Alabama PACT News Roundup

Anybody know which stocks they bought? (4.00 / 2)

And when they bought them?  A friend of mine has looked into Colonial Bank stock purchases and it looks to him like Louder used his influence to get his friends and allies to buy as much of his bank's stock as possible just before its value collapsed.  I wonder if his influence extneded to the PACT board?

---

by: drg @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 10:46:04 AM CDT

PACT Stocks (4.00 / 1)

That's a very interesting question.  Unfortunately, none of the information Treasurer Ivey has made available includes that level of detail.  The investments are discussed in terms of fairly broad categories or individual investment managers, not specific stocks or other investments.  That was also the level of detail presented to the Board at last Tuesday's meeting so it is possible even the Board members don't know specifically what they're invested in -- or that not all the Board members know.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 11:18:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't think so (4.00 / 2)

While it's likely he has contacts with the board members, it looks to me as if the board was not really involved in the investment decisions.  They seem to have farmed out all the investing decisions to Callan, who then arranged contracts with various investment-category managers.  These category managers seem to be the ones responsible for actual stock picks.  I could be wrong, but this seems a much more likely scenario to me.

---

by: roadhowl @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 11:39:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ever the skeptic ... (4.00 / 1)

I just have to note that this arrangement conveniently insulates the Board members should it turn out that some "favoritism" purchases turn up.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 12:33:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If they would just release more information (4.00 / 2)

then people wouldn't be speculating and believing the "worst case" scenarios.

Either they think we'll all just give up and go away (HAH!) or the "worst case" is really true, OR they're sitting on the info until the questioning reaches a frenzy, then will release it and say "See, we told you it was nothing..."

A former political reporter suggested that latter option.  He said it's an old tactic to discredit the opposition.  Let them work themselves into a lather of speculation, then release papers showing nothing was going on and make the opponent look like kooks.

Personally, I don't think Ivey and company are that smart.  I think they screwed up either through inattention, greed, stupidity, or some combination of those and want to hide it now.

Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

---

by: countrycat @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 13:14:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Possibilities (4.00 / 2)

But I do not think it's a tactic to discredit in this case. Here's why:

1. The people who are in control of the information  don't seem to be taking the "opposition" all that seriously. They seem to be more worried about too much information getting out to the public.

2. There's so much potential for chaos and collateral damage here that it doesn't make sense to withold information if that information is useful for proving that this was just a case of some money that got lost in the stock market and no one could have predicted. It seems like a no-brainer at this point that this was witheld from the public for quite some time. We haven't really proven that yet, but it's there in the public documents, I think.

3. I smell fear. I think this might be a case where some people who were supposed to be listening to the presentations and keeping up with the reports didn't do so, and got caught by surprise. Because the people who should have tipped the rest of the group off to the problem and started a discussiona about how to disclose and fix the problems didn't do so. The question is: Why didn't they do so?

The best evidence I can offer to support this is an anecdote. Last week I sent a request by e-mail to the Treasurer's office and the pact address.I asked how to go about obtaining documents, what the costs are, and whether or not I can get them in electronic format. If this was all on the up-and-up, and they were just ovewhelmed by this sudden problem, and wanting to do the right thing, I would think they would have referred me to this form, which answers all my questions except the one about electronic documents.And maybe mentioned that instructions for getting to the form are in the Q and A at the PACT site. And note: I was not very specific about the documents I would want, nor did I say anything negative about the program. 

Instead, they forwarded my message to legal counsel and told me I would be getting a response as soon as possible.

You can draw your own conclusions, but I think that's an indication that something isn't right.

4. I think you're correct that they're hoping people will just get tired of this and go away.

It's more fun if you comment!

---

by: geno @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 12:29:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

well, hey... (4.00 / 1)

they voted to hire themselves a lawyer at the last board meeting.

Guess they're determined to get our their money's worth out of him/her....

Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

---

by: countrycat @ Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 07:20:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Money (0.00 / 0)

I think you were right the first time.  It's our money.  Especially for PACT parents because it wasn't clear to me that the money for legal counsel was coming from the Treasury instead of the PACT fund.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 09:29:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lawyers (4.00 / 1)

The Birmingham News article referenced above ends with this little fling at lawyers:

There is one group of people likely to come out on top, no matter what, he said.

"It's certain to make some lawyers happy down the road."

It's fun to pretend lawyers are entirely superfluous and that we live in a society where conflicts never arise, but we all know that's not the case.  PACT is a perfect example of a David vs. Goliath situation where the Davids (PACT families) need the services of a few good lawyers to level the playing field.  Going against the state is never easy.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 11:25:55 AM CDT