Without yelling doom and gloom, if our pension is fully funded, how does it make sense to have so much of our funds in highly risky investments? More to the point, does it violates the standards of prudence which govern the management of funds held in trust for pensioners.

We're taking about a retirement fund here that, at $6.2 billion, was in surplus by over 25%. Even now, supposedly the fund is still in surplus. What sense does it make to leave its monies in highly risky investments when the downside risks are so obvious. What's to be gained? The system is fully funded. Prudence at that point would seem to dictate that much of the fund be put in safe investments like short- and mid-term Treasury notes, to preserve capital.

And yet, according the Investment Board's website, as of September 30, 75% of funds under management were in Global Equity, Private Equity, or Real Estate. There's no justification for that kind of allotment for a fully funded pension system. That kind of allotment is totally reckless, regardless of past performance.

What benefit accrues to us beneficiaries from leaving these funds in these kinds of risky investments? None. The pension is fully funded. At 25% overfunded, there definitely was no reason for that risky allocation. The idea that they would give us part of the former surplus was a pipe dream. And the willingness to gamble a fully funded pension system for some pie-in-the-sky surplus that has evaporated is reckless foolishness.

We need to re-focus our efforts on protecting what we have, to make sure that we don't lose our pensions. It's the prudent thing to do. It's not a time to be gambling away our future, for some fanciful imaginary gain. jmo.