If there is no cover-up, then…
Why has Chrystia Freeland stated in her book on PLUTOCRATS - The Rise of the NEW GLOBAL SUPER-RICH and the Fall of EVERYONE ELSE
“In an age of super-wealth, we need to be constantly alert to efforts by the elite to get rich by using their political muscle to increase their share of the pre-existing pie”.
Why does Mark Carney’s book allude to
“twisted economics, an accompanying amoral culture, and degraded institutions whose lack of accountability and integrity accelerate the system’s dysfunction”.
Why did our Chief Actuary, after stating he needs a $293 billion fund value today, with an actual fund value of $550 billion today, state
“The CPP is not in surplus”?
Why, if standard pension protocol demands a surplus distribution when there is a 25% surplus, does the CPP, with as much as a 464% surplus, not distribute some of it?
When the Ryerson University Pension Plan only had an 18% surplus, why did the CRA demand a surplus payment of as much as $20,000 to Ryerson active and retired professors.
When HOOPP, the highly respected Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan, had investment success like CPP Investments, in 2018, their Board of Governors declared a $4,900 increase in all pensions per year. Why does our our Chief Actuary not act similarly?
Why are ten top pension experts in Canada denying an irrefutable surplus with ridiculous arguments?
Why did top pension expert, Malcolm Hamilton, spend 40 hours trying to convince me there is no surplus, using vacuous arguments? (He is associated with the C.D. Howe Institute, which has received a 2 out of 5 from Transparify on revealing who funds them.)
Why did one top Canadian actuary state that our Chief Actuary
“has done what pension actuaries frequently do - invent measures that are easily manipulated so that actuaries can control the narrative and hide things at will...I must remain anonymous because actuaries are not supposed to criticize other actuaries.”
What good is a peer review, the only review our Chief Actuary is subject to, if
“actuaries are not supposed to criticize other actuaries?”
Why is our Chief Actuary, who we naively trust to accurately report on hundreds of billions of dollars or our CPP contributions, not subject to an audit by our Auditor General?
Why do all pension experts stress the need for a representative Board of Governors but there is no move to provide 20 million members of the CPP with one.
Why did our Chief Actuary lower his forecast for investment return from 6.3% to 6.0% after CPP Investments averaged an 11% return for 10 years, thereby burying the CPP’s surplus?
Why has the Canadian media never published a single article about the CPP’s surplus and potential when The Economist published an article in January 2018, when the fund was $192 billion smaller, stating
“The fund’s portfolio size has more than tripled over the past decade and is going to become only more gigantic.”
Answer: Is it because the entire media industry is highly unprofitable? Is it because Chrystia Freeland, at one time a top journalist, describes in her book on PLUTOCRATS how
“the super-rich have bankrolled a network of conservative think tanks, elite journals and mass media outlets to dominate the debate over economic policy.”
Why did the think tank, C.D. Howe Institute, who received a 2 out of 5 from Transparency International on revealing who funds them, publish a paper packed with falsehoods that implies Canadians’ CPP pensions may be in jeopardy?
Why has CARP, with a mandate of “Promote financial security for seniors”, ignored the $1.7 billion CPP surplus that their members alone deserve, and refused to respond to an offer for a public debate between me and any actuary about the true status of the CPP. Is it because actuaries have no ammunition to debate with?
Why has CANAGE, led by Laura Tamblyn Watts who worked with me to bring $440 million more per year to low-income seniors, refused any discussion about the CPP?
Why, with the CPP able to easily give $10,000, on average, to 17 million Canadians, double the GDP increase, create jobs, reduce poverty, somewhat solve income inequality, and reduce the deficit by $50 billion, has no political party promised these benefits in the recent election and gained, possibly, millions more votes and likely a majority? Is it because each party is being influenced by generous, secret donations (aka bribes), to remain silent on the CPP’s surplus and potential?
These questions come with an answer
Why would the actuarial industry suffer if the news of the CPP’s surplus became public?
Answer: The CPP’s investment success means a 25-year-old could have a $100,000 CPP pension, in 2022 dollars. The demand for pension funds, and hence actuaries, would plummet.
Why would the financial industry suffer if the news if the CPP’s surplus became public?
Answer: Their industry cannot compete with the high profits, low-risk, and simplicity of voluntary investments with CPP Investments. They do not want their lucrative industry “undermined” as they have stated. A multimillion-dollar investment to keep the news of the CPP’s surplus suppressed makes economic sense to this multibillion-dollar industry.
Why would the media industry suffer if the news of the CPP’s surplus became public?
Answer: Firstly, roughly 15% of media advertising comes from the financial industry. Secondly, the financial industry may be generously funding the media industry to remain silent regarding the CPP’s surplus and the possibility of voluntary contributions. Recall that Finance Minister Freeland, at one time a world class journalist, claims “The super-rich have bankrolled mass media outlets to dominate the debate over economic policy.”
Twenty-eight disturbing facts about the CPP
1. Twenty million Canadians have been forced to contribute as much as 10% of their lifetime earnings to the CPP.
2. In 2010, the fund was in perfect balance, able to fund all CPP pensions for the next 100 years, if CPP Investments achieved a 6.3% return. Then CPP Investments averaged an 11% return for 11 years. This resulted in a $550 billion fund value today and an irrefutable $257 billion surplus.
3. It was our money that CPP Investments used to create this surplus.
4. This is a 92% surplus. And if we reasonably forecast with an ongoing 10% return, the surplus today becomes 464%, $464 billion. Standard pension protocol recommends a surplus distribution when the surplus is a mere 25%.
5. In 2000, the Ryerson University Pension Plan had an 18% surplus. The CRA demanded a surplus distribution. Professors received as much as $20,000 each. Unfortunately, the CRA is not responsible for monitoring the CPP.
6. HOOPP, the highly respected Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan, has had investment success like CPP investments, resulting in a large surplus. In 2018, the HOOPP Board of Trustees declared a $4,900 increase in all pensions per year.
7. The benefits to Canadians and Canada are huge. A $170 billion surplus distribution would give 14 million working Canadians $9,000 each on average and three million pensioners $15,000 each, on average. It would decrease the deficit by $30 billion, create 100,000 jobs and double our GDP increase. And there is absolutely no risk to our grandchildren’s pensions.
8. Every year, tens of thousands of seniors, barely existing near the poverty line, die without ever receiving their deserved surplus payment of as much as $20,000 each. This is a concealed Canadian tragedy.
9. With voluntary contributions, the CPP could be used to help solve mushrooming income inequality. No actuary, economist or politician has given any viable reason to NOT distribute the surplus.
The actuarial industry
10. Actuaries have much to lose if the news of the CPP’s surplus becomes public knowledge. If CPP Investments continues with a 10% return, which is likely, a 25-year-old Canadian will have a $100,000 annual CPP pension, in 2021 dollars. Why would Canada need any other pension funds, a huge source of employment for actuaries? This explains why the top ten actuaries who were consulted denied the surplus with Trump-like arguments.
11. All pension experts insist on a Board of Trustees for all pension funds. It is mostly comprised of representative stakeholders, contributors, and pensioners. The CPP has no such Board of Trustees. And our Chief Actuary is never audited. He has full rein. A CPP Board of Trustees would have distributed billions of dollars to millions of deserving Canadians years ago.
12. Despite an irrefutable $257 billion surplus, “our” Chief Actuary has denied the irrefutable surplus, stating “The CPP is not in surplus.”. He would not get away with this if he had to answer to a Board of Trustees.
13. Top Canadian actuary, Malcolm Hamilton, spent 40 hours, face-to-face and via email with me, denying the surplus with vacuous arguments. Was he paid to try to suppress any news of the CPP’s “gigantic” surplus? He could have likely earned $20,000 as a consultant for 40 hours of work. Was he possibly paid as much as $20,000 by the actuarial industry to silence me?
14. One top actuary stated that our Chief Actuary,
“has done what pension actuaries frequently do - invent measures that are easily manipulated so that actuaries can control the narrative and hide things at will.”
The author has requested anonymity, stating “
“As an actuary I am not supposed to be openly critical of other actuaries.”
The only audit of our Chief Actuary’s reporting is a peer review.
15. Because of his false reporting, our Chief Actuary is depriving Canadians and Canada of a deserved $100 billion, a huge economic stimulus, and a solution to income inequality. Likely, no other public sector employee has ever been responsible for depriving citizens of 1% of $170 billion.
The investment industry
16. The investment industry earns an estimated $100 billion in fees from Canadian investors every year. They understandably want this gravy train to continue. If CPP Investments allowed voluntary contributions, they could not compete with the high profits, low risk and simplicity of CPP Investments. For example, with an investment of just $1,000 per year, a 25-year-old would likely have $700,000 at age 65. Income inequality could be somewhat solved.
However, the lucrative investment industry would lose substantial profits. Their representative has stated
“The worry was it [CPP changes] would undermine a lot of successful, legitimate (retirement savings) products in the investment industry.”
Should 20 million Canadians sacrifice hundreds of thousands of dollars each so we won’t “undermine” the investment industry?
The media industry
17. The media industry receives an estimated 20% of advertising revenue from the investment industry. This massive advertising expenditure would decrease substantially if CPP Investments allowed voluntary contributions.
18. Finance Minister Freeland feels the media is controlled by the super-rich who
“have bankrolled mass media outlets to dominate the debate over economic policy.”
19. Mark Carney has written a book outlining why he thinks the current capitalist system is dysfunctional. He alludes to
“twisted economics, amoral culture, degraded institutions, lack of accountability and lack of integrity”.
These are all characteristics of the CPP surplus cover-up described here.
20. There have never been any stories on the CPP’s “gigantic” surplus in the entire Canadian media, even though the CPP holds 10% of most Canadians’ lifetime gross earnings.
21. It took a respected international publication, The Economist, to write about the CPP’s fund. In January 2018, The Economist wrote
“The fund’s portfolio size has more than tripled over the past decade and is going to become only more gigantic.”
And since those words were published, the surplus has increased by another $107 billion.
The C.D. Howe Institute
22. Because they won’t reveal their funding sources, the C.D. Howe Institute is likely funded by the wealthiest 1% of Canadians. C.D. Howe recently published a misinformation paper that was packed with misleading information denying the CPP’s “gigantic” surplus.
23. Malcolm Hamilton is the top actuary who spent 40 hours trying to convince me there is no CPP surplus. He has strong ties with the C.D. Howe Institute who have a budget of over $5 million per year.
24. The C.D. Howe Institute hosts 90 meetings a year that are “off-the-record”. This enables anyone complicit in a cover-up to verbally agree on a cover-up strategy without any fear of reprisal or criminal charges. The actuarial industry, the investment industry and the media industry all have a great deal to lose if the news of the CPP’s surplus and potential become public. The C.D. Howe Institute is the perfect venue to orchestrate their cover-up details without fear of reprisal.
CPP Investments
25. CPP Investments is the best pension fund investor in the world. Instead of stating to Canadians,
“We are proud to state we have surpassed our Chief Actuary’s expectations for fund sustainability by $257 billion. And by allowing limited voluntary contributions, we could do a great service to low-income Canadians.”
Instead, CPP Investments will only state “the Fund is sustainable.” This might be the understatement of the century. Moreover, they have supplied Canadians with misleading graphs that conceal the surplus.
Prime Minister Trudeau earns $360,000 per year. We pay the top six executives at CPP Investments ten times as much, each. We should be receiving better service than an outright denial of a $257 billion surplus.
Politicians
26. Any political party could have acquired, possibly, millions of votes by promising to legislate a risk-free $170 billion surplus distribution and allow limited voluntary contributions. None did in the September 2021 election, even though they were all very aware of the surplus.
27. Democracywatch.ca has convincing evidence that proves wealthy private interests buy off politicians with huge “secret” donations. The investment industry earns an estimated $100 billion per year in fees from investors. A 0.15%, $150 million expense to preserve a lucrative industry is highly justifiable, even if there are moral and ethical issues involved.
Election campaigns are expensive for each political party. The legal donations to any of the three political parties are roughly $14 million per year. Please compare $14 million to $1 billion, aka $1,000 million. Which type of donor would receive more attention?
28. When:
99% of the populace would vote for these CPP changes,
The wealthiest 1% are subtly using their wealth to suppress them,
All three political parties are ignoring a chance to gain an estimated one million more votes…
…it is wrong to call Canada a “democracy”. Our politicians are more like mere administrative puppets for the “super-rich”. Canada is much closer to an oligarchy, controlled by the 1% on certain crucial issues. The CPP issue is costing 17 million Canadians roughly $10,000 each and a partial solution to income inequality.