►
From YouTube: Pension Board Meeting (11/09/2021)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
C
B
B
B
Consideration
by
the
general
employee
board
of
trustees,
applications
for
retirement,
approved,
curtis,
carr,
cscis
engineering
coordinator
reaches
energy
retirement,
effective
december
1st
2021
separation
date
november.
28
2021
meets
age
service
requirements
for
service
14
years
11
months
of
service.
A
D
A
D
B
C
B
Yes
approved
steve
stevens
utility
plan
operator,
2
public
works
backdrop,
retirement
effective
november,
1st
2021
separation
date
november
12
2021
meets
age
and
service
requirements
for
backdrop,
retirement
30
years,
one
month
of
service.
B
Fifth,
member
of
jackson
of
city
of
jacks
beach,
general
employees,
retirement
system
board
of
trustees
for
a
two-year
term
commencing
january
1st
2022
expiring
december
31st
2023
fifth
member
is
currently
me.
Brandon
marisma
term
expires
december
31st
2021..
I
think
I
need
to
recuse
myself
from
this
one.
Do
you
know
how.
E
So
in
the
election
of
officers
here
I
asked
pedro:
it's
been
a
while,
since
within
the
soviets
he
said.
D
E
A
A
B
Police
board
application
for
retirement
approved
daniel
watch,
junior
beneficiary,
daniel
watts,
police
sergeant,
police
duty,
death
retirement,
effective
september
1st
2021
separation
date
august
31st
2021
meets
age
and
service
requirements
for
duty
service
retirement,
18
years.
Eight
months
of
service.
F
F
A
G
G
First
thing,
we'll
do
is
we'll
go
through
the
9
30
report.
Obviously
this
is
the
big
one,
because
it's
our
fiscal
year
end,
but
I'll
get
on
a
little
bit
of
the
kind
of
the
market
environment
background
before
we
get
into
the
specifics,
so
I'll
click
over
to
the
first
page
and
in
the
upper
right
hand
corner
it's
just
a
quarter
review
kind
of
a
mixed
bag.
G
The
primary
concerns
were
here
in
the
u.s
around
inflation,
so
that
became
the
big
buzzword,
I'm
sure
we've
all
either
read
about
in
the
paper
or
seen
different
price
increases,
whether
it's
at
lowe's
or
home
depot
grocery
store,
et
cetera,
and
a
lot
of
that
is
related
to
certainly
some
of
the
the
shipping
and
distribution
kind
of
issues
we
hear
about
all
the
container
ships
out
sitting
off
the
coast
of
california.
All
things
associated
with
that
are
certainly
putting
pressure
on
the
system
and
that
prospect
for
inflation
causes
interest.
G
Up
which
can
have
a
somewhat
negative
impact,
and
so
we
really
started
to
see
a
lot
of
those
concerns,
in
particular
in
the
month
of
september.
G
The
other
item
was
the
evergreen,
the
sort
of
real
estate
group
out
of
china,
that
created
a
lot
of
concern
not
just
about
the
real
estate
portfolio,
but
just
some
of
the
markets
generally.
So
when
we
look
at
em
that
was
actually
down
eight
percent
for
the
quarter,
which
is
which
is
pretty
significant,
but
with
that
said,
the
s
p
500
did
actually
squeak
out
again.
It
was
up
about
60
basis,
points
or
0.6,
but
most
of
the
other
major
equity
indices
are
risk.
G
Assets
were
down
negative
for
the
period.
Fixed
income
was
essentially
flat,
positive
0.1
percent.
If
you
look
at
the
bottom
right
hand
corner
this
is
the
fiscal
year
period
very
good
overall
results,
s
p
500
was
up
30
small
cap
stocks,
as
measured
by
the
russell
2000
are
up
47.7
and
the
international
stocks
are
somewhere
between
18
and
about
25,
depending
on
the
benchmark.
G
So
again
for
the
fiscal
year
period.
The
backdrop
was
was
very,
very
good.
The
one
kind
of
loan
thing
down
here
at
the
bottom
was
fixed
income.
We
actually
see
a
negative
number
for
the
last
12
months
and
again,
that's
thinking
back
to
where
we
were
interest
rates
were
quite
a
bit
lower.
Through
the
year
we
did
see,
rates
rise
and
bond
prices
move
opposite
of
interest
rates,
as
interest
rates
moved
up.
Those
bond
prices
fell.
Consequently,
we're
seeing
those
negative
results
over
the
last
12
months.
G
G
So
that's
really
where,
where
any
of
the
positive
results
came
from,
you
know
the
amazons,
the
facebooks
of
the
world,
the
value
stocks
underperformed,
they
were
negative
slightly,
but
if
you
go
down
to
the
bottom
right
hand
corner
if
you
look
at
the
last
12
months
or
the
fiscal
year
period,
despite
growth
outperformance
recently,
the
value
stocks
have
still
outperformed
over
the
last
12
months.
I'll
use
the
1000
value
and
1000
growth,
because
that's
where
the
majority
of
our
assets
are
in
the
large
cap
area,
35
for
value
versus
27
for
growth.
G
G
The
next
page.
I
want
to
just
touch
on
interest
rates.
For
a
moment
we
talked
about
rates
rising
and
I'm
going
to
focus
here
in
the
bottom
right
hand
corner,
so
the
blue
line
represents
where
we
were
on
january
1st
and
again,
this
is
just
a
plot
of
all
of
the
different
treasury
yields
from
the
one
month
bill
out
to
the
30-year
bond,
and
obviously
you
can
see
from
that
blue
line
up
to
where
we
are
today.
G
Interestingly,
as
of
just
the
other
day,
we're
closer
to
1.6,
so
rates
have
continued
to
tick
a
little
bit
higher
now
getting
into
the
plan
specific
information
again.
This
is
just
a
review
of
your
overall
market
value
over
time
versus
the
red
line,
which
is
the
assumed
rate
of
return.
So
if
you
were
just
if
your
plan
assets
were
earning,
the
assumed
rate
of
return,
you'd
have
95.6
million
dollars
in
the
in
the
trust,
but
instead
you
have
118.6
million
dollars.
G
All
of
that
you
know
relative
to
to
cash
flow
has
been
taken
out.
So
all
the
deposits,
minus
pension
payments
and
expenses
coming
out
you're,
actually
cash
flow,
negative,
meaning
you're,
paying
more
out
than
you're
bringing
in
to
the
tune
now
of
a
collective
29
million
dollars,
and
it's
just
a
wonderful
relationship
when
you're
cash
flow
negative
like
this,
yet
growing
your
assets.
At
the
same
time,
that
means
you're
growing
your
assets
at
a
faster
rate
than
you're,
paying
out
those
benefit,
payments
and
meeting
your
assumed
rate
of
return,
which
is
really
fantastic.
G
The
next
page,
page
number
five
just
gets
into
the
asset
allocation
on
the
right-hand
side.
You
again,
you
can
see
that
118.6
million
dollars
and
then
the
breakdown
by
major
asset
class.
So
we've
got
our
domestic
equity
in
blue
and
then
the
four
managers
that
make
up
that
allocation
we've
got
in
gray
or
international,
with
europe,
pacific
and
wcm
sawgrass
is
our
lone
domestic,
fixed
income
manager
and
then,
of
course,
we've
got
pimco
diversified
and
a
few
other
slivers
up
there
as
well.
G
Page
six:
this
is
just
a
review
of
that
same
asset
allocation
information,
but
now
it's
relative
to
our
investment
policy
and
one
thing
you'll
know
we're
obviously
a
little
bit
overweight
in
both
domestic
equity,
as
well
as
international
underweighted,
fixed
income,
and
we
have
some
cash.
As
you
recall,
this
was
an
intentional
decision.
Last
time
and
the
time
before
we
were
actually
exceeding
our
65
equity
cap
and
instead
of
putting
it
into
fixed
income,
you
know
the
deficit.
Here
we
were
facing
the
prospect
of
inflation
and
higher
rates.
G
We
felt
better
about
just
leaving
it
in
cash
as
opposed
to
putting
in
fixed
income.
So
that's
why
you
continue
to
see
that
that
portion
down
here,
if
you
add
that
four
percent
of
cash
up
to
the
6.7
we're
actually
relatively
close
to
the
target,
and
certainly
underneath
that
65
threshold
that
we've
faced
the
last
few
quarters.
G
Now,
on
the
next
page,
here's
where
we
get
actually
into
the
results
so
for
the
quarter,
we
were
down
two
basis
points
or
negative
0.02
versus
the
benchmark,
which
was
down
0.06,
so
fractional
outperformance
for
the
quarter
and
you
place
in
the
32nd
percentile,
where
you
outperform
68
of
public
funds
around
the
country
for
the
three-month
period.
G
Now
the
most
important
number
on
the
page
is
that
second
column
in
the
fytd
or
fiscal
year
to
date,
19.15
versus
the
benchmark
of
17.79,
so
certainly
relative
to
the
assumed
rate
a
phenomenal
year
relative
to
the
benchmark.
It
was
a
very
good
year
about
the
only
negative,
if
you
will
is
that
a
percentile
ranking
in
the
62nd
percentile,
and
that
is
just
a
reflection
of
the
asset
allocation.
G
G
Relative
to
the
benchmark,
this
is
a
fantastic
result,
as
you
move
out
to
the
longer
periods,
whether
it
be
three
year
five
year
up
to
ten
years,
you'll
notice,
double
digit
returns
for
all
with
the
seven
year
and
ranking
in
the
top
quartile,
so
very,
very
strong,
overall
results,
and
certainly
from
an
actuarial
perspective.
A
lot
of
good
news
in
here,
whether
you're,
smoothing
over
four
or
five
years
either.
G
One
of
those
you're
going
to
have
very,
very
positive
results,
at
least
from
the
investment
return,
obviously
there's
other
assumptions
that
need
to
be
addressed
in
there
as
well.
But,
overall,
that's
a
very
positive
quarter.
Just
to
touch
on
a
few
things
quickly.
Vanguard,
obviously,
is
an
index
fund.
It
did
exactly
what
it's
supposed
to
wells
capped
just
slightly
behind
103
versus
116,
but
ahead
for
the
year
2792
versus
27.32.
G
Jp
morgan
was
just
fractionally
behind
for
the
quarter,
but
about
five
percent
behind
for
the
year
as
a
reminder:
they're
somewhat
of
a
defensively,
postured
value
manager,
and
so
in
the
year
where
value
was
up
35,
it's
not
a
huge
surprise
that
they
lagged
behind
a
little
bit.
But
since
inception
they
are
outperforming
their
benchmarks
slightly
and
annualizing
about
15
percent.
Even
vance
is
your
small
and
smith
manager,
slight
outperformance
here,
but
in
a
negative
environment
down
241
versus
268,
but
they
were
behind
for
the
year
35
versus
45.
G
That
was
done
in
the
previous
few
quarters.
Now
you
will
see
over
longer
periods.
They
have
been
an
excellent
manager
for
you
consistently
outperforming,
but
certainly
did
struggle
here
in
the
last
12
months,
or
so
we
don't
view
this
as
a
long-term
concern,
just
just
kind
of
being
in
the
the
wrong
part
of
the
market,
for
a
few
quarters
hurt
them,
but
we
don't.
We
don't
see
that
as
a
long-term
issue.
G
If
you
flip
over
the
next
page,
we
get
into
our
international
managers
and
although
again
the
numbers
are
negative
here
for
the
quarter
down
235
europe
for
europe,
pacific,
it
did
outperform
the
benchmark,
which
was
down
288
and
for
the
year
slightly
outperforming
24.7
versus
24.4
wcm
had
a
very
good
quarter.
They
were
up
15
basis
points
versus
the
benchmark,
which
is
down
288
and
for
the
year,
just
short
of
30
percent
versus
that
24
and
a
half
now
leaving
the
equity
markets.
We've
got
fixed
income,
we
talked
about
negative
results.
D
G
Doing
well,
although
again
some
negative
numbers
and
again
like
many
of
your
other
managers,
longer
term
have
continued
to
outperform
nicely
and
then
the
last
couple
of
pieces,
the
pimco
diversified.
This
is
what
replaced
templeton
our
global
bond
manager.
They
were
up
12
basis
points
versus
the
benchmark,
which
was
down
91
and
for
the
year
4.8
versus
a
negative
point,
four
five.
So
an
excellent
relative
result.
G
If
you
think
about
had
we
left
it
in
domestic
fixed
income,
we
we
would
have
lost.
You
know
one
point
three,
but
instead
we
had
a
positive,
almost
five
percent
and
then
the
last
piece,
of
course,
is
the
real
estate
6.7
versus
6.9
and
for
the
year
14
versus
15.7
a
little
bit
behind
the
benchmark,
but
certainly
in
absolute
terms,
a
very
nice
overall
return
as
you're
starting
to
see
a
lot
of
deposit.
You
know.
G
Certainly,
we
went
through
that
wave
with
the
covet
impacts
affecting
a
particular
office
and
retail
now
they're,
getting
on
the
other
side.
You're
seeing
interest
rates
move
up,
so
you
get
a
little
bit
of
a
benefit
there
and
with
some
of
that
discussion
about
inflation,
things
like
that
that
helps
some
of
the
real
assets,
as
certainly
they
would
have
a
positive
impact
in
valuation
when
when
prices
are
rising
generally
with
that,
that's
everything
in
terms
of
return
and
performance.
G
I
always
include,
in
your
kind
of
summary
version,
a
just
a
review
of
the
fees
that
you're
paying
so
you'll
notice.
On
page
number,
nine
down
on
the
bottom
line.
The
total
plan
average
fee
is
44
basis
points
which
I
think
is
quite
competitive,
quite
good,
considering
how
much
active
management
and
management
you
have.
G
E
If
I
could
jump
in
right
here
to
just
kind
of
give
a
little
catch
up
on
what
has
happened
between
the
last
meeting
in
this
meeting
before
bernie
gets
into
this
next
section
here
at
the
end
of
the
last
meeting,
it
was
asking
me
to
get
an
opinion
from
pedro
on
our
pension
attorney
on
whether
or
not
the
plans
under
the
current
ordinance
would
be
allowed
to
invest
in
alternative
assets.
E
E
E
They
did.
They
came
back
with
that
and
said
that
they
did
not
believe
that
the
boards
would
have
the
authority
to
invest
in
alternative
assets
and
gave
a
whole
bunch
of
legalese
as
to
why
I
sent
that
to
pedro
pedro
and
I
think
pedro
is
on
the
computer
over
there.
I'm
not
sure
if
he
can
unmute
himself.
Please
correct
me
if
I'm
misstating
anything
here,
but
when
that
opinion
went
back
to
pedro
picker
then
said
I
see
what
you're
saying
I
disagree
with
it.
E
E
E
E
So
knowing
that
picture
said
that
he
would
not
recommend
to
the
boards
that
we
proceeded
and
vote
on
any
kind
of
putting
funds
into
alternative
assets,
just
knowing
that
that
wasn't
the
view
of
the
administration
and
basically
they
could
just
issue
some
clarifying
language
to
the
ordinance.
That
would
then
make
it
where
the
boards
wouldn't
be
allowed
to
invest
in
alternative
assets.
E
So
that's
kind
of
where
we're
at
now
and
brendan
had
already
prepared
information
for
alternative
assets,
and
there's
some
of
that
in
here,
and
we
can
get
into
you
know
later
what
I've
had
further
conversations
with
them
on
alternative
assets
and
risks
and
things.
But
you
know
we
can
get
into
that
in
bremen's
presentation,
but
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
set
the
stage
for
what's
happened
between
then
and
now.
Legally.
A
G
G
I
mean
generally
yes,
but
it
obviously
depends
on
what
it
is
and
where
you're
funding
it
and
that's.
Some
of
the
information
that
I
have
today
is
meant
to
help
address
that
question
kind
of
demonstrate
that
for
you,
but
yes,
that
is
a
component.
C
G
So
with
that,
why
don't
I
take
a
few
minutes
and
actually
kind
of
go
through
the
actual
numbers,
so
you
have
just
at
least
a
little
sense
as
to
kind
of
what
we're
talking
about.
The
first
thing
that
came
up
actually
is
not
relative
to
the
new
asset,
but
it's
really
just
an
educational
piece.
One
of
the
things
that
gets
talked
about
a
lot
is
we
mentioned
risk.
G
What
is
risk
in
the
in
our
books
in
the
investment
industry?
Standard
deviation
is
the
main
measure
of
investment
risk.
What
is
standard
deviation
if
you
think
about
it,
I'm
using
the
example,
a
hypothetical
investment.
It
has
a
an
annual
return
of
5
and
a
standard
deviation
of
10.
So
what
does
that
really
mean
so
down
along
the
bottom?
Here
is
the
average
or
the
mean
return
of
5
standard
deviation?
What
that
gives?
You
is
the
probability
so
68
of
the
time.
G
Roughly,
is
one
standard
deviation,
so
what
it's
telling
you
is
68
of
the
time
the
return
is
going
to
be
plus
or
minus.
The
standard
deviation
so
10
down
to
minus
five
or
positive
fifteen.
That's
where
the
return
is
going
to
be
sixty-eight
percent
of
the
time
two
standard
deviations.
Again,
you
go
another
minus
ten,
another
plus
ten
on
the
other
side,
so
ninety-five
percent
of
the
time
a
95
probability
in
any
given
sort
of
year
or
annualized
performance,
your
return
is
going
to
be
between
negative
15
and
positive
25.
G
G
That
means
some
some
years
you're
way
above
it
other
years,
you're
way
below
it,
and
it's
a
very
volatile
ride
so
again
just
trying
to
illustrate
what
that
means
in
terms
of
volatility,
because
when
we
get
to
the
next
page,
we
look
at
some
of
these
scenarios.
We're
going
to
talk
about
the
change
from
our
current
portfolio
in
both
standard
deviation
and
then
another
one,
a
sharp
ratio
so
again
just
kind
of
wanted
to
conceptually
give
you
an
idea
of
what
it
is
we're
talking
about.
G
G
Currently
as
we
break
it
out
to
that
30,
fixed
income,
domestic
five
percent
government
bond
or
excuse
me
global
bonds
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
We
have
a
expected
mean
return
of
4.54.
G
G
So
I'm
going
to
talk
about
the
change
from
our
current
to
some
of
these
different
scenarios.
So
if
the
sharp
ratio
is
going
up,
it
means
you're
getting
a
larger
increase
in
return
than
you
are
an
increase
in
risk.
But,
conversely,
sharpe
ratio
can
go
up
by
lowering
return
if
you
also
get
a
larger
decrease
in
the
risk,
if
that
makes
sense,
so
got
a
few
illustrations.
So
the
first
one
is
just
the
basic,
and
this
is
kind
of
what
we
were
focusing
on
last
time
is
the
65
equity
and
or
10
real
estate.
G
Now
those
are
currently
our
maximums.
So
what
I
did
is,
I
showed
you,
what
our
maximum
or
potentially
a
new
target
might
be
if
we
can
get
this
adjusted
in
the
ordinance
and
then
I
also
showed
the
iteration
of
five
percent
more
because
again,
if
we're
going
to
target
65,
we
can't
also
have
the
maximum
be
65.
G
G
E
G
Increase
in
risk
than
we
are
getting
an
increase
in
return,
if
you
take
it
out
to
70
percent
equity,
it's
the
same
thing,
you're
continuing
to
get
that
increase,
but
the
risk
is
moving
at
a
higher
rate
and
therefore
the
sharp
ratio
is
declining.
Okay,
now
ignore
the
equity
component.
Now
we're
just
going
to
instead
take
from
real
excuse
me
from
fixed
income
and
add
it
to
real
estate.
G
So
again,
this
is
not
looking
at
alternatives.
We
already
have
exposures
here.
This
is
just
looking
at
potentially
tweaking
the
level
of
exposure
that
that
we
potentially
could
have
now.
Next
page
looks
very
similar,
there's
just
a
lot
more
numbers
on
it.
So
again,
on
the
far
left
hand
side,
you
have
that
same
column,
our
current
policy
and
then
I
actually
included
both
the
65
equity,
as
well
as
a
the
10
real
estate
column
in
there.
G
G
Now
the
next
one
I
included
is
high
yield
fixed
income.
So
this
is
not
talking
about
changing
our
equity
allocation,
but
merely
lowering
the
credit
quality
for
a
component
of
the
fund.
Again,
you
see
an
increase
in
return
up
to
4.69
volatility.
Your
risk
goes
up
to
10.03
and
it's
just
as
efficient
as
the
current
portfolio,
so
you're
kind
of
getting
more
again
more
return
for
the
same
overall
risk
and
return
relationship
that
you
have
now.
E
E
Was
it
five
percent
increase
equities
five
percent
increase
in
real
estate,
we'll
see
what
anko
says,
but
that's
kind
of
what
we
thought
we
were
going
to
have
at
this
meeting
then
when
they
came
back
with
these
numbers
that
that
really
the
equity
assumptions
had
changed
so
much
that
it
increased
risk
more
than
it
made
it
worth
the
return
that
you
know.
That's
that's
kind
of
the
email
I'm
saying
I
said
there
was
surprising,
you
know
information
and
it
kind
of
changed.
G
As
we
continue
to
move
right,
the
next
one
is
a
five
percent
allocation
to
infrastructure.
Now
this
is
very
similar
to
real
estate.
Thinking
that
you
know,
perhaps
that
could
be
more
palatable,
but
again
the
the
risk
and
return
relationship
again
is
very,
very
similar
to
real
estate.
So
you
get
again
4.7
up
to
just
short
of
10
and
that
slight
increase
in
the
sharpe
ratio
up
to
0.48.
G
Now
the
the
last
three
columns
get
into
a
different
asset
class,
what
we
call
direct
lending.
So
this
is
private
debt,
so
as
opposed
to
publicly
traded
companies
issuing
debt
which
you
can
buy
in
the
open
market.
You
know
there
are
roughly
8
000
public
companies
in
the
country,
there's
roughly
50
000
privately
held
companies.
So
it's
a
much
larger
universe,
but
of
course
they
aren't
registered
with
the
sec.
They
don't
have
quarterly
filings.
G
So
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
different
kind
of
universe,
but
there
is
a
segment
that
again
lends
to
non-publicly
traded
companies.
So
that's
what
we're
looking
at
here.
So
this
is
a
way
to
potentially
diversify
the
fixed
income
exposure
without
you
know
we're
not
adding
equity
but
trying
to
get
a
higher
return
out
of
the
traditional
fixed
income.
G
Because
again,
as
we
talked
about
with
higher
interest
rates,
what
we're
facing
that
component
is
likely
to
challenge
for
at
least
the
next
year
or
two
could
be
four
or
five
depending
on
how
long
the
kind
of
the
economic
cycle
lasts.
So,
with
all
of
that
said,
the
first
iteration
is
five
percent
dl
of
five
percent
to
direct
lending
and
again
I'm
taking
that
from
our
current
30
allocation
to
domestic
fixed
income.
You'll.
G
Jumps
to
4.82
the
volatility
goes
up
to
10.09,
but
again
the
sharp
ratio
is
moving
up
to
0.48,
so
we're
getting
a
larger
increase
in
return
than
we
are
an
increase
in
risk.
Now
the
next
column
shows
the
same
five
percent
to
direct
lending,
but
instead
of
coming
from
fixed
income,
we're
actually
taking
it
from
equity.
That's
the
e!
At
the
end,
there
direct
lending
from
equity
again
increase
in
return,
but
not
nearly
as
much.
G
G
Very
often
you
know,
with
with
some
iterations
in
order
to
get
an
extra
10,
20
30
basis
points
of
return.
Your
sharp
ratio
is
declining,
meaning
you're,
taking
more
risk
than
you
are
getting
that
incremental
return.
So
the
positive
is
virtually
all
these
scenarios
are
either
neutral
or
positive
in
terms
of
the
overall
impact
to
the
plan.
G
So
again,
I
I
just
thought
you'd
find
that
interesting
and
potentially
helpful
for
the
discussion.
As
as
dustin
mentioned,
you
know,
it
doesn't
seem
like
there's
much
of
an
appetite
to
to
make
some
of
those
changes,
but,
but
certainly
you
know
open
for
for
discussion.
The
only
other
item
that
I
wanted,
or
was
asked
to
present
to
you,
were
your
actual
results
on
an
individual
year
basis
and
kind
of
the
reason.
The
question
that
I
got
is
if
we're
performing
well,
why?
Why
do
we
need
to
change
it,
and
so
what
this
graph
does?
G
G
It's
not
really
7.9,
obviously,
you've
trended
down,
but
the
average
over
that
10
years
was
7.9,
so
certainly
the
actual
performance
has
been
significantly
better
than
your
your
assumed
grade
as
we
look
backwards
so
again,
just
wanted
to
provide
a
little
bit
more
of
that
information
on.
In
that
regard,.
D
A
G
That's
exactly
right
and
depending
on
the
manager
of
the
fund,
you
would
pick
you
have
access
to
a
couple
hundred
ultimate
investments
that
are
made
and
just
to
give
you
a
real,
quick
synopsis.
These
funds
generally
earn
a
capital
call
phase
for
about
three
years,
so
you
commit,
let's
just
say
it's
a
million
dollars
and
for
the
next
36
months
or
so
they're
taking
that
million
dollars
in
pieces
as
they're,
making
those
investments
and
then
for
the
next
five
to
seven
years,
they're
realizing
those
investments
and
then
redistributing
that
money
back
to
you.
D
G
G
Right,
but
it
it
it's
definitely
different
than
the
public
market
scenario
where
you
have
uniform.
You
know
balance
sheets
things
like
that
that
you
can
compare.
D
And
the
two
other
questions
the
standard
deviation,
I'm
really
familiar
with
the
sharp
ratio,
though
you
know
I
can
explain
how
their
standard
deviation
is
calculated,
but
unintelligible.
D
G
Yeah
it's
it's
traditionally
between
I
mean,
obviously
it
depends
on
on
what
sort
of
asset
classes
you're
comparing.
So
if
you
had
a
bunch
of
scenarios
that
were
just
short-term
fixed
income,
your
sharpe
ratio
would
be
significantly
lower,
but
it's
the
difference
between
your
the
risk
and
the
risk.
The
risk
of
the
portfolio
versus
the
risk-free
rate
being
incremental.
F
D
Is
that
risk-free
rate
to
be
based
on
the
concept
of
the
standard
deviation
right
and
then-
and
you
know
these-
these
are
calculations,
so
presumably
they
clearly
are
based
on
numbers
from
the
past.
So
we're
assuming
that
future
performance
will
be.
D
G
G
If
you
think
back,
if
you
go
back
to
the
early
80s,
when
you,
when
a
10-year
treasury
was
yielding
20,
you
know
you
could
have.
It
was
fairly
easy
to
earn
an
8
rate
of
return.
You
could
have
just
a
reasonable
component
earning
that.
Well
now,
your
10-year
treasury
is
around
one-and-a-half
1.6,
and
so
that's
one
of
the
issues
that
in
the
capital
market
assumptions
they
say.
Okay,
you
know.
Obviously,
fixed
income
rates
are
expected,
they're
coming
way
down
and
transferring
some
of
those
expectations.
G
G
Well,
it's
using
the
standard
deviation
which
is
based
on
past
experience,
correct,
but
but
again,
the
return
component
of
that
is.
Is
the
forward
projection,
not
the
rear
word.
You
know,
looking
actual
performance.
E
D
Yeah,
there's
a
there's
statistical
concepts
right
so
yeah
I
get
that
so,
but
it
still
does
look
like
you
know,
was
being
check
future
performance.
So
whatever
the
numbers
look
like
they're,
based,
probably
almost
in
these
last
10
years,
which
actually
lasted
weird
because
it
started
with
a
period
of
high
growth.
G
The
the
numbers
in
these
expectations
are
dramatically
lower
than
what
long-term
averages
have
been,
and
certainly
what
the
last
10
years
have
done.
So,
from
the
return
perspective,
I
don't
think
it's
really
utilizing
much
of
the
past
performance
in
order
to
predict
the
future.
It's
actually
kind
of
going
the
opposite.
If
we're
using
the
past
performance
event,
saying
it's
been
so
good
now
we
think
the
future
is
going
to
be
lower.
D
G
Like
I
said,
if
I
run
this,
if
we
had
talked
about
this
five
years
ago,
we
would
have
been
off
by
300
basis
points,
because
it
would
have
projected
something
like
seven
well:
you've
earned
north
of
ten.
Now,
obviously
we
were,
we
were
better.
You
know
surprised
on
the
high
side
and
that
that's
obviously
fantastic,
but
it's
really
more
of
a
the
way.
I
look
at
it.
It's
a
basis
for
comparison,
kind
of
where
we
are
today
the
current
portfolio
and
what
would
be
the
impact
plus
or
minus
to
any
of
these
different
asset
classes.
A
G
That
number
is
so
they're,
not
making
investments
just
based
on
how
many
companies
are
out
there
they're
just
targeting
you
know
they
kind
of
back
into
okay,
we're
planning
to
make
loan
sizes
of
x
and
we're
trying
to
make
we're
trying
to
raise
a
portfolio
of.
Why
and
that
you
know
you
divide
the
two
against
each
other
and
that's
how
many
companies
they
ultimately
would
need
to
invest
in
in
order
to
put
all
that
money
to
work,
and
then
it
gets
not
to
get
down
into
the
weeds.
G
G
It's
going
back
15
or
20
years,
but
it
certainly
has
been
a
growing
area.
It
is
sort
of
an
offshoot
of
the
private
equity
world.
So
again
same
idea:
you've
got
private
companies,
some
will
issue
or
sell
equity,
and
this
is
a
similar
pool.
A
lot
of
sometimes
companies
have
both
private
equity
and
private
debt.
The
difference,
of
course,
on
the
debt
side,
you're
higher
up
in
the
capital
structure.
Just
like
you
are
on
the
public
side.
G
A
G
Those
are
public
securities,
publicly
traded,
just
lower
credit
quality.
So
certainly
I
mean
you
can
see,
obviously
that
the
volatility
is
lower
and
you're
getting
a
a
bigger
increase
in
return
and
that
net.
So
if
you
compare
the
the
high
yield
column
here
with
the
first
direct
lending,
because
both
of
those
are
being
funded
from
fixed
income,
so
we're
kind
of
comparing
apples
to
apples
you
can
see.
G
Direct
blending
is
giving
you
a
higher
increase
in
return
for
just
a
fractional
increase,
more
a
larger
increase
in
risk,
but
they
operate
again
very
differently
high
yield
because
it's
publicly
traded
will
tend
to
be
volatile
more
like
small
cap
equity,
where
direct
lending
and
part
of
this
is
also
the
nature
of
the
vehicle
when
you're
in
a
closed
end
vehicle
like
this,
it's
only
being
valued
once
every
three
months.
G
So
if
the
stock
market
has
a
really
good
day
tomorrow
and
a
really
bad
day,
the
next
day
you
ride
that
up
and
down
whether
it
be
in
high
yield
or
any
of
those
public
securities
in
a
private
debt
type
scenario,
you're
only
valuing
once
every
three
months.
So
you
don't
you?
Don't
have
the
up
and
the
down
over
every
two
days,
you're
just
doing
point
to
point
every
90
days,
and
so
that
experience
gets
smoothed
out
and
again
it's
also
different.
The
return
is
just
based
on
the
cash
coming
back
from
the
company.
G
A
Dustin
my
opinion
is,
though,
I
see
some
value
in
the
direct
landing.
I
think
there
should
be
clear
language
and
importance
before
we
start
moving
in
that
direction
and
find
ourselves
in
some
kind
of
legal
battle
that
we
don't
want
to
be
in
clean
up
the
ordinance
and
then
revisit
the
topic.
E
Hearing
so
that
leads
to
what
does
that
mean
to
clean
up
the
ordinance
I
mean
in
the
current
administration's
view.
Cleaning
up
the
ordinance
would
mean
closing
that
loophole
and
saying
that
alternative
assets
are
not
allowed,
specifically
specifically
because
it's
not
they
alternative
assets
are
not
currently
addressed
at
all.
E
Category
they
don't
view
it
as
having
the
track
record.
They
don't
necessarily
agree
with
anko
on
the
standard
deviator
there's
how
much
of
a
decrease
in
risk
there
is
for
the
direct
lending
category
that
equate
the
conversation
was
about.
You
know
this
is
kind
of
like
derivatives
or
subprime
mortgages
were
before
the
housing
crisis
in
2008.
E
They
didn't
you,
don't
really
know
what
you
don't
know
about
an
unproven
asset
category
until
things
go
wrong,
that's
just
kind
of
their
their
current
view
and
that
further
that
they
weren't
particularly
interested
in
changing
the
ordinance
in
a
way
that
would
allow
for
an
increase
in
risk
because
of
the
past
performance
that
the
plan
has
had
and.
E
F
G
It
puts
more
pressure
on
the
rest
of
the
portfolio
in
order
to
get
us
that
seven
and
so
that's,
I
think,
that's
why
the
board
has
been
having
these
discussions.
They
see
this
coming
and
say:
yeah
as
we
look
backwards,
returns
have
been
good.
Fixed
returns
have
been
been
reasonable,
but
now
we
kind
of
don't
think
that's
going
to
be
the
case
for
the
next
five
years
or
10
years.
So
we
would
like
to
have
the
option
to
do
some
different
things.
F
I
mean
talk
about
increasing
the
the
maxes
in
mandarin
you're,
doing
both
having
one
instead
of
just
saying.
There's
a
cap
here,
you
can't
go
higher
65
percent
if
you
do,
or
at
the
last
second
we're
freaking
out
and
trying
to
call
out
opportunities
like
we
just
did
with
cash
two
times
in
a
row.
I
think
that's
what
we
talked
about
initially
was
increasing
the
maximums,
but
also
maybe
put
the
minimum
in
there.
Whoever
might
be
so
you're
not
getting
crazy.
C
D
D
And
with
the
direct
lending,
we're
basically
saying
that
we
can't
get
the
return
that
we
were
like
in
these
well-known
companies
that
operate
in
a
relatively
transparent
fashion
and
we
might
go
to
get
a
higher
risk
in
a
bunch
of
companies.
We've
never
heard
of
that.
The
manager
who
has
regular
track
record
is
going
to
invest
in,
and
you
know
that
strikes
me
as
really
really
really
risky.
D
It's
just
not
this
conservative
attention
pension
plan
is
meant
to
be
relatively
conservative,
so
you
know,
that's
that's,
and
you
know
the
even
the
the
calculations
are
based
on
math,
where
there
are
these
more
abstract
elements
of
risk,
like
just
the
concept
of
direct
lending,
where
you
don't
have
the
information
about
the
organizations,
so
the
risk
in
that
sense
is
even
higher
because
some
of
it's
not
incorporated
into
the
calculations.
H
I
was
present
at
that
meeting
with
dustin
on
friday
when
we
sat
with
mike
karen
and
ashley,
and
you
know
I
wanted
to
sit
here
and
kind
of
listen
to
some
of
the
points
that
were
being
made.
Dr
cameron,
you
were
looking
at
the
past
10-year
performance
and
how
we
performed
at
what
10
a
little
bit
over.
H
You
know
and
the
first
attachment
that
was
handed
out
for
jacksonville
beach
retirement
systems,
page
14,
looking
at
the
34-year
annualized
rate
of
return,
it's
10.61
also
each
of
our
pension
plans
is
funded
above
80.
So
the
reason
the
administration
has
taken
its
position
is
you
know?
What
are
we
trying
to
fix
at
this
point?
If
our
plans
so
far
are
approached
so
far
has
been
working?
C
You
know,
we've
been
negative,
it's
just
a
policy,
that's
so
restrictive
that
we
have
to
move
money
out
of
a
well-performing
asset
class
into
an
underperforming,
not
even
unfortunately
native
you
know
to
say
what
you
said:
it's
not
about.
I
understand
this
risk
reward.
I'm
not
saying
this
is
this
pension
fund
should
be
at
30.
C
You
know,
that's
not
what
this
is
about,
but
when
you
said
it
a
couple
years
ago,
when
we're
requiring,
we
know
we're
gonna
get
one
to
two
percent.
You
said
a
while
back,
you
know
one
and
a
half
two
percent
on
out
of
sawgrass
was
a
great
return
for
us.
We
have.
We
have
to
have
a
percentage
of
our
money
in
in
that
asset
class,
and
that's
just
it's.
I
I'm
not
saying
that
the
pension
fund
hasn't
done
great,
but
there
needs
to
be
some
flexibility.
C
C
H
F
There's
no
doubt
we
can
completely
agree
with
that
hands
down.
What
we're
saying
is
flexibility
to
where
I
know
when
we
can't
put
something
we're
making
money
from
making
money.
There's
a
reason.
It
went
from
62
to
63
to
67,
because
we
were
making
that
money.
Now
we
are
handed
ties
with
one
word:
it's
either
cash
or
bonds
that
are
losing
money.
That's
that's
what
we're
saying
sure
and
if
we're
not,
I
don't
want
to
be
a
money
manager
or
every
month
or
every
quarter
we're
moving
money
left
to
right.
F
I
don't
want
to
do
nothing
like
that.
We
just
want
to
have
flexibility
to
where
it's
set
for
us
to
make
a
change,
and
we
don't
have
to
get
stuck.
If
you
have
fix
you
have
cash
or
you
have
we're
making
money
at
it.
That's
all
we're
saying
I
completely
agree
with
the
dating
server
of
the
pension.
I
know
we
and
you're
right
as
far
as
your
fiduciary
statement,
but
so
is
his
sure
I
understand
so.
A
A
G
A
D
C
E
E
E
D
Well,
the
equity
plus
rv,
each
of
those
classes
correct
the
assumed
mean
return,
goes
up.
Standard
deviation
goes
up
a
bit
as
well,
but
these
are
at
least
you
know.
The
the
risk
is
known
risk.
We
know
what
we're
dealing
with
there.
Unlike
you
know,
maybe
14
of
those
other
21
classes
that
we
can't
get
into.
We
just
don't
know
enough
about
them
to
know
that
they're
relatively
safe
so
and
you
know
the
sharp
ratio
for
that
one.
D
D
That
would
be
the
in
terms
of
the
secondary
risk,
by
which
I
need
the
unknowns,
as
donald
russell
would
say.
Look
that
unknown
as
well,
and
you
know
so
that
that's
an
option
really
wouldn't
be
if
the
especially
for
equities
continue
to
perform.
Well
we're
not
constantly
taking
money
out
of
other
equities
and
putting
them
in
and
aj
that
scenario
as
well.
G
The
risk
ultimately
lies
with
the
city.
So
if
you
know,
if
we're
correct
in
a
number
of
these
projections
for
the
next
five
years,
equities,
don't
give
us
what
they
have
the
last
number
of
years
and
fixed
income
certainly
doesn't
either.
Then,
instead
of
earning
our
assumed
rate
of
return,
maybe
we
earn
half
of
that.
G
Well,
if
that
happens,
then
the
funding
goes
from
80
down
to
75
to
70
and
the
city's
contributions
have
to
go
up,
and
so
at
that
point
then
then
there's
the
quote:
cost
for
maybe
some
having
less
diversification
or
other
asset
classes.
So
that's
that's
the
other
side.
Ultimately,
the
city
kind
of
bears
the
brunt
of
of
that
that
difference
in
the
return
and
performance.
A
A
A
C
F
A
H
D
H
E
Value
so
the
city
does
take
on
the
additional
risks
like
we
said,
so
any
amount
of
additional
risk
and
that
standard
deviator.
If
the
worst
happens,
and
we
lose
a
lot
of
money
as
the
plan,
then
the
city
has
to
make
up
that
amount.
So
that's
why
they're
not
particularly
interested
in
allowing
the
amount
of
some
flexibility
that
would
cause
an
increase
in
that
standard
deviator,
I
think,
had
they
been
presented
with
more
options
in
alternative
asset
classes
that
lowered
risk,
then
maybe
that
would
be
something
that
would
be
interested
in.
E
There
was
only
the
one
option
there,
the
direct
lending
to
and
removing
that
money
from
fixed
income
or
from
equities.
Rather
that
decrease
the
risk
below
the
current
policy
and
alternative.
F
G
Generally
speaking,
if
you're
I
mean
there's
there's
two
sides
of
it:
are
we
trying
to
reduce
the
risk
profile?
Are
we
trying
to
enhance
return?
I
mean
idea
that
you
want
to
do
both,
but
we
could
certainly
reduce
the
risk
profile,
but
instead
of
4.5,
maybe
4.1
or
3.8,
which
doesn't
help
us
get
to
our
assumed
rate
of
return.
So
I
think
what
we're
talking
about
is:
how
can
we
potentially
utilize
other
asset
classes
to
try
to
have
a
better
probability
of
meeting
that
assume
greater
return,
moving
forward
and.
E
G
A
G
Where
yeah
I
mean
they're
proportional,
you
know
the
change.
You
know
again,
because
the
sharp
ratios
are
fairly
consistent.
The
risk
and
return
changes
are
are
fairly
similar
in
each
of
those
iterations
again.
I've
run
some
of
these.
Where
you'll
see
a
sharp
ratio
go
from
47
to
38
and
another
iteration
you're
up
to
you,
know,
59,
you
can
see
bigger
swings
in
that
the
this
is
relatively
stable.
G
E
A
G
Mean
what
I
did
is
I
tried
to
create
ones
that
I
thought
kind
of
specifically
addressed.
You
know
where
we
are
with
the
ordinance.
You
know
high
yield,
just
specifically
the
quality
limitation,
but
a
state
public,
fixed
income
infrastructure
which
is
very
similar
to
real
estate,
but
but
is
technically
a
different
asset
class
and
then
direct
lending,
I
think,
is
the
one
that
stays
in
fixed
income
or
a
debt
security.
G
G
Yes,
there
are
others,
but
I
you
know
and
again,
if
you
like,
we
can
try
to
explore
another
iteration.
That
kind
of
goes
into
some
of
those,
those
other
other
asset
classes.
But
I
think
these
again,
what
I
was
trying
to
do
is
tailor
this
sort
of
kind
of
where
the
ordinance
is
where
you're
invested,
potentially
the
ones
that
were
most
likely
to
look
be
looked
at
favorably.
F
Dustin
or
aj
so
last
meeting
we
requested
this
information,
but
just
so
I'm
clear
and
everybody's
clear.
The
administration
does
not
support
any
of
these
eight
scenarios
right
they
they.
I
see
the
policy
in
these
other
eight,
but
they
don't
support
any
of
those
correct,
correct.
Okay,
so
I
think
seeking
more
information
is
just
a
waste
of
time.
F
At
this
point,
I'm
not
speaking
for
the
group,
I'm
just
saying
we
have
these
scenarios
here
and
infrastructure
and
other
stuff
and
what
aj
is
saying
justin.
They
don't
support
any
of
those
outside
of
the
current
policy.
You
know
the
facts
changed
from
last
meeting.
We
asked
for
this
information,
but
now
you're
telling
me
they
don't
support
any
of
these
scenarios,
so
I
don't
think
we
need
any
more
information.
E
I
think
the
information
also
changed
from
what
we
were
expecting
to
see.
I
mean
we
weren't,
expecting
this
reduction
in
equities
projection
down
to
be
at
four
point
something.
E
I
think
the
administration
would
have
been
much
more
have
been
palatable
to.
Maybe
a
five
percent
increase
in
equities
had
that
you
know
not
increased
the
risk
profile.
Very
much
and
still,
you
know
been
just
a
five
percent
increase.
You
know
what
we
already
invest
in
and
things
like
that,
but
given
the
results
that
we've
seen
from
these
projections
is
kind
of
what
made
their
opinion
land
where
it
did.
Okay,.
A
G
G
So
if
we're
equally
wrong,
you
know
five
years
from
now,
as
we
were
from
compared
to
this,
maybe
we're
we
get
seven
and
a
half
you
know,
but
but
yes,
but
it
honestly
could
be
wrong
the
other
way
as
well.
You
just
you,
never
know
capital
market
assumptions
have
really
you
know
been
ratcheted
down
just
for
me.
I
would
expect
returns
to
be
higher
than
that,
but
again.
D
G
The
equity
markets
have
really
been
on
a
tear
since
march
of
2009
a
few
speed
bumps
along
the
way.
But
if
you
just
look
at
that
period
in
total,
it
has
been
a
tremendous
run
for
the
equity
market
and
I
think
that's
a
lot
of
what's
baked
in
there.
You
know
multiples
have
expanded
stocks,
just
generally
are
more
expensive
than
they
were,
and
so
it's
hard
to
in
order
to
get
continued
performance.
E
G
G
So
we
have
a
five
percent
international
fixed
income,
so
the
absolute
maximum
you
could
have
in
equity.
You
know
given
here
would
be
20,
so
we
could
increase
the
international
exposure
as
part
of
the
mix,
but
I'll
tell
you.
It
won't
have
much
of
an
impact
in
terms
of
risk
and
return
a
little
bit
different
on
the
wrist
side.
But
it's
not
going
to
really
increase
return.
Unless
you
went
to
something
like
emerging
markets,
which
is
the
most
aggressive,
the
most
volatile
equity
asset
class.
G
Eighty
percent
of
the
time,
if
you
look
back
the
last
20
years,
emerging
markets
is
either
the
best
performing
asset
class
or
it's
the
worst.
It's
almost
never
in
the
middle
and
again
it
it.
If
you
had
five
percent
or
something
like
that,
it's
it's
not
going
to
take
you
from
4.5
to
7..
It's
going
to
take
you
from
4.5
to
4.8.
It's
not
going
to
have
such
a
huge
difference
that
it
would
be
that
compelling,
given
the
increase
in
risk.
G
I
mean,
from
my
perspective,
I'm
just
reading
the
room.
It
sounds
like
we
can
just
sort
of
let
this
go
for
now,
but
maybe
we
revisit
it
a
year
from
now
or
something
like
that
see
what
results
are
and
just
kind
of
take
it
from
there
and
just
keep
checking
in
with
the
city
to
see
if,
if
maybe
their
thoughts,
are
any
different
or
or
have
any
interest
in
exploring
any
of
those
other
alternatives.
E
F
E
G
The
hard
part
is
we're
in
most
of
these
scenarios,
we're
trading
the
lowest
volatility
asset
class
for
something
else,
and
it's
really
hard.
You
know
when
you're
talking
about
your
safest
domestic,
you
know
core
fixed
income
other
than
cash.
There's,
really
not
anything
else
out
there,
that's
lower
in
terms
of
volatility
other
than
maybe
a
low
volatility.
Hedge
fund
type
situation,
then
again,
you're
not
getting
return.
Huge
return
on
that.
It's
just
meant
to
be
low
vault.
G
G
G
E
G
G
The
last
thing
you
wanted
to
do
was
go
sell
your
equities
when
they
dropped
30
the
prior
three
weeks,
so
you
had
your
either
cash
fixed
income
is
your
ballast
that
you
could
then
go
to,
and
and
that's
that's
the
flip
side
of
the
argument
you
have
to
have
some
reasonable
amount
in
those
relatively
safe
assets
to
to
be
there,
because
there
will
be
rough
patches
and
equity.
There
always
have
been
always
will
be,
and
so
for
an
ongoing
fund
that
has
regular
cash.
G
G
Unless
there
any
other
questions,
that
is
everything
I
had
for
you.
I
know
sorry.
It
was
a
lot
of
numbers
more
so
than
normal,
but
I
I'll
just
take
you
back
to
you,
know
19
fiscal
year,
fantastic
overall
result-
and
here
we
are
in
the
first
couple
weeks
of
november
and
we're
off
to
another
good
start
for
this
new
fiscal
year.
Already
up
three
and
a
half
four
percent
so
knocked
out
wood
that
things
kind
of
keep
heading
in
this
direction.
A
Blackboard
and
okay
on
the.
A
D
A
E
E
Conferences
before
we
have
our
next
meeting,
there
is
going
to
be
an
fppta
conference
for
the
spring
trustees,
school
lake,
buena
vista
hilton
january
23rd
to
26th.
So
if
you're
interested
in
going
to
that,
please
let
me
know
shoot
me
an
email,
something
like
that,
so
that
I
can
get
those
rooms
reserved,
I'm
sure
that
will
open
up
pretty
soon
for
reservations.
E
And
yeah.
B
Any
further
discussion
motion
and
a
second
to.