Misleading reporting by Reuters on Chicago’s finances – Wirepoints Original

More misuse of phony government "budget" numbers.
4 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Glennonsachump
6 years ago

Your reporting is just as disingenuous The same study you cite also says – “Just as being more than 80% funded does not assure a plan is adequately funded, a plan with a funded ratio below 80% should not necessarily be characterized as unhealthy without further examination. A plan’s actuarial funding method should have a built-in mechanism for moving the plan to the target of 100% funding. Provided the plan sponsor has the financial means and the commitment to make the necessary contributions, a particular funded ratio does not necessarily represent a significant problem.”

Mark M
6 years ago
Reply to  Glennonsachump

Glennonsachump – you can’t possibly be serious. Glendon’s point was over shoddy reporting regarding the actual state of Chicago’s finances, and you cite a statement from a report that indicates that being 80 percent funded in some cases may not mean a fund is unhealthy. But look at Chicago. Depending on what fanciful rate of return one wishes to apply, Chicago’s funds are funded in the low 20th percentile range. They are surely unhealthy, and are rapidly heading to insolvency, if not already there in som sense. And you claim that somehow Glennon’s reporting is disingenuous? The only reason that… Read more »

6 years ago

Pierog is on my list (so far) 4 times

That’s up there with Hilary Russ, also from Reuters: 4 times

But not quite so high at CT Mirror’s Keith Phaneuf: 8 times

SIGN UP HERE FOR FREE WIREPOINTS DAILY NEWSLETTER

Home Page Signup
First
Last
Check all you would like to receive:

FOLLOW US

 

WIREPOINTS ORIGINAL STORIES

WE’RE A NONPROFIT AND YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS ARE DEDUCTIBLE.

SEARCH ALL HISTORY

CONTACT / TERMS OF USE