The City's minutes for this meeting are not on file in this archive. This briefing states only what the City's agenda lists. Nothing here is taken from the machine transcription.
No agenda file for this meeting is held in this archive. The agenda packet button on this page opens the City's meetings-portal page for it, where the City may or may not have posted one.
The recording's machine transcription is below. It is unverified: words and names may be misheard, and it cannot establish who acted or how anyone voted.
Agenda (the City's wording)
The City's agenda items for this meeting are not available as a list here; see the agenda packet link on this page.
Transcript Partial transcript
Machine transcription of the meeting recording. The words are the recognizer's, except where a passage is marked as corrected or machine re-recognized; most have
not been checked against the audio, so words, numbers and names can be misheard.
It describes what was said. It cannot establish who voted how, an amount or an outcome — the City's
minutes do that (above).
A time links to its passage, and “Copy link” copies that link. No recording can be started from here.
337 suspect passage(s) marked in place; 1 stretch(es) where a voice was detected and no words were recognized.
How this transcript was made. New machine transcription of the whole recording, with 8 voices separated from the audio.
22 short machine repair(s) (24 word(s)) are labelled in place, with the original words beside them: an ordinary word was replaced only where two further machine readings agreed on a different one.
Checks run on this transcript: the recognizer's own warning signs, whether a voice was detected where the words are and a language review for likely mishearings.
A second, independent machine reading was compared with it word by word: the same words for 91.0% of 16,123 content words.
Dotted words (387 places) are ordinary wording differences: hover or tap to see the other reading.
337 passages (24% of the words) are marked suspect: their words are not shown ("unclear audio") and support no statement: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ; the language review questioned them; or no voice was detected there.
Agreement between two machine readings is not verification.
Voice detected, no words recognized (1 stretch). Something may have been said here that the transcript does not have:
01:01:00 (8 s) — neither reading has words
Speakers were separated by voice. A plain name rests on evidence tied to that voice; “provisional” is a name from an earlier text-only pass and is not verified; “Speaker N” is an unidentified voice.
we have, we kind of feel where we can add value right now is not so much as far as saying, well, rates are definitely going to go up or rates are definitely going to go down.
And then we look at security selection as far as what types of like corporate bonds that we can, you know, that we can invest in. What types of, what coupons and mortgage-backed securities we should invest in. And if you look at the yield to maturity is, you know, for
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:01:02–00:01:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
that mean? That means if say over the next year, if rates don't change, you're going to earn 5%, right around 5%. That's a, a lot more favorable than it was back because in July, I went back, you know, back several years,
was 1.29%. In July of 2020, it was only 1.02%. So over 4% increase in yields. So that's why I just see, you know, and you know, you're able to maintain a very high quality portfolio, double A minus. So, you know, again, I think as far as for the fixed income market, I think, you know, I don't know what your actuarial assumption is.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:01:59–00:02:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:02:07–00:02:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
better, much better position. Going to page 8 here, you can look at, at your returns, year to date as of July 31st. We're outperforming the benchmark by 52 basis points for the last year, 66, three years, five years, and 10 years.
How have we done that? Well, for ‸ the year to date, in one year, we've overweighted corporates and overweighted mortgages. We also did not have any exposure to the banks that
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:02:57–00:02:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
You know, if you look at over three years, you know, we do take, you know, opportunities as far as for overweighting and underweighting certain parts of the maturity curve. Because your ‸ portfolio, we can own bonds from one day to 30 years. And depending on where yields are along that yield curve, we'll look at either overweighting or underweighting. Right now we're neutral. But if you look at three years ago, when the two to three year part of the treasury curve was only yielding 25 basis points, unless you bought into the whole deflationary scenario, which we never did, we just felt that there was very little value there. So we had a big underweight in the two to three part.
And so we're neutral in that part of the curve. But, again, you're always going to see with us, you're not going to see us make huge bets as far as for what part of the yield curve in duration. We typically feel that, again, ‸ where we add value is through sector, you know, overweighting, underweighting, and security selection. And then, you know, again, just going to page nine here, as I said, along the, you know, treasury curve. You can see that it's ‸ inverted right now, which means that short-term yields are higher than longer-term yields. And typically that foresees a recession. You've seen that inversion. It ‸ was very steep. It was like
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:05:23–00:05:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:05:27–00:05:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
not going to see a recession. The economy is doing much better. So you've actually seen an increase in longer-term yields here. So ‸ it's kind of interesting here because typically ‸ where you'll see, like, where it becomes more of a normal yield curve is after a scenario like this, the Fed will typically look to aggressively lower rates. But we don't see that right now. And so I think you see the market has reacted a little bit here as far as the increase in longer maturity treasuries. And if you look at, like, page 10, corporate bond allocation, what this chart basically shows is what our overweight is in corporates based on where the spreads are in relation to treasuries. And basically what I want you to get from this chart is just to show we're very disciplined as far as looking at opportunities when spreads widen out. We'll look to increase corporates, and when spreads start to tighten in, we'll take off that overweight. ‸ And so that just shows a reflection of the duration contribution overweight to the index. And then as far as agency mortgage-backed securities on page 11, we actually had ‸ a big underweight back
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:07:02–00:07:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
It was, the spreads were very narrow in everything. ‸ And what this chart shows is basically, if you look at the left side, and it goes from, ‸ you know, you see 0, negative 5, that is our underweight versus the index. And then as you can see by, you know, by the, you know, as far as if you go continually to the right here, spreads ‸ to spreads to treasuries on mortgages started to widen out. And as a result, we took advantage of that, and we added back, we not only added back our underweight, we actually have a slight overweight to mortgages right now just because we feel they're a very good value. And as far as if you see any weakness in the economy, mortgage-backed securities, these are agency mortgage-backed securities. So Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae will hold up very well.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:08:24–00:08:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:08:30–00:08:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:08:39–00:08:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:08:46–00:08:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:08:58–00:09:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the, the level of subordination or the level of people who would get, got, get paid their first, you know, lose their first dollar. It's typically, uh, the value of the portfolio and the commercial mortgage-backed securities would have to drop by half. And that's not a,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:09:21–00:09:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:09:32–00:09:33 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:09:38–00:09:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
well diversified. That represents 87 different credits. Uh, we have, you know, triple B's you allowed us, you know, back in, uh, I believe it was 2021.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:09:51–00:09:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
sense because if you look at the corporate index for the U S aggregate, over half of the corporates are triple B. So adding that is giving us a lot of ability and we're talking about very good names. We're talking about Campbell soup, CVS, fifth third, McDonald's, Philip 66, Cisco, Verizon. So very well recognized names, but they happen to be triple B. But before we were, you know, we could not. And I appreciate you giving us the opportunity to buy triple B's in the portfolio.
Uh, it'd be, it, it, it's the type of the, the size of the company. It would be what industry they're in, how heavily levered they are, how cyclical they are as far as companies and everything. Uh, typically you'll see like, especially if somebody like does a, you know, buys another company and uses debt to finance that acquisition. Sometimes the debt can go up. Then there's more, there's not as much cushion that they have as far as from their earnings, as far as to cover that interest in that. So, because you'll see companies that will, um, will move up and down the rating scale.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:11:19–00:11:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Now it's double B, but actually it's kind of interesting that, um, actually it's on the cusp of becoming investment grade again. So it's, but companies can go, it's, they just don't stay at one rating. So that's where we feel as far as doing our own analysis, as far as staying ahead of what the rating agencies are doing, uh, you know, gives us kind of gives us a leg up in everything. So, and that's basically, that's basically it. We just feel there's a lot of opportunity.
I would have to say, I mean, right now, given where, where the economy is, I mean, it's all, it's very difficult to predict. I will tell you, I am of the personal belief that yields are going to remain elevated, uh, over a period of time.
or another COVID, uh, event that could totally change. I think, uh, I've, I've been always surprised by the market anticipating that we're going to see a, a,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:13:43–00:13:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:13:46–00:13:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And I think that right now, I think that if, as long as inflation doesn't have a negative surprise, or again, we don't have another geopolitical event,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:14:13–00:14:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and the fact that you're able to get over 5% in your portfolio right now is, um, is very attractive. And that, you know, there's, you know, there's just so many different aspects of what is going on in the economy. You know, one of the things I think that will continue to keep rates higher is the fact that the government's going to have to borrow more and more money because one of the things you have to realize now with interest expenses going up, we've been able to get away. We've been able to,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:15:09–00:15:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So there is really no consequence. However, as rates have gone up, the interest expense has gone up and you have to look at, uh, it's, it's kind of, it's, it's interesting in that, um, they anticipate the, um, I just had the numbers here. I'll give you the numbers.
It will be as large as the discretionary spending. That means they're going to have to continue to borrow more. And the one thing that's different is the fact that the treasury isn't buying securities.
So the fed is, the fed isn't buying, they were buying, they were buying long treasuries and they were buying, you know, now they're looking at selling.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:16:42–00:16:43 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
have to, in order to pay, in order to continue to pay, you got to realize one third, third of the debt is discretionary. It's only one third of the debt. Two thirds is mandatory and mandatory as far as Medicare, Medicaid, social security. And I would have to say defense is probably not a discretionary thing too.
it's all the willingness of people to, ‸ you know, to continue to buy, uh, are, you know, are trying to thank God we're the world's reserve currency. That's all I can tell you.
we have that going for us, but yeah, there's, there's, there will have to be more fiscal discipline in the future just because interest rates have gone up and the interest expense that has to be paid on the treasuries is, um, is, is something that's going to have to be dealt with.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:18:13–00:18:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
that, that we own. But we, we've held those for, um, well in, in our, all of our portfolios for a long time. I can't tell you specifically when we bought them, but we do have it in the portfolio.
that goes as a, um, as a representative to the feds when they're talking about raising these rates? Do you tell them the pros and cons as far as fixed income?
Okay. Um, where I think the markets will get a better idea as far as, uh, when, when the fed chairman, uh, ‸ speaks as far as what his anticipation is,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:19:47–00:19:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Again, it was, it's, it's, it's, I understand that they want to, it was all a part of increasing the transparency coming from the fed. And sometimes if you change it from say two to three,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:20:23–00:20:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Because I think seriously, if they are adamant about getting the 2%, it's going to, it will cause a recession and you will see unemployment go up because, but you got to realize too, they have a dual mandate. It's fighting inflation and maximize employment too. So,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:20:55–00:21:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Perfect. Thank you. Um, so if you all can see on page four upper left hand corner, I will just touch on a couple of the economic statistics. I won't spend too much time here because Paul did a nice job of this, but that first row
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:21:29–00:21:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:21:35–00:21:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:21:55–00:21:56 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
third row CPI. And as we were talking about how inflation has been creeping down, the headline number here is still good that it's gone down from 5% to 3%. Although when you look at core, which takes out the more volatile pieces of,
Uh, the fed funds rate was raised again in July. And as Paul had mentioned, they are going to be talking this week at Jackson Hole, probably nothing to write home about. They will say the same things that they were saying that it's going to be data dependent. And right now the market is actually betting that it will rise by the end of the year by another 25 basis points. But that's to be determined because the market is also assuming that rates are actually going to be cut next year.
We'll see. However, what it has done for us is that if you look in the upper right hand corner of the page, um, there was a nice tailwind where stocks did very well for the quarter. So if you look at the second
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:23:03–00:23:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
cap stocks just for one quarter, it gained almost 9%, which was a very good return because as I've talked to you about in the past multiple times, stocks over the long term generally
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:23:20–00:23:21 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
right around 9%, 10%. And we saw that all in one quarter, which brought the 12 month return to almost 20%. So again, a little bit over skis here would expect to have a little bit of volatility would not be surprised if the markets did retrace a little bit. In fact, we did do that in August, but I'll come back to that. Large cap stocks.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:23:43–00:23:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
cap stocks and small cap stocks, which are the next two rows. And it did outpace international stocks evidenced by the MSCI EFI as well as the MSCI emerging markets.
mid cap, small cap. This market, as you've heard about and have read about, has really been driven by technology within the past year or so. You see the dramatic appreciation for large cap growth up almost 13% for the quarter and the exact opposite for small cap value, which is only up about 3%. It just continues the trend that we've seen for the past year where large cap growth was up by 27% and value is only up by 6%. As you may have heard, really seven stocks have been pushing the markets up. Names that you all are familiar with like an Apple or Amazon, Nvidia, Tesla, Microsoft, Meta, etc.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:25:12–00:25:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
affect our portfolio? If you flip to page seven. So here, as you know, is the performance summary, which gives you some snapshot perspective of different trailing periods. The first row is the gross of fee returns. And for the most recent quarter, the fund gained 2.5% on the net basis 2.4% in the 78th percentile. So not particularly great ranking.
stocks, both in large cap and in international stocks. I'll come back to that in a moment. Looking over the longer term numbers, though, we have the three years at 7.5, five years at 6.8, and 10 years at 8.2. So for the most part, our numbers have been kind of in the middle of the pack or in the top, the farther back you go in time. Asset allocation, the upper right hand corner of the page, when you add up all of the stock components, whether it's large caps, mid cap or international, and then you add up all the pieces that are not stock. So real estate, fixed income cash at a high level, we're about 70, 30, a little bit under about 68, really 32% fixed income, ‸ fixed income surrogates.
shadow index is if we had our money all in index funds with the asset allocation that we have, that's what we would have gotten. And the policy index is if we had index funds with the actual allocation of the policy. So we're a little bit under relative to both of those, which means that our under allocation or over allocation has hurt us a little bit. That was real estate. We had a little bit of over allocation there. And also our under performance in active management, which is both large cap as well as international. And you can see that in that column
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:27:39–00:27:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Our performance was kind of in the middle of the pack. Our SMIC cap actually did well because we see a 6.4. Now remember, we have an index fund here. The index funds benchmark is a little bit different than what we have here for the policy. But it's similar enough in terms of performance over the long term, reasonable. Having said that, the index did quite well in the top third of the universe. International, we did underperform there. Remember, for that one, we do have a single manager, slightly growth oriented, concentrated manager. They did underperform, which is similar to the story that we have with
Real estate was down and then fixed income actually outperformed by losing less. So when you look at this at a high level, there's actually a lot of data hidden behind these numbers because we did make changes over time. What I'll say is that when you look at large cap over the past decade, you see that there is a significant ‸ outperformance there. Our return is 13.7 on
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:28:50–00:28:50 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:29:03–00:29:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
income. And over the past five years, even with the poor performance that real estate has had within the past year of being down double digits, that annualized return of 7.3 incorporates that and has handily outpaced fixed income, which has been up about 1% for that. period. But just to finish off to say that, of course, Richmond also has done consistently well, even though
they've done consistently well outperforming the benchmark over that entire decade. Bottom right hand corner of the page, just to highlight for us that the beginning of the quarter, we had about $24.4 million. We made money, but the reason why the corpus is down is because we paid out money, which is what this pension fund supposed to do, right? We're making money so that over time, we're going to be paying out pension obligations, whether they're the monthly payments or
Next page page eight is the pictorial depiction of the corpus over in this case, a little over two decades. The dark line shows that it hasn't been a smooth ride as I mentioned, but still consistently into that north east quadrant, appreciating nicely. We are a little bit behind what our bogey would be over that time, but still consistent appreciation. And then the dotted line on the bottom of the page is the cash flow line, which simply shows that we've been paying out more money than we've been putting in. But we have enough money that it continues to compound and grow over time.
The portfolio started off at about $7.6 million at the beginning of this entire term, even though we've paid out more than $4.5 million, because we made almost $21 million or more than three times what our starting value, about three times our starting value. That's why we're at $24 million. So,
we tend to be pretty close to targets with everything. The place that we are a little bit under allocated is fixed income. The place that we're a little over allocated is, is both cash and real estate.
So primarily slight over allocation we have is real estate. And that is simply because the portfolio value has gone up and down and real estate has been pretty static. Page 10 is a decomposition as well as putting names to the different asset classes.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:32:06–00:32:06 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
We have Poland capital, which is our large cap growth manager and Brandywine, our large cap value manager. Both of them did underperform for the quarter. However, over the long term, you'll see that Poland is similar to the benchmark while Brandywine has
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:32:27–00:32:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:32:44–00:32:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So they haven't changed their knitting over time. They've done well. This is a year and a half period where they've done poorly and it has bled into the longer term numbers. You see the trailing year
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:33:00–00:33:01 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
behind the benchmark there by about 8%. And obviously if you put that over 3 years, that's a couple of percents there. If you put that over 10 years, that's almost a percent there as well. So what I'll say is that still like the manager, even though they're underperforming. If you looked at this
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:33:18–00:33:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
But we still are confident with their ability to navigate markets over the long term. Hardman Johnson is also a growth manager, slightly tilted in our international piece. They also had a bad period. If you look at the trailing year, they're behind the bogey by 7%. I will say similar things for them. No changes in the investment team like how they pick stocks over the long term.
come back around as well. And not to compound bad news, but Intercontinental, as you know, is our only real estate manager. They've done a very nice job, as you know. But what I will say is that as we talk to all the real estate managers, none of them are really seeing positive returns or dramatic positive returns until probably 2024. So we are still going to see some soft numbers throughout the rest of the year because you will have some values still catching up.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:34:31–00:34:33 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
And then they softened a little bit. And the place that you're seeing a little bit of strength is actually retail. So primarily in grocery anchored retail, which is what we have with Intercontinental that has been showing a lot of demand. And that is actually a knockoff effect of what you're seeing with people going into offices less. If they are going to the office less, that means they're staying home more often. That means they get to shop at the retail centers more. Those retail centers right now have a
So it's very good. So it's a mixed bag. But what we'll say is that real estate as a long term hold still confident about it again over the long term. What we're expecting from real estate is a high single digit number where about half that return to two thirds of
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:35:29–00:35:29 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
return will be from income. So I'll stop there. I'll be happy to address any questions on the portfolio or any of the managers or the markets in general. Mr. Chairman.
Yes, they're probably not going to make a lot of redemptions for the remaining part of the year. What I would recommend doing for Intercontinental and Margie was kind enough to mention this to me is that we actually have a drip or dividend reinvestment still active with them. So what I recommend doing is to change that so that any income that's supposed to be coming in
Right. So we are in a queue. We are lined up just like everybody else. We don't want them to make fire sale sales. So I think that's reasonable and the documents do allow that for them.
but it doesn't matter how much we're requesting because we're just in the queue. But I believe in total we put in for a million and at some point we probably yes. ‸ Absolutely. I will after a meeting I will follow up with you but to the best of my recollection my notes. I believe we did 500,000 and we put in another 500,000
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:38:37–00:38:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:38:43–00:38:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So we if if at the time we were $500,000 out of whatever a million dollars in the queue. You know, obviously the number would be more than that. You only get your pro rata share.
I think we're comfortable at the level that we've requested. It's not going to move the needle anyway, because they are putting a hold on what they're distributing just so that they have enough cash to make sure that they can manage what they have in terms of assets.
Oh, no, I do have that recommendation. I apologize for not being clear about that. I am recommending that we change it from the drip so that we do receive dividends from them.
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:40:18–00:40:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:40:36–00:40:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:40:40–00:40:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:41:10–00:41:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:41:32–00:41:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
look at the asset allocation and then make a recommendation to raise some funds. Usually it's an equity manager and then we just raise the money and have it available. Because frankly, right now we are a little bit under target with all of the components, with the exception of really real estate. But that's why we manage it as best as possible.
I'm going to tell you what my thinking was, which is if we had some cash, we might, or I would, I would suggest that we might give it to Richmond since this is a good time for them to lock in some decent rates.
That's a fair comment. The only thing I would change to that or modify is that they can't necessarily lock in a rate unless they actually buy a little.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:43:15–00:43:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; a language review questioned the wording · 00:43:52–00:44:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
It's not a perfect science. We do like both of those managers. Both of those managers are firms that we've been following for well over a decade. And we have seen periods where they do underperform. Typically, one year or so is their underperformance. And then the next, call it three to five years, they do outperform again. So when you look over the longer track record of, let's say a decade, they do well. So I would ask for patience. Let's give it another year and then see what happens.
What you can do is understand the rationale of why you're hiring an active manager. For both of these active managers, they're growth oriented, concentrated. ‸ They try to buy stocks that are trading at a little bit of discount relative to what they believe are going to be future earnings. And the growth rate of those earnings are going to be higher for both of them. That's how they look at it.
actually then come down to their list of stocks is a little bit different. But generally speaking, they have similar style that way. So I would say, let's give them at least another year. We'll constantly watch them and we're constantly talking with them because frankly, you are not the only client that we have both of these managers. Maybe the clients don't actually have both of them, but we definitely have a fair number of clients that
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:45:38–00:45:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
so we you've been a very good client over the long term, ‸ understand the nature of the fund. That's why, frankly, as you all know, this fee is a favorite client fee relative to a lot of our other fees. So at some point in time, I will raise that issue, but not today. Thank you.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:46:32–00:46:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:47:08–00:47:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
looked up because we were talking about Intercontinental. And we do have a million dollar. Okay. We put 500,000 back in August of 22 and another 500,000 in March.
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 00:47:23–00:47:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:47:26–00:47:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:47:37–00:47:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:47:48–00:47:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
oh it seems like that's gonna ‸ be kicked down the road again. Okay. it's goodBecause remember, the original shutdown date was really more this past month, right a month and a half ago. Right. And that got kind of kicked down and probably get kicked down the road again
okay all right so I mean there's no other day more important than September 30th in our plan so yes sir all right thank you mr. Lee you're welcome all right
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:48:38–00:48:38 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for having me. It's a pleasure to be here. And we're so thankful to be here. As you know, this summer at PPTA we celebrated our 25th anniversary of Salem and we're glad to be here and have, you know, clients like you and thank you all that attended. It was a great turnout and we continue to look forward to doing business with you all. And we are
which is going to be our pensioner portal, which may have you, some of you may have heard at the conference, but this is going to be strictly for our retirees, who as the age demographic is shifting a bit and the, you know, our trend in the country
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:49:16–00:49:16 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
the world, right, is going to more automated features. We're looking to give our retirees some options to do some self-service functions on their own. On a typical day, as you may know, the requests flow through the plan administrator, Margie and her team who then reviews the request of the retirees then the request comes over to Salem for us to do our review and then internally we will send it over to US Bank who does our monthly benefit payments for both our active and retirees. So in a day could take about five day turnaround to get these items done. Your typical requests are, you know, address changes, bank changes, definitely the tax changes are ‸ Very, very common, especially as the tax forms changed for 2023. We get a lot of, you know, retirees that are trying to ‸ make changes to see where they're gonna ‸ land at tax time and what their deductions will be. So they do a lot of changing throughout the year. And then the most important thing that we get inundated with and I'm sure Margie can attest with her team, is at tax time. Everyone needs a copy or wants an extra copy of their tax form, right? Many may have misplaced it, or you know some maybe just need a previous year to maybe do a tax extension. So this enhancement will allow them the option to do those very things on their ‸ own so we have
Now, in full transparency, that is the item that we have a bit of a hesitation from. You know, a lot of questions come about, and your attorneys here, thankfully,
differently. But with this option, this would allow them to make the banking changes on their own. And the side of caution is we do not have a way to track that currently. So
there's an instance where there's a transposition of a number here or there or someone is making that change and maybe hasn't paid quite close attention, ‸ when that payment goes out, we won't know if there has been an issue, if the payment has failed for the account number being invalid. We won't know that till the retiree calls and says hey I'm having an issue I didn't get my payment then from there we work with Margie and US Bank to kind of track that payment and see where it went wrong as opposed to the address change, it's a fairly simple process. Each month, the system will generate a change report that Margie and her team will have access to as well as Salem to kind of track if you guys want to send a mailing throughout the year or some sort of thing that you need to send out. We will have access to view who has changed their address. And
form would be a great solution to the traffic that we receive regularly on January by law we will still mail the paper tax form, but we will also have that available for them a little sooner than the anticipated 31st of January this year the plans that were active on this portal around the 10th of the month, a lot of them had access to their tax forms already. So they didn't have to wait the typical a mailing time frame
do, which is more like a read only view only where we can load the documents pertinent to the plan online. They can download them they will send them to Margie come to us and kind of do the whole process ‸ themselves but so far we have about 35 clients at Salem about almost 700 retirees that are actively using the portal to date and thus far been pretty receptive. But again, it's based on the plan and what you're willing to kind of allow them to do.
in the packet, letting them know that your plan has approved these options and will outline what functions you have or have not allowed them to do. And we will definitely preface it is all optional. The good thing about this, it's free to the plan. And it's not a one or one for all. If you have a handful of retirees that say I don't want to do that I'd rather go through Margie and Salem we are still there as an ally. We will do the process manually. But those who wish to do it on their own can proceed with making these few items of changes on their own any questions as far
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:53:42–00:53:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:54:06–00:54:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
was kind of in the forefront of rolling it out, but we hadn't really gone live, but we have officially since then gone live so the information and we probably may have talked
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:54:19–00:54:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:54:33–00:54:34 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
since the inception of Salem for the for the bulk of the time. They have their security protocols in place and they do all of our monthly benefit payments and, you
fraud world that we live in. Right. But as our world switches to technical world, we're gonna ‸ have those opportunities that may arise. And, we will work closely with the bank. Should that arise
you have to discuss and vote on today. But if you want to, we can go ahead and explore some options. And as we move along in the process, we can change it. You know, we're not, not set in stone. And for those that want to use it, they can go live and use it and for those that wish to continue we will continue to service them as we do today I
had a question for Ms. Adcock how does this affect your association with Salem as far as resource centers does it put more work on you or more work okay
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:55:51–00:55:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
to call you when things are like this and so now we're going to take that away from your office and give it to Salem online which is fine I just want to see what your reaction was as far as the firm as well as I have
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:56:20–00:56:20 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
think they ought to have the authority to change their account once they we have established they had an account I'd rather ‸ have to go through you before they have someone if by some reason they got in the hack them or whatever and changed it
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:57:07–00:57:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
right but but that has been the trend I mean I have some all around the board some they give full access but many of ‸ the concerns were with the changing of the financial information just in the event that there were uh was something that was compromised but again the attorneys have kind of chimed in yes or no but again it's per the board and how comfortable you are
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 00:57:46–00:57:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and then I guess my last one will this help us if we have a 10th year certain and we for sure we'll cut off at 10 years where we won't have that problem no see I mean that's is will that add another layer that
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:58:24–00:58:24 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); a language review questioned the wording · 00:58:27–00:58:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
so should they need a couple years worth of their prior direct deposit statements or advices or should they need some tax forms as opposed to waiting for you know going through Margie and her team us and U.S. Bank and pulling it if they need it sometimes they need it right then they might be at the attorney's office or they might be at the tax office.
it's going to pop up and we run in many many databases I think there's close to 10 where we're going to run the report to see if anybody is showing deceased in our plans and then from there we would work with Margie and her
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 00:59:28–00:59:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:59:36–00:59:36 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:59:44–00:59:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
don't know yeah we'll run our report as quickly as if let's say Margie gets the information she sends it to us if it's crossed and then we'll get moving on our process but we I mean we run it through you know all the
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:00:24–01:00:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:00:43–01:00:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:00:57–01:01:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:01:16–01:01:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:01:31–01:01:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:01:37–01:01:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the access for everybody is going to be much better the only thing that makes me a little nervous is the account and not being able to track the payment because I could just see that really being a problem if I mean a lot of these people aren't making a lot of money you know and if they go a month or two without the check because they screwed up a dang number or something you know that could be crazy but otherwise I definitely see what this is helpful okay And this isn't 100% that they have to participate. correct It's up to
Flag: the machine readings disagree here; words the first reading may have missed · 01:02:20–01:02:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:02:32–01:02:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:03:18–01:03:18 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
just to confirm we're going to proceed with the with the portal without access to changing banking information correct is that right or are we going to do allow all the features we were
all right so at the end of the meeting I'll give you Margie a form for the board to sign off and then you can send it to me later and then some of you I just have a couple quick things as you may have heard Salem has uh been acquired by Argent Financial Services so we have passed the we have been approved by the board and now we're waiting for regulatory approval, which we're hoping to have here any day now, probably more towards the end of this month. So we will continue to be business as usual we're gonna have a slight name change right so TMI is our current uh company primary company but we will change it will be um it will now be called Argent institutional uh Argent Financial Institutional Trust Company something along with they're still working out those details but uh we're just gonna grow I mean they've been around for
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:04:32–01:04:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and um TMI holdings and Argent which has become one but nothing will change maybe some branding business cards letterhead but nothing of major substance and we will keep you posted we have sent the email to our email recipients of the plan Margie um has a copy as well
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:04:51–01:05:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:05:09–01:05:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:05:13–01:05:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:05:17–01:05:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:05:24–01:05:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:05:25–01:05:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:05:29–01:05:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:05:31–01:05:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:05:40–01:05:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:05:41–01:05:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:05:42–01:05:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:05:50–01:05:51 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
so there was, a an attempted fraud on, on the account. uh the way I had learned about it was that um I received a call from Salem last week uh I believe it was last Tuesday asking me to, uh verbally confirm a wire transfer. And that's, that's normal. ‸ when I ‸ send over for them to wire money to Brandywine or or wherever we might be needing money they will, they get the paperwork and then they'll call me and verify the account numbers and the amount that's supposed to be wired. So
asking me to verify the a wire um that was uh being sent out and I told ‸ I didn't know what they were talking about And, uh she said, well, we've been communicating with you, you know yesterday and today I'm like
and I said you know when did it she said it was for 1.8 million uh as a capital call and it was going to be wired to Hong Kong I said no that would not be something that we would be doing and I said where did you get that from and they said that they had a letter with my signature and so I asked them to send it to me and I put it on our secure site so I could see it And it was a letter along with a email string that looked like it was coming from my email.
and I said you know no we did not send that they did not send the money out The the process worked where they, you know, verified it. um so anyway it looks like and uh that it was a we had sent money out back in March there was a brandywine uh
um uh Anyway, there was an email that was sent out legitimate. We were raising money from from two different managers. And somehow they and they intercepted that and used that email and the attachment to try and get the 1.8 million and um emails went back and forth with Salem and this person They changed the email address. So it looked like it was coming from me, but it was missing one letter. like you know mine's at margin resource centers.com and
it quick, you would you would not know. And um they copied David. And so after the conversation, I called David and said have you been getting these emails, you know, and he said he didn't receive any. He looked in his uh spam
I talked with Salem about this as well so we have a third party uh tech company called wheelhouse they're actually based in Florida and they are our security. And what they were able to find out was that this and this something they say has been happening often is a malicious agent had come in, looked at some emails, created a folder in our email system, named it, I think, trash and put in a couple of emails. The
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:09:46–01:09:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And that's why I never saw any of the emails because they actually created that. After all those calls, what we did was we called out our organization to say, what's going on?
And then they tell us, actually, we have been seeing this with other clients. This is something that's happening. Microsoft is aware of this vulnerability and they're trying to account for it. But I think the takeaway is that the process worked because there is a a step where Salem needs to verify that any cash movements are true cash movements it's during that check and balance system that we were able to verify that it was false.
And they're pretty i mean advanced. It's actually so shocking that they had like Margie's, the letterhead to Resource Center. I mean, as we look at it a little bit closer, we can see a tad difference in maybe the thickness of her signature than this one, but they were pretty, pretty advanced in getting this to us. And like we mentioned, we have a protocol in place where
recognize. And for us, we do. And we have sent international wires. It's not something that we do regularly, but we have. So it did set an alarm off, but we figure we're going to go through the process because, you know, sometimes it does happen, right?
So when we did that, we were able to verify, you know, like we need to talk to Margie. And when she called Margie, I was coming in actually into her space and Margie was like, I have no idea what you're talking about. And we were able to track, but the person had been talking to us for nearly a week, getting it ready. Your funds
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:11:40–01:11:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:11:47–01:11:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:11:58–01:12:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:12:03–01:12:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
were, right, they were not that smart because we know, first of all, we don't have that kind of money available. And we have protocol. There was no way it's going to go out. You know, once the, the
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:12:29–01:12:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:12:32–01:12:32 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
need to work look at it. So it does go through a process. So we're thankful that we were able to catch, you know, of course, go to our protocols, work with Margie. And we were wondering why, you know, Mr. Lee had not chimed in
It wasn't in my junk emails. It was in in my non-focused emails because what they did was, again, in the back office, they had actually created a rule ‸ where if it was an email that was sent by Marjorie or Salem
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); a language review questioned the wording · 01:13:14–01:13:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
we have since, we we actually had a conference call with the CEO and president of of our TMI ‸ and we discussed it as well. And we went through and scrubbed the databases for, you know, all of our servers and we had
sure that that email address is [address]. And we kind of made sure that everything was, was intact, but it is true. Even for your personal knowledge, they recommend often checking like your folder. See if you have a weird folder that might say deleted because they're getting very high tech. And as we continue to use the internet, even in your personal, if something seems odd more than like you're probably right. So just keep an eye on your, your email and that sort of stuff. But
So we, we have sent it to our compliance officer. And I guess she will go through the chain to see if in fact it met the requirements for the fed, the fed level. She said in all honesty, if the money had, did not go out, it's really not on their priority list to be quite honest. But they do report it ‸ you know, through the SARS and the activity reports that we have to submit.
matters. Yep. And then the next one should I have for Mr. Floyd, had they been successful, do we have insurance or do we have any type of protection? Yes.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:14:55–01:15:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
that we would turn to. Ultimately though, what we would probably do is turn to our own and let our insurance company go. Okay. Deal with the fallout. No,
I i appreciate the layers of, of the security that we have. I just wanted to see what did ‸ happen Had this been successful? And I wanted the board to be
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:15:26–01:15:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:16:32–01:16:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:16:50–01:16:51 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:17:10–01:17:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the machine readings disagree here; a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:17:16–01:17:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:17:21–01:17:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
know this was a 15-minute discussion, but I thought it was worthy that we make sure that everybody heard about this and understood what was going on. so And thank you, miss adcock for your diligence in this as well. All right. Did you have
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:17:52–01:17:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
which we actually took off the agenda because we concluded our only one that we never did with miss Nelson, and we decided we'll save her for next time. uh With regard to the analysis of the utilization, you have the uh little spreadsheet in your packet.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:18:23–01:18:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
we would have actually build you, have we build on an hourly basis and we're paid under the flat fee. That's really because it really transferred after COVID. ‸ But
I will say though that for the next meeting, uh we will be bringing you, and I'll work with David to make this happen, uh amendments to your investment policy statement. Okay. We
ESG considerations and ‸ investment decisions that did take effect July 1st. You will have to make your first report that you comply with that by December 15th of this year. uh
I suspect that the report will be nothing more than a form certifying our compliance. As I explained to you at the previous meeting, you guys have never taken ESG considerations into
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:19:35–01:19:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Your investment managers don't base their decisions on these ESG considerations. It will not at all change the way that you operate. So for us, it will be a matter of jumping through hoops and checking the boxes.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:19:51–01:19:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:19:57–01:20:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
regulations in there that have been challenged, but not this okay because there were significant regulations in there uh for the banking industry. Those are under challenge, uh
it's the only the only impact that I've seen on any of our clients is in voting proxies. uh Because we have clients that, for example, uh hire ‸ third party to vote their proxies in accordance with uh recommendations made by the AFL-CIO, for example. And that is an ESG consideration. labor friendly would be an ESG consideration. So uh that is the only impact that I've seen. Nobody makes investment decisions based on these. So
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:21:21–01:21:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:21:36–01:21:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:21:41–01:21:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:21:54–01:22:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the IME, the the psychiatrist that we were using for IMEs uh stopped doing it. He actually retired. He didn't just stop doing IMEs. He stopped practicing. um So, we had to find another one, uh which we did eventually. Right. uh So, now ‸ have another go to
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:22:35–01:22:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
involved in litigation. I can't be an expert witness. It's not covered by my insurance. I mean, you know, the excuses come far and wide. ‸ But, I mean, disability applications everywhere just taking forever. Wow.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:22:54–01:22:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the problem is, you know, so, what are the solutions? The solutions are, you find some doctor that you strike some deal with that, okay, uh you, doctor cardiologist, every time we get a cardio case, we're gonna ‸ send them to you for an IME. And ‸ the doctor's like, huh, okay, so what are we talking? ‸ like, well, I don't know. It might be one a year. It might be one every five years. ‸ Yeah, right. There's no, like, steady supply of business where you're going to this doctor like, you know, hey, look, we get these all the time. and It'll be, you you can make money. You know, it'll be worth your while. You don't
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:23:35–01:23:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:23:53–01:24:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
All right. So we have, uh just letting you know, the annual report was approved. Yay. always a good Always good news. um The next thing is the compliance budget. We do this
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); a language review questioned the wording · 01:24:17–01:24:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:24:28–01:24:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
second line over the prior actual expense. That was the actual expense from from last fiscal year. um Go over a couple ‸ ones. The fiscal year budget, that's the one we did last year at this time. That's what we improved uh The column next
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:24:45–01:24:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
are listed uh for today. That's where we're at. And so the next column is what I ‸ put together to be proposed for next year, which is equals the amount of last year's budget. Yeah. I was gonna ‸ say identical. elliott like them to not increase. So,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:25:13–01:25:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:25:23–01:25:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:25:31–01:25:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:25:41–01:25:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:25:56–01:25:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:26:01–01:26:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:26:28–01:26:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:26:31–01:26:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
it's on the current yeah you'll see the expense there. So um they've been increasing. I've seen on my other plans they've been increasing somewhat, not
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:26:44–01:26:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:26:47–01:26:47 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:26:50–01:26:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
No, that the fiduciary liability protects the plan against decisions that you make. All right. So if you improperly deny somebody benefits or improperly award somebody benefits or, you know, um in the deductible, I
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:27:20–01:27:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
make it whole. Then you separately have fidelity. So that's what I'll go back and check and see what the limits are. ‸ But, uh this one's a million dollars protects against your decisions. Okay. All right. And as a,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:27:56–01:27:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:28:02–01:28:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
to exceed the 74, 92, 40 budgeted. This will be in our next physical year. So this is why we're approving it now, but it won't be expenditure until next physical year. So need a second.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:28:19–01:28:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:28:21–01:28:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:28:28–01:28:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:28:43–01:28:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:28:52–01:29:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:29:21–01:29:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
by Mr. Lang. Excuse me, Mr. Madden. Yeah, there you go. Any other discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say aye. aye Any opposed say nay. and motion carries to approve that. Do we have any of these warrants that you need to approve?
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:29:37–01:29:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:29:47–01:29:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:29:50–01:29:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:29:56–01:29:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:29:58–01:30:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 01:30:13–01:30:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:30:20–01:30:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:30:47–01:30:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:30:53–01:31:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); a language review questioned the wording · 01:31:01–01:31:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording; words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 01:31:43–01:31:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
just make sure we pass it around make sure everybody knows we're entitled to that that's part of our expenditure to the state. All right. um Any unfinished business? Is that cut? Any new business? We need to set next meeting.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:32:21–01:32:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:32:22–01:32:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:32:36–01:32:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:32:46–01:33:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:33:21–01:33:22 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:33:26–01:33:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:33:44–01:33:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
All right. We'll put that down and we'll we'll keep that in mind as well. Thank you very much. Anything, Mr. Lang? Mr. Madden? I don't have anything either. Our next business meeting,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:34:05–01:34:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:34:15–01:34:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:34:45–01:34:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:34:54–01:34:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:34:55–01:35:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:35:06–01:35:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:35:07–01:35:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:35:09–01:35:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:35:38–01:35:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:35:44–01:35:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:35:50–01:35:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:35:54–01:35:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:35:57–01:35:57 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:36:03–01:36:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:36:21–01:36:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:36:55–01:36:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:37:01–01:37:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
at 930. Any of the discussions between the board or the advisors? Hearing none. Motion to adjourn. Motion. Motion by Mr. Ling. Second by Mr. Matt. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Meeting adjourned.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; a language review questioned the wording · 02:13:32–02:13:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording