PERA's mix  of assets needs to change 
                          After attending the Boulder  campus PERA presentation in which proposed legislative  changes were explained, I came away with some disturbing thoughts. By  reducing benefits to accommodate poor market performance, we end up with a  defined contribution plan masquerading as a defined benefit plan. When the  benefit guarantee is removed, the difference between the two vanishes. When the  risk becomes mine, I should be entitled to make my own investment decisions.  Brooding upon my pension conjures uninvited images of Ponzi schemes and  gambling casinos.  
                          I believe the PERA trust fund should invest mostly, if not  exclusively, in bonds, as proposed by G. Bennett Stewart III in his June 2003  Harvard Business Review article, Pension Roulette. Meanwhile,  PERA's latest  reported fixed income and cash/cash-equivalent investments stand at less  than 30 percent. We are all paying the price for such hubris. The Social  Security trust fund invests 100 percent in fixed-income securities; because  PERA is a Social Security substitute, ought we not take counsel? I hope the Colorado legislature  considers this before adopting any changes because it alters the metrics of the  entire program. 
                          Fixing the funding shortfall by simply decreasing benefits  and increasing contributions without also correcting the asset mix might  improve the odds, but it still amounts to a roll of the dice. And, as we see,  the house doesn't pay on bets that it loses. You and I do.  
            Barry Northrop 
Accounting and Business  Support, University of Colorado at Boulder  |