If there was a provincial election held today...

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm not for or against a provincial vs. federal pension fund but you can't look at a tight snapshot like a few months or even a year and pass judgement on an overall investment strategy and effectiveness. To my knowledge we don't know what AIMCO did overall for the same time frame that CPP reports (year end of March 31st) and if I really think about it I don't know that over the next 100 years taking a public pension fund to a provincial level vs. federal is a terribly great idea anyway but come on, does anyone really think that CPP is some industry beacon of perfection when it comes to efficiency, management and long term returns vs. the broad market? No...bloody...way. The fact that in their press release CPP chose to include the new contributions of $5.5B to fatten up the sensationalized headline of "CPP adds $17B to assets" is political spin at best and bordering on intentionally misleading it's customer (the tax payers) at worst.

I don't think CPP will go broke, they'll just raise the mandatory contributions from the taxpayer but to take the position that the CPP is beyond equal is just foolish.

The same PR broke down investment returns vs. new contributions. I don't see how it's misleading.

RE: a beacon of industry perfection, nobody is making that argument. Comparing AIMCO to CPP, one made a financially prudent decision to stick to their mandate of diversification and measured growth, and the other injected partisan ideology into their decision making. And we saw how that turned out.

That's not a reflection of previous performance, and that performance is not the measure. It's the decision-making process that has made them a target.

Nobody is taking the position that CPP is beyond equal. The position is that CPP is preferable to AIMCO.

[killramos]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

AIMCO made a hilariously irresponsible bet, not just a "bad bet". Way overweight in O&G, some of it almost certainly for political reasons, and ignored the trends in the broader market. You don't bring ideology to your investment strategy when you're managing the pension of thousands of people.

But they did, and they lost a big chunk of change because of it. Very stupid. I'm not sure how anyone would find that acceptable in their portfolio manager.

RE: your 100% incorrect thoughts on the long-term viability of CPP, consider that it is audited every 3 years to review and ask that exact question. It needs to see around 5% ROI per year to beat inflation and meet its obligations. It's 10-year historical performance is around 10%, and it is fully funded to meet its obligations for the next 75 years.

The above information, by the way, is very easy to find. You probably should have looked into that shit before posting, no?

edit:

Honestly I don't really want to argue with you on this. You believe what you want and vote for who and what you want, or live and work in whatever province you want. I'm just hangry this morning anyway.

Time for lunch

[Brent.ff]

The question is 'who would you vote for'. I wouldnt vote for the UCP when they come up with stupid ideas like taking the CPP contributions internally, when they (aimco and ucp) have a habit of making poor bets to prop up industry. 'Conservative' my ass

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

edit:

Honestly I don't really want to argue with you on this. You believe what you want and vote for who and what you want, or live and work in whatever province you want. I'm just hangry this morning anyway.

Time for lunch

1) The graph isn't reflective of our conversation, and while I don't doubt that its data has merit, I fail to see its relevance on the conversation.

2) Doesn't say much about your argument if you are incapable or totally unwilling to defend it. I'm not attacking you as a person, dude, I'm calling out that the points/criticisms you raised are not reflective of the reality as it exists today. If there is information that suggests otherwise, I'm open to it.

[dirtsniffer]

For a long time, aimco was fully arms length from the government, as it should be. Any idea when it changed? I'm looking forward to the independent report on that aimco investment. Hopefully it results in some good changes.

[pheoxs]

I never understood why people would want CPP shifted to AIMCO's control. Like, do they think AIMCO will do better investing than CPP? Historically not really. Or is the goal so that the government can pull some of the profits out to bolster their revenue? If so that's such a stupid fucking idea. I also heard that we would reduce people's EI contributions which also just seems like a bad idea because that'll just lead to politicians cutting it as political gain (like GST reducing to 5%) and then put the fund at risk decades down the road when there isn't enough cash to cover reckless spending.

I just don't see any real benefit.

[kenny]

I think in all this discussion with AIMCO vs CPP, there is a mismatch in the performance comparison. Namely the $4B loss by AIMCO vs $12B gain by CPP.

The $4B loss was just in last fiscal quarter right? I think they made $10B last year. CPP losses in last fiscal quarter was $16B. CPP was up $28B last quarterly update and they finished off up $12B for the fiscal year.

Someone can confirm this, I just did a quick search to pull those numbers.

[sabad66]

Interesting article about premier approval ratings during this pandemic:
https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/br...opularity-bump

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think in all this discussion with AIMCO vs CPP, there is a mismatch in the performance comparison. Namely the $4B loss by AIMCO vs $12B gain by CPP.

The $4B loss was just in last fiscal quarter right? I think they made $10B last year. CPP losses in last fiscal quarter was $16B. CPP was up $28B last quarterly update and they finished off up $12B for the fiscal year.

Someone can confirm this, I just did a quick search to pull those numbers.

We will find out for sure when AIMCo releases their annual report in June.

EDIT: https://pensionpulse.blogspot.com/20...ty-blowup.html

Woah. That is an interesting analysis by a legit expert.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Some fiscal geniuses here thinking that paying people to do a job the federal government is already paying people to do will be more efficient and result in less overhead for taxpayers.

'If we had our own Department of Redundancy Department we could save on redundancies!'


EDIT: Because people love numbers, even if Alberta's revenue department was less than half the cost of Quebec's proportional to population, we'd be looking at adding ~2,500 provincial government employees and over $250M to the provincial budget, without adding any actual revenue to pay for it. Add to that because the system would be so efficient, the corresponding operational savings in the federal system from having to deal with a province less of people (assuming there were any, but that's an interesting level of optimism from people so adamant about the inefficiency of the system) wouldn't cover it, so Albertans will be paying for two sets of civil servants providing the same service (three if you want to throw in the equalization payments).

Sheer lunacy.

And some people here seem to think that we get a fair return back when Alberta splits its investment with the rest of Canada. Sheer Lunacy.

Your numbers are out of context. The fund pays to operate itself through taking a percentage of the return. Ironically you just made a case for Alberta to manage this as it doesn't really have a government expenditure, but creates 2500 jobs by your estimation.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

RE: your 100% incorrect thoughts on the long-term viability of CPP, consider that it is audited every 3 years to review and ask that exact question. It needs to see around 5% ROI per year to beat inflation and meet its obligations. It's 10-year historical performance is around 10%, and it is fully funded to meet its obligations for the next 75 years.

This is a blind guess at best. And this guesstimation is brought to you by the same people that get literally everything they estimate wrong. Nobody has a crystal ball to know how much life expectancy will increase in the next 75 years, or how much extra immigration we will continue to take in that does not contribute fair share to the fund but withdraws from it. But based on past trends of immigration and life expectancy both on an upward trend, it really isn't a far off crazy idea to assume the efficiency of this fund will decrease in the future. The problem is that the government will always estimate it to be sustainable, because if it starts to become unsustainable(just like government spending) they will just increase the contribution requirements. And being that premiums have gone up in the past, that is another factor indicating the fund has become less sustainable already in the past.

Either way, it's a horrible investment when you do the math on what you contribute and what you get back. This would be far better off being a mandated personal investment requirement for individuals, than as one giant socialist slush fund. But that's another topic.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Also, your "smaller, less corrupt" government totally fucked up this past quarter. I fail to see how that's a superior option.

Well your "devil we know" argument isn't exactly a great one either. lol But something to ponder though. What do you think is easier to hide more bureaucracy and corruption in? A 356 billion dollar one or a 36 billion dollar one?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But hey, ideology over ROI. I hope you didn't actually have all your investments in O&G because of it, because the past few years have not been kind to you and the future is looking pretty uncertain as well.

Let's face it, anyone who is planning to actually rely on the tiny bit of money they will receive from CPP when they retire, should just jump off a bridge now and save themselves the future pain and burden of being retired in Canada. Fortunately for me, if CPP still exists it'll be just an extra bit of fun money. If my ideology played any part of this there would be no such thing as CPP.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This would be far better off being a mandated personal investment requirement for individuals, than as one giant socialist slush fund. But that's another topic.

...


If my ideology played any part of this there would be no such thing as CPP.

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is a blind guess at best. And this guesstimation is brought to you by the same people that get literally everything they estimate wrong. Nobody has a crystal ball to know how much life expectancy will increase in the next 75 years, or how much extra immigration we will continue to take in that does not contribute fair share to the fund but withdraws from it. But based on past trends of immigration and life expectancy both on an upward trend, it really isn't a far off crazy idea to assume the efficiency of this fund will decrease in the future. The problem is that the government will always estimate it to be sustainable, because if it starts to become unsustainable(just like government spending) they will just increase the contribution requirements. And being that premiums have gone up in the past, that is another factor indicating the fund has become less sustainable already in the past.

It's a blind guess based on data. So I guess it's a data-blind guess? Who knows.

And what's interesting is that as immigrants come to Canada and enter the workforce, they contribute to CPP. Damn - how does that work?

Most of the rest of the words you included in the paragraph is just speculation and ideological bullshit, so let's move on.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Either way, it's a horrible investment when you do the math on what you contribute and what you get back. This would be far better off being a mandated personal investment requirement for individuals, than as one giant socialist slush fund. But that's another topic.

Can't say I disagree here, per my comments earlier about moving to a private model vs. public.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Well your "devil we know" argument isn't exactly a great one either. lol But something to ponder though. What do you think is easier to hide more bureaucracy and corruption in? A 356 billion dollar one or a 36 billion dollar one?

I didn't make a "devil I know" argument. I said that it makes no sense to switch one public org for another one, especially considering the other one seems to enjoy taking in inordinate risk/strategies when they ought not to.

RE: your question - it's kind of a non question. The size of the fund doesn't materially change whether or not someone is capable of being corrupt in its management. There isn't much of an appreciable increase in opportunity when your counting numbers that start with a B.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Let's face it, anyone who is planning to actually rely on the tiny bit of money they will receive from CPP when they retire, should just jump off a bridge now and save themselves the future pain and burden of being retired in Canada.

Sometimes I think to myself that you aren't a giant troll, but then you post shit like this and I'm reminded of the calibre of person I'm engaging with. lol

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And what's interesting is that as immigrants come to Canada and enter the workforce, they contribute to CPP. Damn - how does that work?

You know exactly how it works, but in your usual troll prick ways you're trying to stir me up. Ironic that you accuse me of trolling when you continually post obtuse BS that is nothing more than your own ideological nonsense disguised as conjecture. So how does it work? Well the way it works is the majority pay for the few. And the few are continually growing. An immigrant pays in for minimal years compared to a Canadian born citizen that pays in their entire life, but both have equal withdrawl potential from the fund in retirement. I get it that you're a bleeding heart liberal Helen, but this is basic math. The only way that is sustainable is for everyone to continually pay more into what is already a poor investment. Or to limit/reduce the withdrawl potential of people that don't fully contribute.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I didn't make a "devil I know" argument. I said that it makes no sense to switch one public org for another one, especially considering the other one seems to enjoy taking in inordinate risk/strategies when they ought not to.

And I also said that whether AIMCO was the right manager for this is another story. Which boils your argument down to devil we know. But you want to leave it with the feds because they're not losing money yet, fair enough.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

RE: your question - it's kind of a non question. The size of the fund doesn't materially change whether or not someone is capable of being corrupt in its management. There isn't much of an appreciable increase in opportunity when your counting numbers that start with a B.

Maybe you don't understand what bureaucracy is? Which would be not surprising based on most conversations I've had with you.

Anyway, I don't even have a horse in this race. Like I said, if I have to rely on 700$ from the government every month in retirement just to survive, then I'm in a whole heap of trouble no matter who is managing the fund. But apparently logic=trolling in your books. So I'll just troll myself out of this conversation that you've devolved into a petty argument.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

An immigrant pays in for minimal years compared to a Canadian born citizen that pays in their entire life, but both have equal withdrawl potential from the fund in retirement. I get it that you're a bleeding heart liberal Helen, but this is basic math. The only way that is sustainable is for everyone to continually pay more into what is already a poor investment. Or to limit/reduce the withdrawl potential of people that don't fully contribute.

----

Anyway, I don't even have a horse in this race. Like I said, if I have to rely on 700$ from the government every month in retirement just to survive, then I'm in a whole heap of trouble no matter who is managing the fund. But apparently logic=trolling in your books. So I'll just troll myself out of this conversation that you've devolved into a petty argument.

They do limit/reduce the withdrawal potential of people that don't fully contribute. There's also penalties for drawing before 65, and bonuses for drawing after 65.

If you're relying on $700 from the government after working your whole life, an immigrant would have to make more than you during their working years to bring home the same. In effect, if they caught up, it's because they made more and therefore contributed more to get there. It also means you spent your life earning about $34K/year.

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So I'll just troll myself out of this conversation that you've devolved into a petty argument.

Thank fuck. Maybe extend this to other sections of the forum lol.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They do limit/reduce the withdrawal potential of people that don't fully contribute. There's also penalties for drawing before 65, and bonuses for drawing after 65.

Now now, let's not bring facts into this.

[zechs]

QUOTE=A790;4876406]. The position is that CPP is preferable to AIMCO.[/QUOTE]

As most people who tend to see things from a certain viewpoint, you seem to not recognize that the money that funds these accounts comes from people.

And the math is pretty clear, Albertans pay an extraordinary sum per year into a system that they don't get back (CPP). Even with the supposedly poor management at AimCo (which you have no proof of, as different strategies in investments react differently at different times in the market), Alberta would still be ahead from lower overall fund costs to Albertans, to being able to setup a more sustainable system. Less old people = lower costs, but math is hard I suppose.

You don't like it because it would lessen Canada's grip and control over Alberta.

Should AimCo be beyond gov interference? Yes. Should an APP be so? Yes.

Is CPP beyond gov interference? No. Did they make a bet that currently panned out for themselves? Yes. As someone who claims to care about the data, have you recognized there is insufficient data/time to compare AimCo to CPP? No, you sure haven't.

Like with global warming boosters, its handy to look at a small timeline and make a comparison that is wholly invalid. Come back in ten years when AimCo has been running a universal public pension for that long.

Why do this? Because considering the goals of what are essentially company pension plans (what AimCo manages), are different than those of countrywide plans, from timelines, to risk, to growth.

Its not even an apples to apples comparison, beyond them having the word "pension" in the name. And the fact remains, the losses occured when the market dropped a staggering 30%. Seems they did their job by not losing that much.

[SKR]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As most people who tend to see things from a certain viewpoint, you seem to not recognize that the money that funds these accounts comes from people.

And the math is pretty clear, Albertans pay an extraordinary sum per year into a system that they don't get back (CPP). Even with the supposedly poor management at AimCo (which you have no proof of, as different strategies in investments react differently at different times in the market), Alberta would still be ahead from lower overall fund costs to Albertans, to being able to setup a more sustainable system. Less old people = lower costs, but math is hard I suppose.

You don't like it because it would lessen Canada's grip and control over Alberta.

Should AimCo be beyond gov interference? Yes. Should an APP be so? Yes.

Is CPP beyond gov interference? No. Did they make a bet that currently panned out for themselves? Yes. As someone who claims to care about the data, have you recognized there is insufficient data/time to compare AimCo to CPP? No, you sure haven't.

Like with global warming boosters, its handy to look at a small timeline and make a comparison that is wholly invalid. Come back in ten years when AimCo has been running a universal public pension for that long.

Why do this? Because considering the goals of what are essentially company pension plans (what AimCo manages), are different than those of countrywide plans, from timelines, to risk, to growth.

Its not even an apples to apples comparison, beyond them having the word "pension" in the name. And the fact remains, the losses occured when the market dropped a staggering 30%. Seems they did their job by not losing that much.

I like posts like this where people use true facts with no bias.

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As most people who tend to see things from a certain viewpoint, you seem to not recognize that the money that funds these accounts comes from people.

Pretty stupid thing to say mate. Where else would the money come from?

What was your point with this as your opening line? Did you think you had something profound here, or do you assume that we all exist at a 5th grade level?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And the math is pretty clear, Albertans pay an extraordinary sum per year into a system that they don't get back (CPP). Even with the supposedly poor management at AimCo (which you have no proof of, as different strategies in investments react differently at different times in the market), Alberta would still be ahead from lower overall fund costs to Albertans, to being able to setup a more sustainable system. Less old people = lower costs, but math is hard I suppose.

You're making a ton of assumptions of which you have no proof. Pot, meet kettle.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You don't like it because it would lessen Canada's grip and control over Alberta.

Yet another stupid thing to say.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Should AimCo be beyond gov interference? Yes. Should an APP be so? Yes.

Is CPP beyond gov interference? No. Did they make a bet that currently panned out for themselves? Yes. As someone who claims to care about the data, have you recognized there is insufficient data/time to compare AimCo to CPP? No, you sure haven't.

Like with global warming boosters, its handy to look at a small timeline and make a comparison that is wholly invalid. Come back in ten years when AimCo has been running a universal public pension for that long.

Why do this? Because considering the goals of what are essentially company pension plans (what AimCo manages), are different than those of countrywide plans, from timelines, to risk, to growth.

Also a stupid thing to say. Both funds/organizations have been around long enough and have funds of appreciable sizes that they can be compared.

More to the point, the goals of pension programs are not that different than that of CPP. They both serve to provide a diversified and professionally managed portfolio. I reject your moving of goalposts and your make-believe assertion that AIMCo and CPP have wildly different goals.

Read the investment prospectus for each and then rethink your point of view.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's not even an apples to apples comparison, beyond them having the word "pension" in the name. And the fact remains, the losses occurred when the market dropped a staggering 30%. Seems they did their job by not losing that much.

I guess you missed the part where the losses occurred because of risky and "amateurish" investment strategies (to quote experts that are linked earlier in this thread) and by being overweight in their sector allocations. They did not play their hand very well.

If you're going to come into a conversation and attempt to cut down someone's arguments, do so from a position of strength. Post some data, some expertise, something that validates anything that you said. Rolling in here and posting conjecture and opinion, while deriding others who you feel do the same, is pretty funny. Be as snarky as you want, but at least have something relevant to say.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I like posts like this where people use true facts with no bias.

You're either being sarcastic or are drinking the same hogwash Zechs is.

[ExtraSlow]

I think it's been made pretty clear that AIMCO has made some investments for political reasons, and I think I am not alone in saying that this is a very bad idea for a pension fund. Probably not completely fair to compare AIMCO and CPP over one short time period and claim that 100% of the difference is due to ineptitude or interference, there will always be some delta even with funds that have similar goals.

MER is probably too high on both, just like inefficiencies in all government enterprises. I would like to see some kind of executive compensation structure that rewards lower expenses, but that's nitpicking.