been around a lot of institutional groups, and it seems like you have a very unique program, especially if you’re only – if you’re developing your own models, and I’m sure it’s very – it’s very – it’s probably – what I see is -18- February 28, 2006

that you have a lot of people that are very exciting to be with because they’re constantly creating, and they’re constantly watching the metrics.
MR. DWYER: Right.
MR. EDWARDS: And – which gives you really the edge to – to –
MR. DWYER: It is certainly helpful because we can’t stand still in a sense –
MR. DWYER: -- because our competitors try to, in a sense, do what we do.
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, but they’re not.
MR. DWYER: So, bringing these PhDs out of academia allows us to move forward.
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, well, that’s how it was built initially with science – with James so –
MR. DWYER: Right.
MR. EDWARDS: -- I mean he came out of academia so –
MR. DWYER: Right.
MR. EDWARDS: -- he’s just followed that same model.
MR. DWYER: Right. And there is really nobody in our firm who comes out of “Wall Street”. We – we tend to recruit family oriented academia – academics, who have already shown success within the sciences. So, if we want – in other words, that for us is a sign of self-motivation. We don’t want bright students. We want people who have already shown achievement, who could come in and make an immediate impact on the organization.
MR. EDWARDS: Right. Very good. I’m sorry.
MR. DWYER: No, that’s okay. So, I was just going to in a sort of sense – we already talked about the idea of its leverage but we are 175% long/75% short. So, that means that we are always, what we call one dollar net long, but we do so by being sort of a little bit longer, and also a little bit shorter. We have a very low beta to the market, and what that means is that we are not in any way benchmarked -19- February 28, 2006

to the S & P 500, and we actually make sure that we keep our correlations low, because you can go out and buy an index fund for – for practically nothing. We want to make sure that we are additive to your overall market exposure. So, that’s something –
MR. EDWARDS: Is the 175 long/75 short always been a basic premise of the Medallion Fund and the RIEF Fund, or is that something that has been changed over time?
MR. DWYER: The Medallion Fund actually takes on a little bit more leverage, maybe – we don’t exactly disclose the number. They may be leverage that would be a little, not exactly appropriate for some institutions. It’s pretty levered.
MR. EDWARDS: And what influences the long/short.
MR. DWYER: You mean the amount that we use? It’s actually a little bit of a technical answer, but we have a prime broker called Bear Stearns. Bear Stearns has given us, and would end up giving you, very generous finance agreements.
MR. DWYER: They won’t do it any more than 250 gross. So, what it really means is that we actually are not paying finance fees on our short book, but they will not allow us to do any more than 250%. So, it is a – it’s a technical –
MR. EDWARDS: So – so – I understand. I used to –
MR. DWYER: We’ll never go higher than that.
MR. EDWARDS: I used to clear through Bear Stearns so I understand their –
MR. DWYER: So, you understand.
MR. EDWARDS: I understand what you just said but I have a – I’m just interested – so they – so they actually put a cap on – that you can’t go any more than 200%.
MR. DWYER: That’s correct or – or the agreement – -20- February 28, 2006

MR. EDWARDS: That’s quite interesting.
MR. DWYER: -- the agreement we have with them falls apart.
MR. BERTONAZZI: It’s also related to the risk return profile you’re trying to generate as well, because you could have less than 250 if you choose, and financing wouldn’t have been important, but that might have affected or it might have been non-optimal approach for what you’re trying to achieve.
MR. DWYER: That’s correct. Right. That’s – if – yeah. That’s a good point. Obviously, that’s also – we want to go as far – with as much leverage as possible.
MR. EDWARDS: So, what you’re doing is you’re really leveraging leveraging. You’re getting some free ride –
MR. EDWARDS: -- up to 200%.
MR. DWYER: Our clients are.
MR. EDWARDS: I mean the clients are. And you’re passing it to the clients. That’s good.
MR. NAPOLITANO: You’re right.
MR. DWYER: But your point is definitely right. It’s also a point where we believe that we can have the highest level of return with the lowest level of volatility.
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah. So – but I like that because, you know, I set up a few funds with going through Bear, similar to you, yeah, with –
MR. DWYER: We’re Bear Stearns’ biggest clients so we have – are able to negotiate on our clients in somewhat official –
MR. EDWARDS: I wasn’t their biggest client but I was –
MR. BERTONAZZI: Second biggest. -21- February 28, 2006

MR. EDWARDS: I was their second biggest.
MAYOR CICILLINE: In the top three.
MR. NAPOLITANO: That’s why we stole you away.
MR. DWYER: So, the characteristic, we’re extremely diversified. We like to hold lots of small positions. So, we have about currently about 1,800 long positions and about 900 short positions. So, for us no one position will make or break the portfolio in any way. We want to have lots of little small bets on the long side, and lots of little small bets on the short side.
MAYOR CICILLINE: And do you generally keep that ratio?
MR. DWYER: It’s pretty – yeah. That – that will generally not – not change either. So, what does it all mean? What are our sort of performance – our goals? We are – we’re shooting to outperform the S & P 500 at a minimum of about 600 basis points. Based on the long terms of the S & P 500 performance, that means we’re looking for a return somewhere in the mid teens, about a year in, year out basis. And then as far as volatility, we’re looking to do about two thirds volatility in the market, and that would mean somewhere, you know, high single digits, low double digit volatility. In other words, let’s say we get – for us a normal year would be return of about 15%, volatility of about 9%, and that would be something that we would be – we would be quite satisfied with. As I mentioned, we are about $4.6 billion dollars in assets, and you will find yourselves, if you were to choose to – to subscribe to the fund, with quite a few familiar institutional investors, including, for instance, Harvard University has recently subscribed to the fund, and other sort of pension plans and similar endowments and foundations. So, that is – that’s the sort of story in summary, and maybe – maybe you could ask some more specifics questions, or if anything was unclear, you could ask questions. -22- February 28, 2006

MR. EDWARDS: Well, I’d like to ask Eric some questions. I see where you’ve balanced out the funds here, where you’re taking – you’re taking some from Forest Fulcrum.
MR. BERTONAZZI: No, it’s coming all from the equity managers. It’s coming from –
MR. EDWARDS: I see, McKinley, Boston – Boston – why aren’t we taking a little bit more from the small value?
MR. BERTONAZZI: Why are we or aren’t we?
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, why couldn’t we.
MR. BERTONAZZI: Well, we could but there are – there are two things. In raising the money, I wanted to take it from equity, one, and two, I wanted to take it a little bit more from large cap than small cap, because I feel given the parameters of the fund, and David can – can amplify that, that most of – a greater percentage of the exposure in the RIEF Fund will be large and mid cap, larger cap as opposed to small cap. So, I was trying to balance – balance the exposure in that – the change in that –
MR. EDWARDS: What has been the experience with the small value Boston Partners over the past year compared to what the RIEF Fund has done?
MR. EDWARDS: You don’t have to answer that right now, Eric, I just wanted to – let me just say that my thought is.
MR. EDWARDS: My sense is I would give RIEF a little bit more.
MR. BERTONAZZI: Well, we could do that, which I would be glad to go over with you. By the way, Boston Partners small cap, over the last year, has done 20.4%
MR. EDWARDS: Okay. -23- February 28, 2006

MR. DWYER: We’ve only been live since August 1st, and during that time we’re up about 9%. So, small cap value has been a tough benchmark, a tough asset class, so we’re – we’ve maybe done in half the time about half of that.
MR. BERTONAZZI: But, of course, we’re looking for stability in the bad times, and it’s been generally a very good time for small cap value, and going forward it should reduce the volatility of our overall plan. It’s going to represent, oh, about six, seven percent, 7% in the portfolio, and it should allow us to have a more stable portfolio with at least the same return profile, perhaps even better across the long run.
MR. EDWARDS: Right, yeah. So, let’s go back to 1993. You said you had originally $280 million dollars of capital in the Nova fund, and what did – what was the pay out on that?
MR. DWYER: What do you mean the pay out?
MR. EDWARDS: I mean you said you paid back investors how much?
MR. DWYER: Well, if you look at –
MR. EDWARDS: I mean what was the return for the investors?
MR. DWYER: The return –
MR. EDWARDS: I mean I seen the fifteen year and the three year but –
MR. DWYER: Right.
MR. EDWARDS: -- but the dollar amounts, what was the return on the $280 million dollars back to the investors?
MR. DWYER: In dollar amounts –
MR. EDWARDS: I thought you had mentioned that so.
MR. DWYER: -- right, it’s about $5 billion dollars. In other words, we –
MR. EDWARDS: So, you took 280 million and turned it into five billion.
MR. DWYER: No, we turned it into ten billion.
MR. BERTONAZZI: Ten billion. -24- February 28, 2006

MR. DWYER: Right.
MR. EDWARDS: So, what am I missing here?
MR. NAPOLITANO: I don’t know.
MR. EDWARDS: I mean I’ve never heard of returns like that.
MR. DWYER: Well, but the – but the return objectives in the Medallion Fund are different than –
MR. EDWARDS: Right. They’re a little bit more aggressive in the Medallion Fund. I understand that.
MR. BERTONAZZI: And they can’t run as much money.
MR. EDWARDS: I understand that. I understand that because of the – of Bear Stearns. I understand. They also that that 200% margin – I mean 200% cap.
MR. DWYER: Yeah, just the – the strategy itself can’t – it can’t take in more money in the Medallion fund.
MR. EDWARDS: I also – but what I – what you see here is, you know, they’ve also – the – what they’ve done is they’ve changed themselves as the – you know, they get better, not worse because they got all these people looking at the numbers, and the models, et cetera.
MR. BERTONAZZI: An interesting way to answer your question, a thousand dollars invested January 1 of 1990 was worth 176,000 at the end of last year –
MR. BERTONAZZI: -- 176 times in fifteen years.
MR. EDWARDS: Hey, Myrth –
MS. YORK: Do you have a thousand dollars?
MR. BERTONAZZI: This fund is brand new. It’s six months old.
MR. NAPOLITANO: That’s the Medallion though. That’s the Medallion.
MS. YORK: Can I ask you a question? Which fund are you looking at? Which series are you looking at? -25- February 28, 2006

MR. BERTONAZZI: We’re going to go in the – I recommend the B series, fifty basis points and ten.
MS. YORK: And that is –
MR. NAPOLITANO: Where’s that?
MR. BERTONAZZI: You know, if the numbers come out, and there have been – David can correct me if I’m wrong – but if the numbers come out around 15% return, it’s not going to matter which fund class you choose because the volume and you’ll end up generating the same fee. But I prefer the fifty and ten because let’s say they had a bad year, well then we’re not going to pay the 10% up side and we’ll only pay fifty basis points. So, as a chicken, and as a sort of a –
MR. NAPOLITANO: I like that.
MR. BERTONAZZI: -- a low vol risk guy, I’ve just chosen to go that way, but to stress, if we come in around 15% return, it will not matter which series we are in –
MR. BERTONAZZI: -- the net return to you will be the same, and that’s the way they – they knew that when they set the –
MR. DWYER: Ninety percent of our clients have come in at the twenty-five and ten fee scheduling.
MR. EDWARDS: Really?
MR. DWYER: Yeah.
MS. YORK: And this is going to be open for enough of a period of time if we started at twenty million and two years down the road –
MR. BERTONAZZI: We could grow or we could add to it.
MS. YORK: Okay.
MR. EDWARDS: So, once we put the initial investment, are we allowed to come back in with added capital? -26- February 28, 2006

MR. DWYER: Yes, you are.
MR. EDWARDS: Is there a draw down on that? Is there a specific penalty to draw down I mean if we wanted to come out with some money?
MR. DWYER: There is not.
MR. EDWARDS: So, what you’re saying –
MR. DWYER: There’s monthly liquidity in this fund and there are no lock ups.
MR. EDWARDS: There’s – say that again.
MR. DWYER: Monthly liquidity in the fund and no lock ups.
MR. EDWARDS: Interesting.
MR. NAPOLITANO: That’s good for us.
MR. PICCIOTTO: Which is very unusual.
MR. BERTONAZZI: Yes, which as you know, compared to the other hedge funds, most – the standard is a one year lock up –
MR. BERTONAZZI: -- and say quarterly withdrawals, or sometimes monthly but in this case no lock up and monthly, again designed to appeal to institutional investors, who are more interested in liquidity. That also works to our benefit as well.
MR. EDWARDS: So, you want to do this B fund.
MR. BERTONAZZI: The B series, yes. That’s what I would recommend.
MR. EDWARDS: Okay. I haven’t really studied the fund. Eric, I’m giving you the – Mr. Chairman, I would say that Eric has to make the decision on which fund to go in. I mean I don’t – unless you want to – you like the B fund.
MR. BERTONAZZI: Yeah, I like the B series. I think it’s – it’s most appealing to me. The other clients that we are – that we have in the fund, and we’ll be adding, I’m recommending those shares to them as well.
MR. EDWARDS: Because you feel it fits better in our allocation. -27- February 28, 2006

MR. BERTONAZZI: I do, yeah, I just like the – I like the fact that we won’t have to pay to carry, and the four year, which is what fifty and ten gives us. So, in four years – if they make zero or one or 2%, we’re only going to pay fifty basis points. If they make a lot, well, we won’t care about being that –
MR. NAPOLITANO: It’s like being – it’s like we create our own hedge with this RIEF Fund, you know, limit our exposure, maximize our return.
MR. BERTONAZZI: Any questions?
MR. DWYER: There’s also a high water mark.
MR. EDWARDS: What’s the high water mark?
MR. BERTONAZZI: I’ll take this one. The high water mark is designed to protect you from paying too many fees, and here’s why. If you put a million dollars in the fund, and let’s say in the first year they lost 10%. That would be extraordinary for these guys, but if that happened, your million dollars would now be worth 900,000.
MR. BERTONAZZI: Now, in the next year, let’s say they made 10%.
MR. BERTONAZZI: Now your – they – if there were no high water mark, meaning their carry, their incentive, their 10% profit fee cannot be charged until your account gets back to the one million. So, only on the money above one million can the carry be charged.
MR. EDWARDS: So, there’s no fee.
MR. EDWARDS: There’s no fee on the second year of 10% increase.
MR. BERTONAZZI: Correct. It would be no carry. There’d be a management fee but no 10%. -28- February 28, 2006

MR. EDWARDS: What’s the management fee?
MR. BERTONAZZI: Fifty basis points.
MR. EDWARDS: Fifty basis points.
MR. BERTONAZZI: Which is quite low for a hedge fund, designed for institutions and large allocations. So, the high water mark protects you from paying unnecessary carried interest, or unnecessary profit incentive.
MR. BERTONAZZI: You’d have to get back to where you were.
MR. DWYER: People like it because our interests are aligned with yours. Unless we’re making you money, we’re not getting really paid any money.
MR. EDWARDS: No, I understand.
MR. DWYER: And we can’t start with some disastrous thing and then sort of make money just getting back to even.
MR. DWYER: We’ve got to get you back to even before we can even start earning our fees again.
MR. EDWARDS: Well, it’s exciting that we have an opportunity I would say, and I think they – I think they picked a good guy to make a presentation.
MR. DWYER: Thank you very much.
MAYOR CICILLINE: Yeah, thank you.
MR. DWYER: Is there any – I mean what would your servicing – I mean I would – you know, we would be willing to present periodically or –
MR. BERTONAZZI: Once a year at most.
MR. DWYER: Once a year would be great.
MR. EDWARDS: You know, I had someone the other day talk to me about putting some money with us. I – I run a technology company right now. And he -29- February 28, 2006

says, you know, I’m just going to give you X. And I said, I’d like to talk to you every month. I said, well, if you’re going to give me X, and talk to me every month if you want to talk to me every month, you’re going to give me five times that X.
MAYOR CICILLINE: Is there any discussion we need to have? Any further – do you have further comment?
MR. BERTONAZZI: Any other questions?
MR. EDWARDS: I have no further questions. I’m very happy that we’re able to find this. Eric has taken a due diligence on that, and, you know, let success beget success. I sort of – what’s been very interesting to me is your organization. And I would – it would be intriguing to come visit you in Stony Brook. We’re putting up a technology up at the school there.
MR. DWYER: You are?
MR. DWYER: Well, the invitation is definitely there.
MAYOR CICILLINE: Yeah, Allan, we’ll go. I’d like to see that.
MR. EDWARDS: You know we’re coming to the City by the way.
MAYOR CICILLINE: Yeah, of course, we can do this citywide. We’ll charter the City plane.
MAYOR CICILLINE: That is assuming the City yacht is not available. Thank you very much.
MR. DWYER: Thank you.
MR. EDWARDS: Nice meeting you.
MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you.
MR. DWYER: Everybody have a good afternoon.
MR. NAPOLITANO: Nice meeting you. -30- February 28, 2006

MR. DWYER: Good bye.
MS. YORK: Can I bother you for a card?
VICE-CHAIRMAN PRIGNANO: She is going to invest. She’s getting a card.
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, I’d say, Myrth –
MS. YORK: I’m going to put it with your preference.
MR. DWYER: Bye-bye everyone.
MR. NAPOLITANO: Take care.
MAYOR CICILLINE: All right, so we need to do an actual motion, I presume.
MS. YORK: Do we?
MR. BERTONAZZI: A motion and a vote.
MAYOR CICILLINE: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion to authorize the investment of $20 million dollars.
CHAIRMAN D'AMICO: Moved. Seconded?
MS. YORK: Second the motion.
MAYOR CICILLINE: Please call the roll.
On motion of Mr. Napolitano, Seconded by Ms. York, it is voted to authorize the investment of $20 million dollars in the Renaissance Institutional Equity Fund (RIEF).
AYES: Mayor Cicilline, Vice-Chairman Prignano, Mr. Napolitano, Mr. Edwards and Ms. York – 5.
NAYES: None.
ABSENT: Councilman Jackson – 1. -31- February 28, 2006

Motion carries.
VICE-CHAIRMAN PRIGNANO: All right, and we’ll leave it up to Eric to –
MR. BERTONAZZI: Yes, I will have the – give these directions to the money managers, with instructions to generate the necessary funds towards the end of March, such that we would be able to make our investment April 1, for the April 1 investment period.
MAYOR CICILLINE: That would be the motion that was just approved. Incorporate all that.
MAYOR CICILLINE: Did we – did you finish the rest of it, Alex?
MR. EDWARDS: Can I be excused?
MAYOR CICILLINE: You may be excused, and thank you for your probing questions, because they were helpful.
MR. EDWARDS: I enjoyed being here.
MR. NAPOLITANO: It’s always a pleasure.
VICE-CHAIRMAN PRIGNANO: We’re going to go back to the fourth Thursday now.
MR. EDWARDS: What’s that?
VICE-CHAIRMAN PRIGNANO: Next month we’ll be back to Thursday.
MR. EDWARDS: That’s fine.
VICE-CHAIRMAN PRIGNANO: Yeah, we pushed it off to this Tuesday –
MR. EDWARDS: No, I know for this particular –
VICE-CHAIRMAN PRIGNANO: -- so we could have a quorum today.
MR. EDWARDS: -- to make a decision, right, right.
MS. HAGEN: It would be March 23rd.
MR. EDWARDS: Thank you, Eric. -32- February 28, 2006

MR. EDWARDS: Thank you, Mr. Napolitano.
MR. NAPOLITANO: My pleasure.
MR. EDWARDS: Thank you, Myrth.
MS. YORK: My pleasure. Have a good month.
MR. EDWARDS: I’ll see you.
MR. BERTONAZZI: Any other questions for me?
MR. NAPOLITANO: He made a flash report.
MR. BERTONAZZI: Would you like me to quickly go over that for you?
MAYOR CICILLINE: No, no, no. I have that. But I didn’t know where I came in and I apologize.
MR. NAPOLITANO: No, that’s okay.
MAYOR CICILLINE: Have you completed the rest of this agenda?
MR. BERTONAZZI: Basically, yes, as far as I understand it, yes.
MAYOR CICILLINE: All right, then I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn.
ADJOURNMENT: On motion of Mr. Napolitano, Seconded by Ms. York, it is voted to adjourn the meeting at 3:21 o’clock P.M.