CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 08, 2010 10:38 PM UTC
146 Comments
You never see Wade Norris and David Sirota in the same place at the same time?
waitaminute… I have seen Sirota and Norris at the same time
I’ve never seen Wade Norris and Pat Caddell in the same place.
whose job does not allow him to comment publicly (I copied it verbatim):
“This (Morgensen article) is unbelievable. She never thoroughly researched the details of the deal to secure DPS debt. She just made assumptions about the deals that were done. One of the assumptions is comparing the DPS deal to a variable rate homeowner mortgage. She also made assumptions on termination fees. She should have known all of this being a financial reporter. Any individual who works with these fixed income investments and derivatives would know that the Morgensen article contained significant inaccuracies.”
Boarsberg is telling the truth on this one. Let them investigate all they want; but it needs to be someone other than Romanoff hacks.
There is much criticism of Morgensen as a business writer. Try Google. She takes information from blogs and doesn’t give credit to bloggers.
I don’t have a personal relationship with Bennet.
n/t.
could explain Morgenson’s article to Sirota on his show, as long as they don’t have a horse in the race. I talked to one person whose opinion I trust. Mike Littwin talked with an investment professional who he mentions in his latest column.
Sharon, I thought you’d still be over at the PERA website reading all those reports, since you were looking for information this morning.
Because we want a senator who knows what the fuck he’s talking about on issues related to finance and banking.
These products add no value what-so-ever to our society and should be highly regulated but not by Bennet. That’s like asking the wolf to watch the henhouse; and we know his votes will favor the banks as he has already demonstrated with his votes on cram-down and the Brown/Kaufman amendment.
And I could care about fixed income and derivatives parasites like you Di.
you mean all manner of derivatives – they add liquidity. Which in turn, adds velocity. Both are useful and potentially beneficial to the entire economy.
You could attempt to strip it all out and bring back the Bailel Brothers Building and Loan. But that will hurt more than help.
You could also attempt to rewrite the best economic thinking of the late 20th and early 21st century. But not on Pols.
we’re just awash in fucking liquidity aren’t we you ass! Fucking shill! You can’t even see how bad this economy is doing and not stop shilling for the corporatists that screwed all of us, can you?
If all you can do is parrot Wall Street propaganda, why don’t you just STFU!
I couldn’t have said it any better. You nailed it, MADCO the corporatist.
obviously that bullshit line hit a nerve. I can’t believe we still have to listen to this bullshit this far into the Great Recession and now we may be facing a double dip and the political will to actually do anything effective is evaporating quicker than a virga rain on the high plains!
Now we’re told we have to fear the deficit and phantom inflation when real deflation is a current and credible risk (and much more pernicious and devastating than inflation). We could fall into a Japanese style dead zone very easily, but not according to MADCO, because we have liquidity! I don’t know where, but s/he says so, so it must be true.
I said liquidity and velocity are useful and potentially beneficial. This is not Street propaganda. It’s Economic theory.
I didn’t say we’re awash now.
I acknowledge how bad the economy is doing.
Further, I lay the blame at the twin evils of under regulation and banking/hedge fund over exuberance. I blame Alan Greenspan and every fund manager more concerned by churn than value. And I blame 10x every fund manager who over leveraged the secondary mortgage market. I blame the Clinton Administration for gutting Glass-Steagal.
I could go on- but it’s now off the subject and you and SH will just bash me anyway.
“If by “these products” you mean all manner of derivatives – they add liquidity”
and your follow up post is a bad rationalization of your first quote. We’re screwed because of derivatives and what they did to our financial markets. As a greater sage than you said, they are “financial weapons of mass destruction.”
It is what derivatives do. But the world is broken right now.
Your & SH’s solution to outlaw derivatives in the US is….questionable.
is allow people to legally gamble. They can create any form of financial exotica to wager that other forms of investments will do something or other (go up, go down, go sideways). It is the root of the term, the value is derived from something else.
And they do nor create liquidity. They are in fact a zero-sum game because when one side of the contract wins the bet, the losing side has to pay. No net value or liquidity created, it just transfers wealth from one party to another for nothing of intrinsic value. There was no product or service exchanged, just the wager.
Oh, but I forgot, investment banks are usually the winners, because they play the house and take their cut up front with little to no risk (unless they’re stupid enough to hold some of these toxic assets, which apparently they were that stupid!)
Do you work for an investment bank MADCO?
do you?
but you write like you do.
Even the things we don’t understand.
stop trying to out me.
And I don’t want to.
n/t.
Read the fucking post you moron.
And economic dogma especially freshwater economic theories may not be with us for much longer as it didn’t predict the financial collapse and their theories are flawed and have no relationship to reality.
n/t.
I’ve been able to glean that:
– business is bad, especially a large business that employs many people
– job creation is evil, if the jobs are created in a large corporation
– investments are evil, especially if they are based on fixed income and derivatives. Anyone who works in the investment industry is a parasite.
– the economy just goes by itself. If we get rid of large businesses, corporations, investments, and the jobs they provide, the economy will be just fine and we can all live an idealic life.
This is nutty. And we worry about the religious right taking over.
I would feel the same way about Bennet no matter who ran against him. I have no connection what-so-ever to the Romanoff campaign except that I have sent in donations and will continue to do so after he wins the primary.
Can I ask why it is that every time someone speaks out against Bennet’s record or background you revert to the one-brain-cell response of it’s coming from the Romanoff campaign? Do you think you could use a few more brain cells and come up with a different response?
As for the points you do make.
Large corporations have been instrumental in reducing the wages of the middle class for quite some time now and either shipping jobs overseas or hiring contractors so they don’t have to pay benefits or a fair wage. They can also avoid paying for vacations, holidays and sick time by hiring contractors. Is this what you mean by creating jobs? This is the reality and you have bought into the right wing talking points. By the way this ends up hurting large corporations eventually especially companies that depend on a strong middle class for their revenue streams.
Anyone that makes their money working for an investment bank that sells CDO or Securitized Products made of dog shit and then bets against them because they know they are going to fail is a parasite in my opinion. Methinks you don’t know what you are talking about and don’t really understand what they are doing. Take my word for it Bud this practice should be outlawed. And no I’m not saying derivatives need to be outlawed but the practice of selling dog shit and then betting against it should be outlawed.
The economy would be in a lot better shape if there was a more equitable distribution of wealth. What has happened Bud is the banksters have effectively managed to wipe out the middle class with these exotic products while enriching themselves. You probably live a wrenched existence and don’t even know why. Take your head out of the sand Bud.
You’re probably a closet Republican so I’ll just leave this alone.
Time to move on.
n/t.
Bud, what a bunch of drivel. Nice try to keep swinging, but let’s see if your Republican colors shine through when AR wins tonight and you come out in support of Buck or Norton.
but I don’t see how it helps your cause to try to chase away every Democrat who doesn’t support your far left, no business, no jobs agenda. You’re the second Romanoff schill (who gets his talking points from the Romanoff campaign daily) who has tried to call me a Republican. It seems to be a trend for Romanoff supporters to want to cleanse the party; not much different than the far right Republicans,and we see how far that has taken them.
I have voted Democrat my whole life and have been a sure Democratic vote. Romanoff is the first Democratic candidate that makes me take pause. He’s run a negative, attack-only campaign, and his supporters are nasty, rude, and many have nothing intelligent to say. That’s just the way I see it.
I get nothing from anyone daily. But from your posts you seem to think rational regulation is a great hindrance on our business community. Every time you write anything about economics or business policy, it sounds like it comes straight from the Club for Growth to me.
As far as being nasty and insulting, I’ve been on a few receiving ends of your barbs Bud, so don’t get all misty on me ok? If you want to elevate the level of discourse, start with the language you frequently use in your posts. You’ll find I can take either the high or low roads, but I prefer the high road. If someone takes a low blow, I’ll swing back though.
that’s been coming out of the Romanoff camp. Romanoff’s message has been anti-business, which to me means anti-jobs, since I have always made a living in business. I don’t know how you pulled this Club for Growth crap out of your ass. It’s not even a good try.
It’s been a disgusting campaign, and I’m sorry to have had my eyes opened by it. It’s too bad Romanoff didn’t try to run on his merits rather than run on what he’s against. Maybe the nature of his campaign is why so many of his supporters have so little of substance to say.
Is Bennet the one facing the legislative probe? Or, is the whole deal being audited with a look at Bennet’s role and the roles of Boasberg and the school board members who (unanimously) approved the deal?
If it’s the latter, David, it would look a lot more accurate if you’d change your headline – but I think you already know that.
He’d be a REAL journalist.
Neither is likely to happen in our lifetimes.
Bennet is part of the mix so he’ll be part of the investigation.
There are other cases involving municipalities and school districts. Here are some links.
FBI Probe of JPMorgan Fees Focuses on Swaps Roiling Muni Debt
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/…
Fair Game
The Swaps That Swallowed Your Town
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03…
Municipal bond case settled by J.P. Morgan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
The fact that other municipalities may or may not have had a bad deal in their cases is out of the scope of the DPS deal. The problem here is that the Romanoff campaign is trying to use the DPS deal to defeat Bennet, when, in fact, the NYT’s article by Morgenson made only assumptions about the DPS deal. She didn’t research the facts, many of which are available in reports on the PERA website.
For me it conjures up the image of wealthy rich banksters frothing at the mouth with these deals and Bennet smirking and giving them a wink. I want to know why the derivative deals were set up for 30 years. This would never ever happen in the real world where if an executive made a decision like this they would be fired, especially if it went bad in the first year.
But on Bennet’s website it touts Michael Bennet saying,
But for DPS it was almost as if he worked for the banks and not the taxpayers, teachers or children of our inner city schools by negotiating a sweet deal for the banks no matter who was on the losing end and he locked it in for 30 years.
I hope these investigations focus not only on what happened but if DPS & PERA can recover some of their losses by proving that the appraisals on the property used as collateral were inflated or whether DPS & PERA had the ability to pay this back. In other words were they put into a deal they couldn’t afford and did the banks mislead them about the risks, although the latter will be hard to prove as Michael Bennet has said over and over how much business acumen he has. I’d also like to know who is on the winning side of these bets and if these loans are part of a CDO or another securitized pool of assets and if default insurance has been paid on these bonds already. I think any investigation should ask for all relevant documents related to these loans from the banks.
What they are finding with the predatory loans of residential mortgages is that the banks would combine the worst of the worst of these loans and sell them to investors, then when they started to go bad they would collect the insurance money on them, repackage them again and do it all over. So in effect they would sell the same crappy loans over and over, collect the insurance on them and start over. Then they would sell them to a bottom feeding foreclosure mill that would then foreclose on the loans that were already paid for with insurance proceeds. By the time it reached the bottom feeding foreclosure mills the loans had already been paid off multiple times and they didn’t have a right to be collecting from the homeowners. When these residential loan frauds are revealed in court they are finding both the homeowners and the investors were left in the dark. I wonder if something like this isn’t going on with these bonds for municipalities and school districts.
C. Twitty posted this recently –
A fantastic summer dish
Ingredients:
1 cup dry bulgur wheat
1 1/2 cups boiling water
1 to 1 1/2 tsp. salt
1/4 cup fresh lemon juice
1/4 cup olive oil
2 med. cloves garlic, crushed
black pepper to taste
4 scallions, finely minced (whites & greens)
1 packed cup minced parsley
10 to 15 fresh mint leaves, minced
2 med. tomatoes
, diced
OPTIONAL:
1/2 cup cooked chick peas
1 medium bell pepper, diced
1 small cucumber, seeded and minced
Directions:
Combine bulgur & boiling water in a medium large bowl. Cover and let stand until bulgur is tender (20-30 mins). Add salt, lemon juice, olive oil, garlic & black pepper & mix thoroughly. Cover tightly & refrigerate until about 30 minutes before serving.
About 30 minutes before serving, stir in remaining ingredients (including any optionals) and mix well. Serve cold w/ warm wedges of toasted pita bread.
I modified it by using quinoa instead of bulgar, and flat bread (pan) rather than pita.
It was awesome.
You can believe that PERA analyzed the situation to the nth degree. The same can’t be said for Gretchen Morgenson and her degree in English from a relatively unknown college (you can believe she won’t be taken seriously in any investigation).
It seems that Republicans would be quite happy to get Bennet out of the Senate race, since he has a much greater chance of winning than sleazy, whiney, no-PAC money Romanoff.
if they ever do a full set of trading cards for smart women who understand finance and can write- I’d get hers.
And some others.
and not identifying her main source as a major Romanoff contributor. That one is journalism 101 type stuff. I’m just surprised she is lacking a business education. It would give her credibility.
n/t.
It doesn’t mean she gets a free pass on every story, especially when she doesn’t do all the necessary research. It looks like she was in a rush to get a scoop. If Sirota is so interested in truth, why doesn’t he get some well-respected financial types on the show who don’t have a horse in the race and let them tell the listeners what they think?
It is a broader story about derivatives and municipal finance.
The missing Colorado pieces appear to be missing but are not especially relevant to the broader story. BTW- Bennet didn’t do any of the other deals she mentions.
He wasn’t the finance guy who BK’d Orange County or NYC back when. He had nothing to do with that Alabama water bond. Was nowhere near Enron or MCI Worldcom. Was no part of Madoff or Lehman or Bear Stearns or Goldman Sucks, or AIG or or or.
As a Coloradan, I think she should have id’d Kaplan for the partisan hack that she is. But as a finance story (it was in the NYT Business section- not Politics) it’s not a glaring omission.
Of course, as Bennet supporter I wish she would have emphasized the two points that she sort of buried
I think MADCO the issue is why negotiate a risky deal like this for a school district. It simply shouldn’t be done with taxpayer dollars but the banks are greedy and market these deals as the greatest things since sliced bread. Why, because they stand to make so much money from fees and commissions on these deals and others like those around the country no matter the winner or loser. They don’t market the plain-vanilla products that are more suited for a non-profit like DPS. It’s called predatory banking and it is what the financial collapse is all about.
No one knows at this point if there was any wrong doing by anyone at DPS or PERA but it does beg the question, Were DPS and PERA victims of predatory banking practices like so many other municipalities around the country? None of us will know any of the answers until the investigation is complete. But this black cloud is hanging over Bennet now and his involvement in this risky deal will consume the Republicans like gasoline on a fire and it will all happen during the November election cycle if Bennet wins the primary. This is not a good scenario for the Democrats, let’s hope Andrew Romanoff wins the primary so we can keep the seat Democratic.
And I still want to know what bets were made against these instruments and will any proceeds be paid in the event DPS defaults. It will all unfold but for now we have to sit tight and let the investigators do their work.
“fees and commissions”
How much did DPS pay for the transaction as structured?
How much would DPS have paid for the transaction if they did it the way you think they should have?
” No one knows at this point if there was any wrong doing..”
Right, but let’s not let that stop anyone from claiming there was. After all we’re talking about children and big dollar amounts.
a few days before an election (the timing made it political).
She also didn’t mention that Boasberg is a Bennet contributor.
Nor s there mention of the Easter Bunny, the Tooth fairy, The Festivus pole, or a zillion other things that are not a relevant part of the story.
In that situation, I wouldn’t be lying. No one wants to look at the facts there as they exist. Boasberg made an extremely compelling case, much more compelling than Morgenson’s assumptions on the matter, and nobody wants the facts in that case. We’re just supposed to pay attention to one biased side and not to the other biased side. Again, much of this information is available in reports on the PERA website, if anyone actually has any interest in educating themselves on the matter; but that’s not the purpose of the conversation here, at least for many.
I know, I know…another point of clarification, but…
Do lobbyists kill legislation or do legislators (maybe this is a question for Paul Weissman) kill/vote down legislation that would open up deals to public scrutiny?
Maybe there’s something to look at behind the scenes in the DPS deal, but between Merida, Kaplan, Weissman and Ferrandino, and Sirota for that matter, there’s a lot of coulda/shoulda/woulda going on. Where were they two years ago? Shouldn’t good legislators/public servants/journalists have been paying attention then?
There just wasn’t a primary election going on where one of the candidates thought he could score points by having a major contributor shop the story to a New York Times reporter who researched only half of the story, and then made stunningly inaccurate assumptions about the half she didn’t research.
The idea that Mark Ferrandino would sully the JBC by getting the committee involved in a partisan primary election is unfathomably disappointing. That’s a serious ethical concern, and he should apologize. I’ve lost a lot of respect for him.
More likely they’ll ask the Legislative Audit Committee to look at this; they meet next week.
Besides the fact that Bennet was involved there are other issues that should be investigated, like were the appraisals on the properties used as collateral overstated to the point of being fraudulent? If so DPS may be able to recover some of their losses.
This isn’t just about Bennet. The banks may have acted inappropriately by extending deals they knew DPS wouldn’t be able to pay. So this investigation needs to take place with or without the Senate race looming over Bennet.
I don’t have any inside information or information that isn’t public but these would be the issues I would want to see explored as a taxpayer and voter. We all have a vested interest in ensuring the state isn’t the victim of predatory banking.
Most of this information has been made public for any who are actually looking for factual answers rather than just trying to turn it into a political win.
How is it that people are blaming AR in some of the comments? In this case, the buck stops with Bennet, right? He is the one that pushed for the deal. And when it didn’t work out, it has to be considered his failure, because he was in charge when the decision was made.
It might not be fair, but that is what leadership is all about. You tally up the successes and the failures (and there are hopefully many more success than failures).
I have yet to read a logical argument for the goodness of this deal. At the very best, it was a gamble that went bad. And now, the person who pushed for the deal has to accept the consequences.
The goal was to refinance existing debt, and add 400million of new debt.
Doing it the way it was done saved money. It didn’t save as much as was forecast, but it saved money.
Again, my opinion really doesn’t matter and my vote has already been cast. Based on the reaction to the story, it sounds like a lot of people are skeptical. Can the Bennet campaign counteract that skepticism?
And if MB wins the primary, I sure hope that you are right and that myself and many others can be convinced that it worked out. Right now, I’m definitely not convinced that it “worked out.” If you’re wrong and it didn’t work out and MB wins the primary, this is going to be a big big problem in the general.
I hope you’re right either way, and I promise to study more so that I can convince others if there is a positive upside to this situation after the primary (if MB is our candidate).
1) If DPS did nothing, what would the expenses have been?
No reasonable observer is suggesting this was a better move.
So
2) DPS had to do something. There were lots of choices- though the logical “corporatey” choices were not applicable.
– downsize so the debt wasn’t needed
Makes no sense- it would be like firing the students.
– issue stock
DPS cannot sell ownership (equity) so it makes no sense.
The small stuff like a line of credit against annual receipts, wasn’t enough.
So
3) bond issue.
They could have done a traditional, conventional fixed rate issue. But they chose to do the structure they did because their forecast showed them saving HUGE. Instead, so far, they have saved small.
Q1
What has been the total DPS expense (fees and interest to date) on the transaction?
Q2
What would the total DPS expense have been if they did the fixed rate?
Nothing else is relevant.
All leaders make gambles, but they get punished when the gamble fails whether it was their fault or not.
Perhaps your argument above can sway some more voters (my vote is already cast). But if MB wins this, make sure to bring the above up again in a separate diary so that we can all get on the same page and defend MB’s choices (if possible).
But the fact of the matter is that there are some real losses occurring right now and that is what people are judging as they decide on their vote. I am totally open to studying this more if MB is the democratic nominee after the primary. I think I’ve made it clear that I want to have a democratic senator come November.
This is how it works in the private sector and Bennet touts his business background. He even uses it to say he’s a better choice than AR because of it.
Come to think of it, when you look at the Bennet record it looks like he should be challenged on this deal before he doesn’t any more damage in Washington.
It’s timely, it’s necessary and it’s revealing Bennet’s involvement.
Morgenson researched only half of the whole picture and made inaccurate assumptions on the other half. She writes about business, but she doesn’t have the business education.
Romanoff’s major donor shopped the story possibly for political reasons rather than for any real concern. Romanoff knew the story was coming and was prepared to make hay out of it.
Boasberg, the one who lives this day in and day out, makes a very compelling case that the deal has saved DPS money and the entire picture, including the move to PERA, has cut the per student DPS retirement costs in half (look to the PERA web site for current reports).
So this is all just a conspiracy by AR, his supporters, and incompetent New York Times reporter(s)? And that if we study all of the facts, this deal did work out well?
Boasberg is not convincing either given his relationship to MB. At the very least if you are correct, I wish that the Bennet campaign had planned for dealing with this story. I’m in the dark, and the information presented so far does not convince me to just dismiss the NYT article. But my opinion really doesn’t matter — we’re down to the wire and it seems like this story has the Bennet campaign fully on its heels.
I’ll say for the umpteenth time that MB is responsible for this good or bad. If the gamble truly paid off, he should be trumpeting it loudly. But he can’t blame it on the poor economy if it failed — because the buck stops with him (not with the messenger).
Did you read the NYT article?
It plainly explains that DPS has debt expense. They would have debt expense whether they did a simpler fixed rate refinance or the variable rate swap refinance they did.
Morgensen writes that the overall expense to DPS is approximately the same (it’s alttle less so far- approx $20million) as it would have been had DPS done a simpler fixed rate transaction.
And Morgensen’s article is not just about DPS. Her article is much broader description of municipal financing that went wrong in the market melt down. But just because someone else, some other time used a swap that went bad, doesn’t mean all swaps are bad. That would be like saying Toyota cars had some safety problems, therefore all cars are unsafe. Just because the bankers doing the deal got paid also doesn’t mean the deal is bad.
It didn’t do as well as it was forecast.
It is more complcated, requiring more admin and accounting.
There were problems – one of the guarantors had trouble, and the market needed to clear the payments froze for a few days. But it has been good for DPS.
The transaction was thoroughly covered by the local media at the time. It apparently only came back up because of the primary.
Recall- the Board’s approval at the time was unanimous. If some of them really didn’t understand, they should be censured. The only one who was there who now says anything negative is J. Kaplan, maxed Romanoff supporter and source for the Morgensen article.
The NYT covered it before last winter (different writer) with essentially the same reaction: Campanoff went nuts saying it proves blah blah blah. Bennet, Boasberg repeated that it was good for DPS, though not as good as forecast.
I hope that it was as good as possible, because if it wasn’t and MB wins the primary, then MB will have to deal with it in the general.
It doesn’t matter if it’s not MB’s fault. He will be held responsible in the general election (just as he is being held responsible right now in the primary by those who don’t think it was a good deal).
This is the same logic that says the Democrats will not do too well in the Fall because of the economy. If the economy is bad, the party in power suffers. If this deal is bad, MB suffers.
There is no point in talking about Kaplan, Romanoff, Morgensen, the board or anybody else. This is MB’s problem right now — no way around it. Blaming others just makes MB look all the weaker.
I agree that politically this all Bennet’s if he wins Tuesday.
But I think you’re already saying that this is all Bennet’s if he wins Tuesday. Almost nobody will blame anybody but MB if it’s bad. I hope that things are better than they appear and that this issue is easily dealt with after the primary.
In the residential market the truth is emerging and it is not pretty. As a matter-of-fact it is downright fraudulent. The banks committed frauds against the investors and the homeowners and the methods were unscrupulous and illicit.
We had better hope that Romanoff wins because this could get very ugly real fast.
housing market? Sharon, get a grip. You’re delusional.
.
Andrew Romanoff IS the Bilderberg Group, and he is in charge of the New World Order.
Get in line.
.
already been done rather than waste taxpayer money on another one. PERA is audited by the state auditor. Extensive reports exist on the DPS deal and the merger with PERA, plus information on the health of the DPS retirement system. They have access to PERA management, the state auditor, and the state treasurer (who is a member of the PERA board).
They really need to get busy reading the various reports and talking with those in the know before they launch another wasteful audit. After reviewing the many available details and talking to the involved parties, they should make a determination on another audit. This is either a knee-jerk response or political posturing.
Bud, thank you for you concern. I have read the reports from the State Auditor, and from PERA. I believe there is a lot of information not being looked at when you take this transaction, as well as the merger and how they interact. There is suppose to be a true up done 4 years from now that was part of the merger legislation. We are asking that it be done sooner to check if there is any truth in the concerns about the possible underfunding of the DPS PERA Division. I hope DPS is correct and everything is okay, but I think we should not wait 4 years to look into this.
Going on Sirota and Mario’s show just before the election makes it look political. Sirota and Mario have been shameless shills for one side and actually ban the other side from their Facebook pages, etc. Someone needs to maintain some credibility as it concerns this matter. I’m all for fine-tuning what has been done if the need is there.
That’s just a flat out lie. It’s literally just made up. Additionally, we have continued to invite Senator Bennet onto the show. He’s been on twice before and has an open invitation to come on.
We will see if one of the banned respond.
that no one was banned and there is a standing open invitation. What more could you want? Oh, yes. The heavens to part and the booming voice from above to announce that Michael could appear on Sirota’s show. Nothing less than invites carved into tablets down from the mount would do for you I suspect.
That is complete bullshit, and several of us called him on it. He promotes Romanoff on a daily basis and slams Bennet at every opportunity. It has been going on for quite some time. If I were Bennet, I wouldn’t go on Sirota’s show either for the same reason Obama doesn’t go on Fox News. Neither are fair and balanced.
I believe Obama has been on Fox news. #FAIL!
Why go where they are just going to trash you when you leave.
Am I getting the bum’s rush from you Bud? I didn’t know I was going anywhere. And many have trashed me already here for supporting Andrew. It don’t confront me at all.
Why go on a show that is just going to trash them after they leave (or after they speak).
Would that be a result of the subsequent market moves against the PERA portfolio?
Or are you suggesting it has something to do with DPS not contributing a fully funded pension to the PERA merger?
Either way it’s hard to see how it could have anything to do with how DPS generated the $400mm in the first place.
Bud, I understand that going on Sirota and Mario’s show looks political, and I apologize for that. This has been an issue that has bugged me since 2008, and when I read the NYT article I reacted. I should have waited till Wednesday to do anything about this. It does look political, and I am a Andrew supporter. But I also really like Senator Bennet, and if he wins the primary I will support him a 110% and be a contributor to his campaign.
MADCO, as for the underfunding, everything is tied together. The $400 million and how it was financed allowed DPS to get the pension funded to around 80% so that they could merge with PERA. The merger with PERA allowed DPS to deduct their bond costs against the pension payments. These interactions maybe resulting in an underfunding of the pension liabilities. I hope that is not the case, but the sooner it is looked into, the lower the cost to fix any problem that may exist. I hope there is no problem, but enough people have raised concerns to me, as well as my own analysis of the data raised similar concerns that I think a third party should look into this.
results, and hopefully with as much fanfare the visits have generated today and last Friday. Have you considered just calling a meeting with the various parties to answer any questions you might have before resorting to another legislative probe? They do all keep detailed records.
A report released last week by independent auditors Cavanaugh Macdonald shows that the Denver Public Schools pension system is in significantly better financial shape than the rest of the pension system for the rest of the state’s school districts and will be fully funded years before the statewide school pension division is.
Don’t you know that defeats the whole purpose of politicizing and over reacting to something that can be looked up?
I mean, what are you advocating anyway? That nameless faceless gov’t employees do their job, with no drama or premature accusations?
Mein gött, man! Have you no shame?
The problem with the report is that is looks at one piece of the puzzle, the PERA side, but doesn’t look at the payments on PCOP in terms of the DPS balance sheet. The issue comes up on page 3 of the report where you see the PCOP Credit being deducted from the Employer Statutory Rate. This maybe okay, but some have raised concerns that this might be resulting in the underfunding of the pension obligation.
I hope that these concerns are not warranted, but it is important it is looked into sooner rather then later.
The issue is whether or not the bond costs and attached interest-rate swap is creating an unfunded liability that will make it difficult for us to meet our true-up in 2015. I believe the Cavanaugh report assumes that we meet all unfunded obligations in time for 2015. It does not take into account a fluctuating market that will cause us to take a hit on our cash flow and thereby make it impossible to meet the scheduled obligations.
It’s absolutely right that our pension silo within PERA is healthier and better funded. I also think it was a fabulous thing for teachers to have merged, since now they have pension portability. That’s not at issue.
Aside from that, the other issue is whether or not governmental entities should be risking tax dollars, in an environment where revenues are strictly meted out (because of TABOR, Gallagher, Amendment 23 and the end of Ref. C). We cannot simply sell off assets to raise cash and meet our pension obligations. Our assets are in the form of school buildings, school buses, chalkboards and computers.
I believe we should not have entered into this deal and should have stopped simply at the refinance to a fixed rate. The additional sidecar of the interest-rate swap was not prudent risk management. I would have voted no.
Are you trying to speak to this subject as if you have a shred of credibility?
Because you do not.
Given that I have inside perspective on these issues that you do not, I wouldn’t be so quick to judge.
Incidentally, a friend reminds me of this article in September 2008, not so long after DPS was sold the swap bill of goods. It talks about JP Morgan exiting that market after a probe.
http://www.boston.com/business…
Don’t take my word for it that this deal was imprudent. Take Reuters’.
Are they on Romanoff’s payroll too?
How about if you deal with the content of that article?
Morgensen writes
Is that the way you understand it?
Morgensen writes
… the overall expense to DPS is approximately the same so far as it would have been had DPS done a simpler fixed rate transaction.
Superintendent Boasberg says overall expense to DPS is a little less so far than it owuld have been- approx $20million. Which is right?
And just to be clear – are you on the payroll of any political or other organizations that any interest in the Senate primary?
The point of the articles I linked in was to show you that we’re not just speculating that interest-rate swaps were a bad deal. They were so much so that there were FBI probes.
If, and I say if (because Tom Boasberg has yet to show us a transaction detail about actual fees paid out, and believe me we’ve asked for it) we only paid out $20 million, it’s really lucky. He makes that assertion without offering any concrete data…you and I are just going by his say-so.
I don’t believe we should be holding taxpayer dollars out for luck, do you? I don’t think you do.
Morgensen writes
Is that the way you understand it?
Morgensen writes
When I wrote that Superintendent Boasberg says overall expense to DPS is a little less so far than it would have been- approx $20million and I asked “Which is right?”
You said you can’t tell.
How is it hat Ms. Morgensen has adequate data to make that assessment but you do not?
And just to be clear – are you on the payroll of any political or other organizations that any interest in the Senate primary?
I wasn’t diverting, but I think you are (again) – there are at least two 527’s feeding this fire. I understand you resigned form your paid position with the Romanoff campaign, are you affiliated with or getting paid by any other entity with an interest in this primary?
Inside perspective?
Were you on the Board when this was voted on?
Here’s another article about JP Morgan’s interest rate swap products, this time about the FBI probe that was conducted:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/…
Take Bloomberg’s word, not mine.
You have just as much access to board minutes and online videos as I. The difference is I don’t have to CORA to get it.
I guess if someone somewhere else did something that triggered an FBI probe then anyone anywhere who did something similar must be a lying criminal fraid too.
Are you alleging that a crime was committed int he DPS transaction?
What did the FBI say when you contacted them?
When is their DPS probe beginning?
…that this deal was imprudent, for many reasons.
I take issue with the fact that the board signed a hold-harmless waiver with Royal Bank of Canada so that they could advise the board. RBC is one of the beneficiaries of fees and commissions on this deal.
I am very interested in finding out if there is legal action we can take or at least if we can negotiate our way out of the unwind fee of $81 million. We cannot leave this up to chance any longer, and the fees we’re paying for this privilege instead need to be redirected to paying up our pensions.
Anyone that pays the slightest attention to the markets knows that we’re about to face yet another wave of foreclosures, which again could cause the markets to buckle. We can’t afford the aftermath of that possibility.
I’ll say again: it’s imprudent.
But you cited an article where a totally different transaction resulted in an FBI probe.
Are you alleging that a crime was committed in the DPS transaction?
If so, what did the FBI say when you contacted them?
Are you alleging any wrong doing at all?
What fees that DPS is paying?
How much as been paid to date?
How much would have been paid in a simpler fixed rate transaction?
I am assuming that is what you believe should have been done, a fixed rate transaction: is hat what you think should have been done?
Is so, what is your estimate of what that would have cost?
This idea that you believe something different should have been done is interesting- and would not seem to require any inf. from Mr Boasberg. What do you think should have been done? What is your estimate of what it would have cost? How would it have decreased risk to DPS?
If you actually have an alternative proposal, it would make a great diary on it’s own.
By going on the Romanoff payroll and not admitting it until you were called on it, you have lost your credibility.
Once lost, it’s not easy to regain.
You still look like you have an axe to grind here.
I want to know what is going on so can you email Andrea your concerns and let the truth come out.
Thank you Andrea.
Would Andrea take direct questions by email?
She never replied to anything I sent her before.
I am known for being the ONLY board member to respond to emails from the public.
district2@andreamerida.com
and it won’t be until after tomorrow. maybe way after.
I acknowledge I probably screwed up her email address and you see it as an “attack:.
Decaf and avoid sharp objects.
Perhaps don’t operate heavy machinery.
And I mean that is a pathological lying kind of way.
or STFU.
BUt I’ll share the next one- tomorrow
Sorry, but do you have specific refudiation of anything AM has brought up, or just pointless snark?
And you should have.
Rep. Ferrandino, you knew exactly what you were doing by going on to these radio shows. Your statement that you “should have waited,” while true, is an insult to the intelligence of your constituents and the readers of this blog. Everyone knows whose bidding you are doing, and the timing is no accident.
You’re not sorry in the least, and you’re not fooling anyone.
since you introduced HB 1351 to reform payday lending. You’re a savvy legislator and you’re doing some great work in the House.
That said, you’ve been around the block and in this line of work for years before you were appointed. To suggest that you didn’t understand how it would look by going public on Sirota/Mario and doing it four days before the primary is just not believable.
It doesn’t look political; it is political. And I think you are better than that. At least I will continue to hope so.
It was political. What it actually looks like is you are not mature enough to lead. And by extension, it looks like Democrats are not mature enough to lead.
Your apology for it looking political is like the standard non-apology apology for other people being offended, not for being offensive.
Will the investigation look at how the banks handled the transaction? In other words will they look to see if DPS was a victim of predatory lending or is that a federal issue?
will do a better job researching a story before they publish it.
NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08…
Politico
http://www.politico.com/blogs/…
(the comments are pretty harsh)
They call Kaplan Bennet supporter. Wow.
I am a frigging moron. “Mr. Bennet’s opponent” would be Andrew Romanoff.
**facepalm**
Jeannie Kaplan is noted as a “former” member of DPS Board.
Is there no institution in which I can place my trust?????
With the possible exception of this blog…..
The bulk of the reporting for this article is accurate and doesn’t change the substance of what happened at DPS.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08…
Morgensen gets the facts right- unlike campanoff.
This 115 is compared to the $135 forecast for the simpler fixed rate structure considered. So DPS spent more than forescast, but still $20million less than the alternative.
Wow- DPS could be paying less in the future, but for now DPS has saved some over what they would have spent, and is essentially paying what they would have otherwise. Oh Noes!
You should go back to citing cscott run and Sirota. Morgensen is too calm and factual to be much help.
I’m really enjoying the internecine battle between Bennet and Romanoff supporters here. Each camp fiercely defends their chosen one as if the individual is some kind of angelic, selfless non-politician who wants this job solely to assist in the betterment of humankind’s condition. A cursory review of the background of either one will reveal abundant evidence to contradict such beliefs.
The only certainty is that either one would be better than “Uncle Buck” or “Sweet Jane” Norton. But, no one should labor under the misperception that either Romanoff or Bennet is a progressive, or a populist, or interested in the job for primarily non-selfish reasons.
…
If all the details aren’t out yet, how do we know they’re sordid?
I am afraid Bennet is going to win. If it comes down to Bennet or Buck. I have far more respect for Buck. BUT, I believe that a republican Senate would put conservative justices on the supreme court who would continue to dismantle the constitution.
I think that the whole DPS mess stinks. I think an audit should go all the way back and review all the funding for the pension fund. I have a lot of other questions. However, any kind of probe now plays right into republican hands if Bennet wins the nomination. See above.