No NJ Pension Divestment

S1914 would prohibit pension investments in entities engaged in mortgage foreclosures of homes in Puerto Rico damaged by Hurricane Maria. S1208 would prohibit investments in entities that fail to follow environmental cleanup rules in Superfund sites across the state. Though Candidate Phil Murphy supported these types of activist measures, Governor Murphy yesterday vetoed two of them. Here’s why.

[M]oratoriums on mortgage and reverse mortgage foreclosures [in Puerto Rico] expired in March and The New York Times reported last week foreclosures there have picked back up. Nearly 300 new foreclosure actions were filed across the island over the last four months, according to the report. Among the holding companies included is TPG Capital, in which New Jersey invests its pension funds.

According to the May 31, 2018 listing of assets from the NJ Division of Investment the fund probably* has a lot of money tied up in companies calling themselves TPG:


Whether it is the Current Market Value ($820,892,252) or Total Value ($1,703,484,441) pulling out of the TPGs could decimate the value (if any) of these investments, not to mention any others that make their money in ways that the Sierra Club would not approve of.




* Can’t tell from these investment reports which number is being used. If anyone out there has any insight into how New Jersey is valuing these alternative investments I would appreciate any input.


13 responses to this post.

  1. Those unfunded pension liabilities are SUPPOSED to continually increase due to the cause of those unfunded liabilities, DEFINED BENEFITS. We’re constantly trying to put band aids over the wound, but the only way to heal the wound is to change Defined Benefits to DEFINED CONTRIBUTIONS, like the rest of the business world.

    The international business community is intelligent enough to know that DEFINED BENEFITS, neither capped nor precisely quantifiable in advance, are financial disasters to any business, thus all businesses focus on the known, i.e., DEFINED CONTRIBUTIONS alone.

    Since the public pension system is severely underfunded, city governments need to fund the retirements of former employees by taking money from government services as the increasing pension costs will likely continue to crowd out resources that otherwise would go to public assistance, recreation, libraries, health, public works, and public safety.

    The young generations who are unable to vote today, will bear the costs of many enacted “Defined retirement benefit” pension programs requiring the younger generations to pay higher taxes and work later into their lives to pay for those promises, to subsidize older Americans.


  2. Posted by Stanley on July 24, 2018 at 5:47 pm

    “The young generations who are unable to vote today, will bear the costs…”

    I don’t believe that that is very realistic, and I’m hoping that it isn’t. Of course, I should pay my bills, but to pay someone else’s–now hold on a minute. A young policeman earns $45K and he’s supposed to pay senor’s one hundred grand plus pension per year. I don’t think so.


    • Posted by Tough Love on July 24, 2018 at 7:11 pm

      Quoting ……………

      “I don’t believe that that is very realistic, and I’m hoping that it isn’t.”

      Well, either those younger generations WILL be paying , OR the those ludicrously excessive Public Sector pension promises won’t be honored.

      While I agree (and support) a reduction in those “promises” by 50% for non-Safety and almost 75% for Safety workers (due to their even MORE ludicrously excessive pensions), it going to be one heck of a bruising battle to not pay them.

      P.S ………. It’s NOT the YOUNG Police Office who is on the hook for the OLDER Police Officer’s pension. It’s the Taxpayers linked to the agency that employ’s him (the State, a County, a Town).


      • Posted by El gaupo on July 24, 2018 at 9:50 pm

        Stanley and TL,
        Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
        But TL he is right in some ways. We now pay 10% into our pensions. Older folks and me for the first 15 years of my career paid 8.5%. Really old timers paid 4%. Younger officers(tier 3 guys) pay more to get less. Some of their contributions and benifit cuts will be used to pay my pension.
        My father got SS at 65. Folks my age get it at 67. So in some ways he is correct.
        Also, once I leave my agency aside from medical(yeah, I know….we screwed the young guys….your right but town insisted) they no longer directly pay for my pension. What happens is the state sets a percentage that the town pays of the overall police salaries. I think this year is around 20% maybe a little more. So I town paying a mil in wages will be paying $200K into the fund.


      • Posted by Stanley on July 24, 2018 at 10:30 pm

        I shouldn’t have written “young policeman”. I should have written young worker. Young worker who very likely doesn’t have the pay and benefits that retirees enjoyed while they work working.

        Presently, it is difficult to envision any serious changes to the status quo, but given a severe downturn in the economy with seriously falling financial and real estate values it is very hard not seeing adjustments here and there. Modern liberalism has promised far more than producers can deliver, and its hard not to see major disappointment coming our way.


        • Posted by Tough Love on July 25, 2018 at 7:42 am

          The “math” ALWAYS governs in the end-game.


        • Posted by El gaupo on July 25, 2018 at 8:15 am

          Perhaps. But I still say he country was in much better shape 2 generations ago. When rich folk were taxed MUCH more and most families could comfortably get by on one salary. High taxes on the rich….and I wouldn’t exactly call it a liberal society back in those days.


          • Posted by PS Drone on July 25, 2018 at 8:21 am

            El Gaupo – very few taxpayers ever paid those ridiculous marginal 70, 80, 90% tax rates so you can stop pining for the good old (tax) days to pay for your obscenely high pension. BTW, what were LEO’s making back in the Eisenhower era? Probably a salary and a pension that could be afforded by the taxpayers without too much difficulty.

          • Posted by El gaupo on July 25, 2018 at 3:05 pm

            Majority of folks would like to see those tax rates again.
            Not sure what they were paid in the Eisenhower era but certainly not enough in the 60s and 70s and early 80s. God Bless the PBA and God Bless America.
            There is not even a wisp of talk about cutting benifits in PFRS. Been there done that. Bye bye lard ass, I wouldn’t line my bird cage with your new book. But he’s friends with the King of Jordan and jerry Jones!!! What an awesome president he would’ve been!!!! He didn’t know nuthin about bridgegate. The $7 million maestro report that we paid for said so!!!!! South jersey Dems just as bad. Norcross etc. all crooks. So don’t knock me. I’ve never done any of that shit. I’m just a regular working man trying to make a living.
            Virtually every politician is in it for themselves. The ones that aren’t don’t go very far. When you look at the grand scheme of things, PS drone, Stanley TL etc, I am not your problem. It is what it is. And I do not apologize for one red cent or benifit that I receive. You don’t, why should I. You folks have all been saying for years that Pfrs will go belly up. Won’t happen. Save your envy and jealousy for the folks who really fuck this country up. Crooked politicians. Run for office and replace them!!!! Then use your vote to begin the litigious process of cutting my “bloated” pension. See how that works out for ya.

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on July 25, 2018 at 7:48 pm

            “BTW, what were LEO’s making back in the Eisenhower era?”

            Good question. When Reagan was president, I was working an accident scene with a couple of Redwood City cops. They were joking about me making the big money. There was no internet then, but I happened to be working on an econ paper that required the city budget, so I looked up their salaries. Their wages were same as my supervisor (maintenance), which I thought was surprisingly low.

            I know a lot of LEO (including CHP) and firefighters got significant salary increases in the few years following 9/11. Question… Are they overpaid now, or were they underpaid before?

            All safety employees are not the same. Those in the coastal cities can probably make twice as much as some cities inland.

          • Posted by El gaupo on July 25, 2018 at 8:41 pm

            It is similiar in NJ. The northern part of the state in some cases doubles the salaries in the south. As a fellow crash investigator, speed = the square root of (30)df. P/RT is 1.5 seconds. Lol. We have been solving quite a few more motorcycle crashes these days cause lots of these folks have a go pro attached to their helmets.
            Sure makes it easy. The equipment we use today is so much better than the techniques I learned 20 years ago. Which must’ve seemed like cutting edge when u started.

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on July 25, 2018 at 10:14 pm

            I was thinking more of Homeland Security and other anti terror programs. Federal grants for personnel, equipment, and training.


            Not to mention that “hero” thing.

  3. Posted by boscoe on July 26, 2018 at 9:39 am

    I guess it would be impolite (and maybe impolitic) to point out that not one comment in this rant-fest has anything to do with the topic raised by Mr. Bury’s post. Not that there’s anything wrong with that….


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: