John Curry: Please contact your state rep now to join sponsors and cosponsors of HB 177

[Contact info at top of blog]
From John Curry, June 13, 2009
Note from John.....please write (or call) your state representative and ask him/her to join on with the sponsors and cosponsors of HB 177. Here is the growing list of cosponsors and the bill:

As Introduced

128th General Assembly Regular Session 2009-2010

H. B. No. 177

Representatives Huffman, Bubp

Cosponsors: Representatives Morgan, Sears, Maag, Chandler, Burke, Blair, Grossman, Boose

A BILL

To enact section 3307.045 of the Revised Code to provide that investment personnel of the State Teachers Retirement System may not receive performance-based bonuses or premiums in years of negative investment returns and to declare an emergency.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO:

Section 1. That section 3307.045 of the Revised Code be enacted to read as follows:

Sec. 3307.045. (A) As used in this section, "investment officer" means a person employed by the state teachers retirement board for purposes of engaging in securities transactions or making any other investment of funds on behalf of the state teachers retirement system.

(B) For each fiscal year in which the state teachers retirement system experiences an absolute overall negative return from the investment of the system's funds, an investment officer is entitled only to consideration for services the officer renders in that capacity, and is not entitled to a performance-based bonus or premium in addition to or as part of the consideration. Any term or condition of a contract or other form of employment agreement between the state teachers retirement board and an investment officer that provides a performance-based bonus or premium is void.

Section 2. Section 3307.045 of the Revised Code, as enacted by this act, applies only to contracts and other forms of employment agreements that are entered into, amended, or renewed on or after the effective date of this act.

Section 3. This act is hereby declared to be an emergency measure necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety. The reason for such necessity is that the improper use of State Teachers Retirement System funds conflicts with the fiduciary duty of the State Teachers Retirement Board. Therefore, this act shall go into immediate effect.

Dennis Leone and Rich DeColibus: responses to Tom Curtis' Commentary

From Dennis Leone, June 13, 2009
Subject: Commentary, Just An Idea For Stakeholders To Review
See Tom Curtis: "Commentary, Just An Idea For Stakeholders To Review," (6/12/09) immediately below this post
The key is who such a consultant might be. I have seen "staffing analyses" at STRS that merely supported what the staff wanted to hear. I have said frequently in recent public RTA meetings that irrespective of what STRS thinks that staff size should be to provide the best customer service, it is simply not logical to think that staff cuts cannot occur for any organization that has lost 30% - 40% of everything it has in less than 2 years. I often point out that ODE conducts staffing analyses of school districts that having financial trouble.
The bottom line, however, is the districts' taxpayers (by voting no) are telling the districts that it doesn't matter if ODE says the districts are not overstaffed. When the voters say there will not be additional money (or when there is less money) districts have to demonstrate staff cuts in order to survive. This not the thinking at STRS however. There is a significant conflict between the board majority and me on this topic, as well as between the staff and me.
I feel like history is repeating itself at STRS. The staff and board majority think they possess some special intuition and can tell the membership what is in their best interests....as well as what meaning should apply to 3307.15.
Dennis Leone

From Rich DeColibus, June 13, 2009
Subject: Fwd: 061209 Commentary, Just An Idea For Stakeholders To Review
Not only is this a good idea, it ought to be a bipartisan panel, House and Senate members, Dems and Repubs evenly split. Clearly STRS isn't going to heal itself.
Rich DeColibus

Tom Curtis: Commentary, Just An Idea For Stakeholders To Review

From Tom Curtis, June 12, 2009
Commentary

I believe it is time for a consulting team (one not chosen by the administration, or one they have already employed) to evaluate the STRS operation and recommend various cost cutting scenarios.

In my opinion, the STRS management and staff are far too expensive. We are not getting value for our dollar spent, regardless of what management tells us.

For the past 2 decades, history clearly shows that the greedy management staff has easily handled our union-dominated boards. Proof of this is in the misdemeanor convictions of every board member in 2004-2005; at least all of those not protected by government at that time.

Now, here is the problem. Would this board ever provide a 2nd for such a motion? They probably would not; because few on our current board would even understand the reason for such a responsible and much needed action. Further, could they even chose a consulting team that would be objective to the concerns of the stakeholders?

All STRS stakeholders are in a real quagmire here. We have, and have had a board filled with mostly well meaning unqualified individuals that simply do not have the expertise to make proper decisions concerning the operation of the STRS. Because they are unqualified, the only option they have is to simply vote YES to everything the administration and their consulting partners bring before them.

The STRS cannot remain solvent for future retirees, if business as usual is to continue.

Tom Curtis
STRS Stakeholder

Thank you letters from Chuck and Len Wood

From Chuck and Len Wood, June 12, 2009

To Dennis Leone:

DEAR DENNIS

CHUCK AND I CAN NEVER THANK YOU ENOUGH FOR WHAT YOU DID FOR US THROUGH YOUR EFFORTS ON THE STRS BOARD AND BEFORE. IF YOU DECIDE TO RUN FOR GOV. OR ANY OTHER POSITION, WE WILL WORK AS HARD FOR YOU AS YOU DID FOR US.

CHUCK AND LEN WOOD

To Paul Kostyu:

DEAR PAUL

CHUCK AND I WILL BE FOREVER GRATEFUL FOR YOUR EFFORT IN EXPOSING STRS SPENDING AND MISMANAGEMENT OF OUR PENSION MONIES. GOOD LUCK IN YOUR NEW POSITION.

CHUCK AND LEN WOOD

RH Jones: Don't mess with our COLA

From RH Jones, June 12, 2009
Subject: Fw: 061209 Commentary, Just An Idea For Stakeholders To Review

To all:

And, I might add to the message below: Don't mess with our COLA. It is not sweet enough now.

My opinion,
RHJones, a stakeholder, as well.

Ralph Roshong: Perspectives on Possible Pension Fund Chanages

June 3, 2009

TO: STRS Board Members and Officers

FR: Ralph Roshong, 1991 STRS Retiree

XC: State Legislators

RE: Perspectives on Possible Pension Fund changes

The State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (STRS) staff at the previous two or three monthly board meetings, have provided board members and visitors some extremely dire financial projections for our pension fund. Basically and simply, our fund, if drastic changes are not made immediately, will go broke. In fiscal 07-08, the fund paid out benefits of $5B and contributions of $2.8 B. So far the fiscal year 08-09(10 months, benefits paid was about $4.4B and total contributions about $2.3 B. The difference is usually made up from investments, but we all know where investments have been the last 18 months. Obviously, this situation cannot be maintained for very long. The STRS staff provided the two Sample Scenarios below at the last two monthly meetings suggesting the effects of potential changes to our retiree benefits and formulas for retiring. Their objective is to get our pension fund to a funding period of 30 years, which is the common standard for public pension funds. The funding period of a pension fund is the period of time to pay off the unfunded accrued actuarial liability, and the shorter the period, the better the financial condition of the fund. STRS Sample Scenario (April) can do that, but Sample Scenario(May) cannot accomplish the 30 year funding period.

STRS Sample Scenario (April)

Benefit Change Proposal

Presented 4-24-2009

1. Additional 4% contribution rate phased in asap.

2. Minimum age 60 with 30 years of service implemented asap.

3. Five-year final average salary implemented asap.

4. Flat 2.2% formula for all years of service implemented asap.

5. 2 % Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) deferred to age 65 implemented asap

The above potentials and projections would allow the Pension Fund to reach a funding period of 30 years.

STRS Sample Scenario (May)

Benefit Change Proposal

Presented 5-14-2009

1. Additional 2% contribution rate phased in over four years beginning July 1, 2012

2. Minimum age 60 with 30 years of service beginning July 1, 2015.

3. Five-year final average salary, FAS, beginning July 1, 2015.

4. 2.2 % formula for first 30 years/2.5% formula for 31^st year and after effective July 1,2015.

5. Retirees as of July 1, 2011; 3% COLA through July 1 2015; 1.5% COLA after July 1, 2015. Retirees after July 1, 2011; 1.5% COLA

The above Scenario (May) potentials and projections would allow the Pension Fund to have a funding period of 51.6 years. This is far from the goal of 30 years.

MY THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS TO THE BOARD

My opinion is our STRS pension fund must make immediate recommendations to the legislature that are more in line with Scenario (April). We do not have the luxury of time, phasing, delaying, arguing, or dilly-dallying one iota. Our dramatic funding shortfalls, as succinctly presented and explained by the STRS staff, must be corrected IMMEDIATELY. Whatever recommendation is sent to the Legislature, the Legislature will then take a period of time to act upon them. Implementation, if the recommendations are handled by the Legislature expeditiously, could hopefully be in time for a July 1, 2010 effective date. The more thought out and appropriate the changes presented to the Legislature are, the more expeditiously the state body will be able to address them and pass the measure.

THE CHANGES I SUGGEST FOR THE PENSION FUND ARE:

1. There needs to be additional funds brought into the pension and healthcare funds. My suggestion is to increase the employee contribution from 10% to 13%. I feel the 4% increase, used in the April Scenario, is a little too severe and the 2%, used in the May Scenario, is not effective enough for both funds. One percent should go to the healthcare fund and 2% into the pension fund. This should be done ½% each year for six years with the first two year’s increases going to the healthcare fund.

2. Minimum retirement age of 60 must be implemented effective July 1, 2010.

3. Five year FAS, final average salary, effective July l, 2010.

4. Flat 2.2%/year formula for retirement for each year of service. One exception, any employee who is currently in the 31-35 year range, can get the percentage/year suggested by Board Member Brooks at last month’s board meeting. I believe that was 4.5% for any of the years the employee has currently worked. Thereafter, each year is 2.2%.

5. Retirees must share in the contractions also, and the COLA must be reduced to 2%. COLA is the most costly factor in the pension fund’s cost determiners.

6. If, and when, the pension fund returns to a healthy level, the 13^th check must be reintroduced to retirees. Positive investment returns must not be used for permanent formula increases.

MY HEALTHCARE FUND CHANGE SUGGESTIONS:

1. I feel that any of our present retirees who are receiving a benefit that is below the government’s Self Sufficiency Level (currently at about $20,000) should be held harmless from any healthcare increases. It is my understanding that about 700+ retirees are in this circumstance.

2. As mentioned above, I would suggest that an additional 1% contribution increase to the healthcare fund by contributing educators with ½% being added each of two years. It is absolutely necessary to have a pool of able bodied participants providing a flow of funds into the healthcare fund. The fund cannot be sustained by just the older pool of retirees who are accessing the funds at a higher and higher rate.

3. I agree with the other changes being proposed by the STRS Healthcare Staff to attempt to contain costs to the fund.

The above changes will present a most difficult challenge as the costs of medical care are increasing drastically to a segment of the population that most takes advantage of these services. If there are any wellness services that can be required to aid in cost savings, they should be required of members to take advantage of them.

I feel there should be a third level of health coverage created, of which, participants can have an opportunity to access, if their situation might warrant it. The three programs would have varying levels of deductibles and rates.

STRS staff medical plans should be altered in similar manner as those of the STRS retirees. It hardly appears appropriate that the parties handling our rate increases and service reductions should not participate in the same process. After all, we are in somewhat the same boat.

Our STRS investment department must receive a total top to bottom and left to right in-depth evaluation. I am not sure who is overseeing the whole program. It is my opinion, in light of the severe losses we have sustained in the previous 18 months, that something is not right in this area. With 95-100 staff, it is boggling to our retiree membership how some foresight was not available to make drastic changes along the way to soften these severe financial losses. I do not know why our outside investment advisors or consultants have not offered some evaluation as to why these results should be considered just the way the market goes.

If we do not get these immediate changes right and to the Legislature as soon as possible, the Legislature will act on their own to bring our fund into alignment with obligations; and we may not like the way they would do it. Remember, they already have a bill introduced to take action on investment bonuses because we did not get it right ourselves.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read my thoughts and the very best of our thoughts to you in your deliberations and actions.

Ralph Roshong

1991 STRS Retiree

WHY DO WE NEED AN ASSISTANT LOBBYIST?????

From a retiree (name withheld), June 12, 2009

If everything is on the table, there is no hope for the health care, and if the extra 2% is added for employee contributions, why do we need 2 associates to lobby for the legislature????? This is an example of the excess staffing that exists at STRS. Eliminate this position NOW!

This would pay for approximately 25 retirees Cost of Living each year. Has there been a study by an outside consultant regarding staffling!

They spent money on Ingenix to take away our medical coverage.

Dennis Leone: Update on HB 177

From John Curry, June 11, 2009

I have learned today from Dr. Leone that at the end of the last board meeting, Terri Bierdeman was told by Mike Nehf that, if asked, she should inform legislators that the STRS board believes that HB 177 is not necessary due to the board's action (at the May board meeting) which eliminates bonuses in future years in the event that there is a negative stock marked return at STRS. I also have learned that Reps. Huffman and Bubp are moving forward with the bill because they know the board has the power to change this new policy at any time for any reason. Further, Huffman and Bubp wish to stop the 7/12ths bonus payment for fiscal year 2009.

Also, Rep. Huffman reminded legislators on the Aging and Disabilities Services Committee that the entire state legislature is currently being asked to reduce their pay by 5% in fy 2010. Meanwhile, Gov. Strickland has announced that more cuts are on the way for all state agencies due to the current serious shortfall in state revenue. I wonder how many staff members have been cut at STRS and/or how many have received a wage reduction? I think the answer to that is zero.

[Note: if you have not contacted legislators about this bill, I can't urge you strongly enough to do so ASAP. Yes, you CAN and WILL make a difference, but it won't get done without you. More info here. KBB]

Value added tips of the day......if some at STRS can use them............. then why can't we?

From John Curry, June 11, 2009

Tip #1 If you don't read Kathie Bracy's blog today you save 5 minutes of your time, use less electricity and go about uninformed.

Tip #2 If you don't shower today you save energy that could have been used to heat that nice warm water.

Stay tuned for more value added tips from time to time to make you feel better by justifying what you shouldn't!

John

STRS --- THE TABLE

From Mario Iacone, June 10, 2009

PART ONE

STRS has often stated in recent weeks that EVERYTHING IS ON THE TABLE!

NOT EVERYTHING!

WHAT IS MISSING?

Cost Reductions of STRS Operating Expenses

Substantial Cost Reductions in STRS Operating Expenses and more efficient utilization of STRS resources should be implemented before any changes are made to the current Retiree Benefit Plan. There are many areas which can be addressed to do so.

What has occurred in the Private Sector for the last seven or eight months?

• Staff Cuts
• Salary Cuts
• Benefits Cuts
• Bonus Cuts

What has occurred at STRS in the last seven or eight months?

• Salary Freeze

STRS often refers to WALL STREET “BENCHMARKS.” It is certain they are aware that One Significant Private Sector “Benchmark” of recent months has included: staff cuts, salary cuts, benefits cuts, elimination of bonuses, and more efficient utilization of resources.

Please ask your legislators to put significant reductions in STRS OPERATING EXPENSES ON THE TABLE along with the proposed benefit cuts to STRS members.

Future posts will suggest specific areas that can be addressed within STRS. It will take some time to research those areas to make valid suggestions.

Tim Myers, we missed you!

Gee, you must have had something more urgent to attend to last night while the rest of us were attending the town meeting at the Lima Apollo Career Center. Hope it wasn't an emergency appendectomy or anything like that. You were definitely missed!

In attendance at Lima Town Meeting
(Mileage & driving time data from Yahoo Maps)

Columbus to Lima: 93.87 mi.; 1 hr 46 min.
STRS Board member Mark Meuser, STRS Executive Director Mike Nehf, Kathie Bracy

Cincinnati to Lima: 127.64 mi; 2 hrs 12 min.
2009 STRS Board candidate Jim Stoll

Chillicothe to Lima: 151.23 mi.; 2 hrs 35 min.
STRS Board member Dennis Leone

Strongsville to Lima: 157.16 mi.; 2 hrs 39 min.
STRS Board member-elect Bob Stein

Solon to Lima: 175.31 mi.; 2 hrs 54 min.
STRS appointed Board member Craig Brooks

Absent from the meeting:

Elida to Lima: 6.64 mi.; 0 hrs. 13 min.
STRS Board member Tim Myers

Hope you can make it to the Sidney meeting this Friday, Tim, though it's a whopping 40.3 miles from Elida (53 min.). But we'll understand if you don't make it.

6/10/09

Dennis Leone: Taking away more from retirees CANNOT be the solution of the pension solvency problem

From Dennis Leone, June 10, 2009
Subject: Re: STRS Town Meeting at Apollo Career Center: Allen Co. RTA

Yes, you are correct. In fact, what I actually said in Lima (it's on tape) was that if active teachers are "grandfathered" in such a way that they will be allowed to take advantage of current retirement arrangements (i.e. 35-year/88% rule)-- which will help them for life -- then retirees should be likewise grandfathered with their COLAs. The reporter was a little mixed up on this issue. I also have said to many that taking away more from retirees cannot be the solution of the pension solvency problem.

Dennis Leone

From RH Jones, June 10, 2009
Subject: STRS Town Meeting at Apollo Career Center: Allen Co. RTA

To all:

I am quite sure that Dr. Leone wants any COLA cuts to take place for those active educators not now "grandfathered". We "grandfathered retirees have given up enough already.

RHJones, retired

June 9 STRS Town Meeting at Apollo Career Center in Lima -- well attended (well...almost)

From John Curry, June 9, 2009
Click images to enlarge.

L to R - Michael Nehf, Dennis Leone, George Doyle (Allen County Retired Teachers Assn. President), Mark Meuser, Craig Brooks, Bob Stein, and Jim Stoll. Missing from this photo is STRS board member Tim Myers. Tim was a "no-show" for this meeting which was held less than 10 miles from his residence. Yes, he was invited!

Some of those in the audience are included in the second attached picture.

More details (and pictures) will be forthcoming. The meeting was also recorded on DVD and copies will soon be available.

John

Bonuses hot topic at STRS forum

By Beth L. Jokinen

LimaOhio.com, June 9, 2009 - 9:35PM

LIMA - The head of the State Teachers Retirement System had little good news for educators Tuesday. And he said little about performance-based incentives that many wanted to hear.

"Most of what I tell you tonight is not going to make you very pleased," Michael Nehf said during a town hall meeting hosted by the Allen County Retired Teachers Association. "Unless we make some changes to the system we will be unable to pay all the benefits."

While current retiree pensions are safe, there are shortfalls when looking long term, he told about 150 people.

The current financial downturn is hurting the system's assets, just as it is for retirement systems around the country, Nehf said. The board is studying the situation.

Dennis Leone, STRS board member from Chillicothe, criticized STRS staff for not making the public aware of the problems sooner. Options the board is looking at, including raising the age requirement and reducing cost of living allowance, should have happened years ago, he said.

Discussions quickly turned to the bonuses paid to investment staff. Nehf said the system is saving money by having its own investment staff, the system has to compete for the employees, and the staff is doing well for the fund. Leone is an opponent of the bonuses.

"I said a year ago we need to stop giving out bonus checks when we are losing billions and billions of dollars," Leone said. Many applauded Leone and others speaking against the bonuses.

The retirement fund lost $33.2 billion during the past 16 months. The fund sits at about $50 billion.

The board voted last month to cut the bonuses beginning in fiscal year 2011 if the retirement fund sees a negative overall return. The decision falls in line with what Rep. Matt Huffman, R-Lima, has proposed with legislation. He also spoke against the bonuses.

Leone wanted the board to not pay bonuses owed from the first half of fiscal year 2009, which ends June 30. The board suspended the bonus program for the second half of the year, meaning the payments are based on just the first half of the fiscal year.

The board will vote in September to approve the bonus amounts. Preliminary reports show they will total nearly $3.4 million. The payments are already 50 percent of what they would have been, Nehf said.

http://www.limaohio.com/news/bonuses-38208-board-year.html

Photos: June 9, 2009 Town Meeting in Lima

Click images to enlarge (sorry they're blurry; poor lighting for non-flash photos)
Top-to-bottom: 1. Dennis Leone 2. Jim Stoll, Mark Meuser 3. Dennis Leone, Representative Matt Huffman 4. Mark Meuser, Craig Brooks, Bob Stein, Jim Stoll 5. Audience during break

Top-to-bottom:
1. Dennis Leone, Bob Stein 2. (Mike Nehf), Dennis Leone, Jim Stoll, Mark Meuser 3. Dennis Leone, Mike Nehf 4. Mike Nehf, Dennis Leone, Mark Meuser 5. George Doyle, Mike Nehf, Dennis Leone, Bob Stein, Mark Meuser, Craig Brooks, (standing: moderator)










......................................................................

Mario Iacone: Bonus Reform

From Mario Iacone, June 9, 2009

Dennis Leone has opened the door to STRS Bonus Reform. No Bonus for Net Negative Return.

Furthermore, Dennis was able to set a clear target (benchmark), 65 Billion. I believe I speak for all of us when I say that we were tired of hearing about Wall Street type benchmarks that only the financial people understand and pay bonuses when you make little or even lose money.

Dennis has opened the door, now we have to step in and finish the job. The new bonus progam provides substantial reform, and only a little more needs to be accomplished. If massive support is provided, perhaps he can obtain further reform before he retires.

Additional Bonus Reforms,

· Gain at least 8% to qualify for a bonus.

· If Last Year’s Gain is lost next year, no bonus until that loss is recovered plus 8%. This parameter is not intended as punishment for a loss. It is intended to force money managers to exercise good Risk Management so they do their best to avoid and/or limit losses and protect profit.

· Set up the bonus structure so that an investment manager does not have the temptation to take unnecessary risks and lose our money in an attempt to increase his numbers to qualify for a bonus.

None of us want to deprive STRS staff of well deserved bonuses, but the key phrase is WELL DESERVED.

And, please do not forget the situation with the 2009 bonuses.

4. Motion by Dennis Leone: to deny FY 2009 bonuses; motion died, due to lack of a second. This means between now and September the Board will have to vote on the actual payments for the 7/12 FY 2009 bonuses.

Jim N. Reed: Letter to House Speaker Budish

From Jim Reed, June 9, 2009
Subject: Support for HB 177

Dear Honorable Armond Budish,

I am requesting your serious consideration of continued support for HB 177.

I am among the nearly 450,000 stakeholders and beneficiaries of the once-proud STRS Ohio.

The sparkling image of this traditionally respected, trusted and successful retirement system has been muddied over the past decade by unreliable, and often out-of-touch, executive directors and boards.

STRS-literate retirees have for nearly a decade petitioned the policy makers and administration at STRS to reconsider the entitlement philosophy that has pervaded the system.

This has led to considerable waste management. As we are all aware, the recent loss of over 40% of our assets has caused a sense of anxiety among pensioners, present and prospective, whose financial security is at stake.

As our appeals for reform have frequently fallen on insensitive ears within STRS the only means of redress seemed to be through legislative action in the General Assembly.

As a 45-year member of STRS I and hundreds of thousands of dependent retirees and current educators need to feel some hope that the decision-makers in our retirement system are complying with ORC 3307.15.

New legislative action in the form of HB 177 will provide the system with the tools to reshape out-of-control expenditures and reinstate sensibility and confidence in STRS Ohio.

I request your leadership to keep this legislation on track for full consideration.

Thank you.

Jim N. Reed

Linda Meinelt: Letter to Rep. Kevin Bacon

From Linda Meinelt, June 8, 2009
Subject: HB177

Representative Bacon, I wrote to you last week asking for your support for HB177. I understand that, in the interim, you have received correspondence from Marla Bump at STRS presenting you with the STRS viewpoint. Ms. Bump, I feel sure, knows the average BASE compensation for Investment Staff, is $156,000 plus an extremely generous benefits package. I seriously doubt we are going to "lose" investment staff to those "greener pastures" which no longer exist. Times have changed, and STRS has taken advantage of the retirees for too long. I, for one, (and am sure I have much company among other STRS retirees) welcome the precedent that passage of HB177 would establish. As it stands now, the STRS Board, can lift the bonus suspension at any time and for any reason. Please, support HB177. Thousands of retirees are counting on you! Thank you, Linda Meinelt Columbus, OH

STRS—ACTUAL VALUE ADDED

Note: Remember to click any images you want to enlarge.

From Mario Iacone, June 8, 2009

Consider the following statement from an STRS Staff member to Representative Bacon.

“Furthermore, the added value by STRS Ohio internal staff this past year alone was $215 million (FY 2008) compared to the $6 million paid in incentives - the total paid for FY 2008 pbi's.”

“generally only 1 out of 5 years are returns negative,”

“and investment management by STRS Ohio internal staff saves Ohio taxpayers more than $100 million a year compared to investment management by Wall Street firms.

Examine the following chart and notice that the ACTUAL VALUE ADDED was 3.30% for the last ten years.

......................................................

Examine the following chart and notice VALUE ADDED by the Vanguard Long Term Treasury Fund was 7.78% for the last ten years.

STRS Members must work diligently to get STRS to:

1) REDUCE PERCENTAGE OF RISK EQUITIES

2) MANAGE RISK EQUITIES EFFECTIVELY TO REDUCE LOSSES and PROTECT PROFITS.

STRS—VALUE ADDED ---215 Million; STRS---VALUE REMOVED --- Billions

From Mario Iacone, June 8, 2009

Consider this quote from an STRS Staff member to Representative Bacon.

“Furthermore, the added value by STRS Ohio internal staff this past year alone was $215 million (FY 2008) compared to the $6 million paid in incentives - the
total paid for FY 2008 pbi's.”

Another interpretation,

STRS members saved 215 Million in Expenses while LOSING BILLIONS!

Another quote,

“generally only 1 out of 5 years are returns negative,”

Small consolation to STRS members whose fund was reduced from 80 Billion to 46 Billion.

Final quote,

“and investment management by STRS Ohio internal staff saves Ohio taxpayers more than $100 million a year compared to investment management by Wall Street firms.

Only if a different firm would have also LOST BILLIONS!

IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION

If a substantial percentage of STRS assets would be invested in safe Treasury Bonds, TENS OF MILLIONS in FEES would not be incurred.

STRS is NOT a WALL STREET INVESTMENT FIRM! STRS members are not stock investors knowingly taking risk to accumulate wealth.

STRS IS a TEACHER PENSION FUND! STRS members make mandatory contributions saving money for their pensions believing that they are not taking risks and will receive guaranteed benefits.