Skip to main content

UC borrows $2.7 billion to Fund Pension Debt

UC borrows $2.7 billion to Fund Pension Debt

UC regents last week approved borrowing another $700 million internally to help close a pension funding gap, bringing the total borrowed to $2.7 billion in a pension bond-like strategy with risks or rewards, depending on investment earnings.

Comments

Anonymous said…
what interest rate will they be paying the savings plan investors?
Anonymous said…
For those who are interested, the details are here: http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/jul14/f2.pdf

This seems to be UC borrowing from it's own short-term investment fund (which supports university operations). The purpose of the borrowing is for UC to make its actuarial-required contribution to UCRP without further increasing members' contribution rate. This is to continue to move the UCRP towards "full funding".

It appears that the borrowing will be repaid over 30 years by UC by very small changes in overheads collected from campuses and med centers. The interest rate must be pretty small, but I did not see that it was specified.

UCRP did not borrow this money, and does not have to repay it.

This is UC doing what it can to keep up with its commitments.
Anonymous said…
So they borrow from savings in a mutual fund that they control. What was previously invested I shorter term treasury like Instruments is now lent to the Regents of UC. The risk profile has changed from government backed to God knows what. What is the risk premium they will pay, since cannot be a a market rate. In most investments the bond holder councils and conventions contract expected behavior
on the borrower. Since the treasuret controls both funds, how is the interest of the Savings plan contributors protected? The is a conflict of interest here.
Anonymous said…
Apologize to readers. The interface between a limited text editor and a cavalier spell checker often massacres the intent of the posting.
Anonymous said…
LLNS and UCRS both need employee and retiree representation on the investment committees
Anonymous said…
While I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with July 29, 2014 at 3:06 PM, this particular event really has nothing to do with UCRS. It's a UC event.

July 29, 2014 at 3:00 PM: I don't think that the "Savings plan" (i.e. the UCRS savings plan fund) is involved in this. I think UC simply took money from a short-term UC money-market account (where UC keeps its pocket change)and paid the UCRS. I don't really understand why it is characterized as a "loan" at all. But that's probably why I'm not rich......
Anonymous said…
This is a point worth investigating further.

I believe the current UC Treasurer still keeps a short term investment pool called the Savings Plan for University purposes. The current assets of participating LLNL, LBL, University and LANL 403b, 457 and 401b account holders who are invested in the "Saving Plan" are commingled with other assets. UCRS funds are also commingled in this, which is a separate pot from Univesity assets, such as endowments.

But I am not sure of this.

If I recall correctly, historicaly, UC and the individual campuses could invest funds in various pools according to their objectives, the Equity Plan, Savings fund and Bond fund were three important pools managed by the UC Treasurer, at the time, Patricia Small. UCRS also invested some of its assets in these three pools, and branched out over time.

But I still think the University and UCRS and employee tax-deferred funds (that remain in these plans) are commingled.
Anonymous said…
UC Savings Plan is entirely different from UCRP Savings Fund. Employees and retirees of UC have no connection to the UC Savings Plan.

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

LLNL un-diversity

Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!