What a delight. The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating whether the California Public Employees' Retirement System whether, as the New York Times puts it, "California violated securities laws and failed to provide adequate
disclosure about its giant public pension fund, according to a person
with knowledge of the investigation."
This is particularly sweet because CalPERS, the union-dominated bureaucracy housed in a Taj Mahal facility in downtown Sacramento, is constantly lecturing corporations on ethical governance. CalPERS, despite a string of pay-for-play and disclosure scandals, blathers about truth in accounting and about sustainable investments and the like.
The nation's largest pension fund's lecturing about open government is the equivalent of a drunk lecturing us about sobriety. The agency is credibly accused of hiding actuarial data that would have shown soaring pension obligations in the wake of its 1999 push for legislation expanding the "3 percent at 50" retirement system in California.
I was at a hearing where CalPERS officials clearly opposed a pension-reform measure. They argued that it wasn't necessary. When I wrote that CalPERS testified against it, I got an email from CalPERS insisting that it is neutral.
I'm no fan of the SEC or federal regulators, but in this case, bring them on!
This is particularly sweet because CalPERS, the union-dominated bureaucracy housed in a Taj Mahal facility in downtown Sacramento, is constantly lecturing corporations on ethical governance. CalPERS, despite a string of pay-for-play and disclosure scandals, blathers about truth in accounting and about sustainable investments and the like.
The nation's largest pension fund's lecturing about open government is the equivalent of a drunk lecturing us about sobriety. The agency is credibly accused of hiding actuarial data that would have shown soaring pension obligations in the wake of its 1999 push for legislation expanding the "3 percent at 50" retirement system in California.
I was at a hearing where CalPERS officials clearly opposed a pension-reform measure. They argued that it wasn't necessary. When I wrote that CalPERS testified against it, I got an email from CalPERS insisting that it is neutral.
I'm no fan of the SEC or federal regulators, but in this case, bring them on!
Join the conversation