Not Gaining More, Losing Less

According to the Post-Dispatch, some are leveling criticism at MOSERS, a Missouri state employee pension fund, because of bonuses paid to investment staff for their performance while the fund was losing money. The nature of the criticism is obvious, until considered in context.

As pointed out in the article, the entire market was down during this period, and the MOSERS staff lost less than the average investor, percentage-wise. It would be difficult to independently check the numbers, but — if true — this is certainly a good reason to give bonuses. The relevant thing to consider is that it is difficult to maintain positive gains in such a losing market, and that if the folks at MOSERS hadn’t invested the way they did, the fund would have lost MORE money than it did.

Here’s a tortured analogy: Suppose that all the investment personnel are engaged in a ditch-digging contest, and the deeper their ditches, the better off they are. Every day, the ditches grow deeper. However, because of a general lack of foresight and some misguided government policies, the dirt removed from each ditch is stored right next to the ditches. One day, there’s an earthquake that fills in a large portion of everyone’s ditches, and everyone’s long, arduous work seems undone. Because of one digger’s foresight and good practice, however, the earthquake filled the MOSERS ditch with much less dirt than everyone else’s holes. That ditch is worse off than it had been before the earthquake, but thanks to the employee’s efforts, it’s not as bad as everyone else’s ditches. Should this employee be rewarded or punished?

Again, I haven’t run the numbers myself, but from what I’ve heard and read, this loss does not bode well for an already underfunded system. We needn’t blame the managers for this particular loss, but this is a good time to pay attention to Missouri’s public pension systems. Check out the Show-Me Institute’s recent study for more information.

Show-Me Institute Study Makes Reason Foundation Report

The latest issue of Surface Transportation Innovations, from the folks at the Reason Foundation, has a lot of great information in it. It includes a quote from Dr. Ken Small, excerpted from the Show-Me Institute study he cowrote, “Private Provision of Highways: Economic Issues,” which was released toward the end of last year.

Please check out the study as well as the analysis by Bob Poole at Reason.

Free-Market Campaign Finance Reform

Campaign finance regulation has been a very big deal on both the state and national levels for some time. Advocates for sharp restrictions on the amount that any given person can donate to a political candidate argue that, all too frequently, contributions are used to buy influence and access to lawmakers. Opponents of campaign finance restrictions point out that people have a constitutional right to support and publicize the political candidates they prefer and the political issues that are important to them. As with so many issues, I appreciate the concerns expressed by those who favor regulation — after all, it is a very rare politician who is willing to offer the average constituent the same respect and access afforded to the largest donors — but clamping down on people’s freedoms is a poor way to address this concern.

There is a freedom-respecting solution! Even more than campaign contributions, politicians respect votes. I propose that a group of voters simply pledge to cast their ballots based on how much money the candidates raise — and the lower the amount of contributions, the better. If as few as five percent of registered voters (which in many elections could be a decisive margin) committed to voting for candidates with smaller campaign “war chests,” I’d wager that politicians would quickly respond by de-emphasizing the importance of fundraising.

What do you think?

Addicted to Regulating

Alex Tabarrok reports on regulations purported to halt meth production (scroll down to the 7:20 a.m. post) and their short-lived effects. Economists found that restricting the sale of decongestants did reduce methamphetamine use for up to four months, after which things returned to normal.

So, the state regulates a legal substance and gets a temporary drop in illegal activity, then has to impose more and more regulations to try to get that effect again. Sounds … addictive.

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging