Thread by @yomeeks

Sorry guys, the business case from AIMCO has so many errors that it will take me some time to deal with.
The Peter principle edition; or friends helping friends. #handsoffmypension

Let us start again with the (unsigned) TBF summary:

"Experts reviewing pension investment management, particularly in the Canadian context, find that pooling
investments reduces duplication costs"

Again, I hate to go back to this. This is a misstatement of what unnamed "experts" in Canada think. The sentence is true. But, it is inapplicable to funds that are extremely large (>$100 billion) as I pointed out yesterday.

An honest way of representing current pension research is to say that "pooling small pension funds together until they reach a critical mass of $5 to $80 billion reduces costs"

I think that is the honest state of "experts". Making a supersized >$130 billion AIMCO fund will contribute to dis-economies of scale and, sniff, lower returns. Call an expert. #dialmalcolmhamilton

But then the best is saved for Peter Milburn, the current chair of BCIMC. The only person with their name in the business case. A good friend to several of the hire-ups at TBF and AIMCO. #wasnobodyindependentavailable

If someone digs out his email address send him these questions:
1. How do you feel about parties in a conflict of interest writing business cases?
2. Did you know that you were going to be the only person named in the documents as supporting this?

3. Did you ask AIMCo why the data for ATRF is sometimes labeled as having a Dec 31 year end when it doesn't?
4. You felt it was alright to use 1 year investment cost number, when that one year was clearly aberration? Wouldn't methodology dictate using a 5 year aveage for costs?

5. Have you considered that you are being set up by being paid to put your name on this?
6. Did you ask AIMCO to provide a view of future investment costs at ATRF? (Hint they will be 3 basis points above LAPP)
7. Does that change your conclusion?

8. Do you feel that only reading an annual report of ATRF gives you enough information to make a decision that could cost the GOA and teachers hundreds of millions of dollars? (apparently the annual report was the only data source)

9. Why did you not ask for a risk adjusted rate of return calculation to be done? (the standard when comparing investment funds)
10. No attribution analysis for the portfolios. Why?
11. Why do you think it is methodologically appropriate to compare 10 year numbers?

(The current AIMCO executive team has not been around that long on average. That was on reason, back in the day, ATRF did not use them as a manager. The executive suite was turning over faster than a NYC subway turnstile.) (My opinion: no numbers beyond 5 or 6 years are accurate)

12. Peter, what steps did you take to ensure the data AIMCO was using was correct? (I think I have identified data transcription errors, but I will check that before I publish, take a lesson from that Peter). #warroom #garbageingarbageout

13. Peter, what is your opinion on consulting with jointly sponsored plans before making major changes to them?
14. Why did you allow TBF to only compare two of its pension plans (LAPP and PSPP) instead of all of their pension plans? Are you hiding something? #liar

15. Why did you allow TBF to use the Heritage Savings Fund as a comparison? It is not a pension fund.
(BTW leaving out all of the pension funds and including the Heritage Fund is one of the scuzziest things I have seen in a long time)

16. Did AIMCO offer you and/or BCIMC any co-investment opportunities in exchange for you supporting their deficient and conflicted analysis?

So many questions. So much stupidity. I am strapped in the war room at the Chez Meek. I am not sure what else might happen today.