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.

Rumor corner

LLNS may have excluded the wrong people in last VSSOP? The exclusions were based on outdated job categories and related skills. ULM are now thinking that in the future, job categories and functional areas will have to be re-defined. The next VSSOP/ISP will be based on the new categories and functional areas. The questions I have are: 1) Why didnt they think of that before the transition. It seems like their style is “change things as you go”. Planning is out the window! 2) Who will give input on the new changes? The next RIF apparently is going to be more lucrative than the VSSOP. Depending on the length of employment, a RIFed person, not only gets their 1 week pay per year of service but also from 30 to 120 days notice, essentially 30 to 120 days pay. Please feel free to comment on the rumors or add new ones you actually heard.