Friday, June 30, 2006

Christopher Smitherman:  City Heading for Bankruptcy

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

In this exclusive video footage, professional financial planner and former City Councilmember, Christopher Smitherman, details the errors with Cincinnati’s approach towards the City Retirement System.  According to Smitherman’s estimates, the City may be headed towards bankruptcy by 2007—just six months from now!

(Video hosted here through YouTube.  To view, you must install the free Flash Player.)

• Share This Article!
Listen to this article

Socializer!

Username

Password

Auto-login on future visits

Show my name in the online users list

Forgot your password?

Register

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

funnelcake says:
30 Jun 2006  at  03:17 pm | #

OK.  So what is the worker’s retirement plan (say documentation).  Chris is throwing out numbers but no way to connect them.

He's CRAZY! says:
30 Jun 2006  at  03:51 pm | #

Right or wrong, the guy is certifiable.

says:
30 Jun 2006  at  04:11 pm | #

Right, and the City’s in big trouble.

Retiree's Daughter says:
30 Jun 2006  at  06:34 pm | #

Chris is throwing out numbers but no way to connect them.

And that’s all he’s doing. I attended the Spring Meeting of the Cincinnati Employees Retirement System & from the information I received, the retirement plan continues to be very much solvent.

There were some bumps & lumps in the past, but it has evened itself out. Smitherman should know that, seeing he crows about being a financial planner.

I’m going to see just how much he damage he attempts to create before I contact my family’s attorney. The Retirement System was always a thorn in Smitherman’s ass & he wanted to sell it off to the State system, that’s rift with fraud & abuse. That tells me the Retirees & the City workers are nothing but a bunch of lowlife scum to Smitherman & he believes it’s his divine right to toss ‘em all under a fast moving train.

Smitherman in 2007? Oh, I think not. The City Retirees won’t endorse him. I guess selling worthless insurance policies isn’t so thrilling for him anymore.

As an aside, friends of mine went to see Smitherman for a portfolio balancing just to test his waters, seeing how he bragged on himself. They then went to someone else who made a few tweaks & they are 100%+ satisfied with the results. That tells me plenty.

says:
30 Jun 2006  at  06:52 pm | #

What is the information you received?  Without providing it, you are as guilty as you accuse Smitherman of being.

Disappointed says:
30 Jun 2006  at  10:03 pm | #

Boy, this blog is lame with comment moderation. I guess I’ll stop reading it.

Retiree's Daughter says:
30 Jun 2006  at  10:35 pm | #

Dean, before I start my day tomorrow, I’ll get in the file & dig out the info & send what I learned at the meeting. The full fiscal balance sheets will be discussed at the next meeting of the retirement membership.

Without providing it, you are as guilty as you accuse Smitherman of being.

Indeed. I take great umbrage in being put in the same low class as Smitherman. What crust!

You know, the City’s Retirement Office will provide copies of financial statements. It’s public documentation. Hasn’t Smitherman provided you with any documentation? He’s claiming to be the big authority that the sky is falling on the Retirement Board.

I am sure you’re aware that the Retirement Fund was ripped off on the Anthem money. A substantial portion of that was from the retirees’ medical plans. A lump of it went into the Safe & Clean Program, but the balance was frittered away. The retirees weren’t accorded a say in the distribution of the money. Discuss that aspect with Smitherman.

Guilty as Smitherman. Yeah, right. Dean, you’ve already made up your mind Smitherman is right & the hundreds of Retirees are fair game to be hung out to dry by this guy. What you & Smitherman forget, these employees PAID into this plan each pay period.  Contracts were signed before the retirement exit. The Contracts are legal, binding, and cannot be revoked or modified after the signatories are in place. (That info I WILL NOT share with you, as it belongs to a member of my family & is private information.) Further, the City is not in the position to permit the Retirement Fund to go belly up.

Retiree's Daughter says:
30 Jun 2006  at  10:52 pm | #

I have my notes at hand, Dean.

There is sufficient funding to cover the current retirees for their lifetime.

The Retirement Board is undecided on plans to accept proposals outlined by underwriters and independent auditors. This is still in discussion.

It depends on who one talks with whether the retirement plan is performing well or in a marginal condition. Some wish to skew the data, using OPERS (state retirement system) as the operand. This is ridiculous & it obviously gives a poor performance rating. As stated before, the state retirement system & until recently, the state teachers retirement system is/was in shambles. Others have measured it against other cities with similar type plans & Cincinnati’s plan has a competitive, healthy edge.

A complete report by the independent auditors is slated to go to the Finance Committee & on to full Council in the next few months.

Those still in active employment are obviously in the position to have to contribute more into their funding account and their medical benefits will have a designated premium that will have to be absorbed by them. Those already retired and in the system will hold to the retirement program contract that was signed & no changes or adjustments can be made.

If this isn’t enough for you, Dean, to prove I attended that meeting & that I’m being upfront & honest, sorry about your luck. Say what you will, but this is what I’m willing to offer seeing you chose to make such a scurrilous remark. If this isn’t suitable, go side up with Smitherman. He won’t get his hooks on that Retirement Plan. He’s been spoiling for that since the day he climbed up on the perch.

Garbage Truck Driver says:
30 Jun 2006  at  11:25 pm | #

I’m a retired trash truck driver. This is the biggest bunch of scare tactic boloney I’ve ever heard. My questions are:

What did this bonehead use as his formula to calculate all this? He didn’t tell anyone where he got this & why he used this particular way. Makes me real suspicious.
Why is he blaming the politicians? The Retirement Board has a set number of board members. It isn’t politicans that run the system.
The City pension system from the City’s contribution has always been gauged by the market & the prime. All the while I was working for them it was done that way.
Those who will retire in the distant future & those preparing to retire know what their contribution levels are. This is no big surprise to them.
I don’t want this guinea messing around with my hard earned retirement money, absolutely not. I think I’m going to take Retiree’s Daughter’s advice & call my lawyer. I need to talk with the president of our retiree organization about this crap.
Somebody needs to get taken to Court to shut up because he don’t know what he’s talking about. One of those Judges will tape his mouth closed.
Smitherman can’t make me pay more for my medical. I signed a contract, too.
This guy’s an idiot. Is he running for a political office again? It sure sounds like it. I’ll ask my kids. They’ll know what this idiot is up to. I thought we got rid of him in November.
Was he drinking or doing some kind of dope when he did this talk? He looked rather looney. Not making any sense. But he always looked and acted crazy when he was at City Hall.
Yeah, I’m going to have to make some phone calls here after the holiday.

says:
01 Jul 2006  at  06:42 am | #

Guilty as Smitherman. Yeah, right. Dean, you’ve already made up your mind Smitherman is right & the hundreds of Retirees are fair game to be hung out to dry by this guy.

No, I have not already decided Smitherman is right.  However, if someone is going to attack Smitherman’s credibility for not providing specific details to support his claims, then that attacker should have specific details to support his claims.

As a financial planner, Smitherman has more “inherent credibility” than an anonymous blog commenter.

But if you would like to submit an article refuting Smitherman’s points, I’m happy to publish it.  Or, perhaps you’d like to provide a series of talking points—and I’ll see if Smitherman will respond!

says:
01 Jul 2006  at  09:23 am | #

What frustrates me about what Smitherman said (right or wrong, I’m truly in no position to judge) is that he never even mentioned solutions or ideas for solutions.  If one’s area of expertise is the sky and one notices that it will fall in 6 months, instead of simply proclaiming that the sky is, in fact, falling, shouldn’t one use his knowledge of the sky to propose solutions?  It would seem that this is once again just a clip from a much longer interview...were solutions discussed in it but not deemed worthy of this post?

Anon says:
01 Jul 2006  at  11:08 am | #

No, I have not already decided Smitherman is right.  However, if someone is going to attack Smitherman’s credibility for not providing specific details to support his claims, then that attacker should have specific details to support his claims.

As a financial planner, Smitherman has more “inherent credibility” than an anonymous blog commenter.

You’ve already decided Smitherman is right. Your last sentence in the quote says it all. You’ve tossed the Retiree’s Daughter off to the curb because she refuses to reveal her real name, address, phone number & that of her retired family member, in addition to the family member’s signed contract, etc., etc. Of course, you’re siding with Smitherman because of race & he’s got you convinced he’s a money wizard.

Smitherman’s track record as a “financial planner” extends only as far as meek performing insurance policies with a splash of weak annuities. You want solid financial planning for the future, you do it yourself or get someone who knows what they’re doing.

In viewing this clip again, this guy never thoroughly explained where he got his numbers or whether his formula (as Truck Driver called it - thanks!) was the standard criteria or something he made up to fuel his position to dump off the City’s Retirement on the state system.

In reading what the Truck Driver & Retiree’s Daughter posted, I’m completely satisfied that these folks know what they’re talking about & have direct knowledge of the system, something Smitherman seems to lack in this clip. All I see from him is his usual drama & histrionics. He hasn’t provided spit.

Go visit the Retirement Board’s office later in the month. They should have the mid-year financials calculated. Better still, send Smitherman. Let him put the figures where his big mouth is.

says:
01 Jul 2006  at  11:12 am | #

"Inherent credibility” is a phrase I learned from a friend who is a “real journalist.”

A professional financial planner and a former office holder is more “inherently credible”—from a standard journalistic perspective—than an anonymous blog commenter with no data.

So, anons—step up your game!

Dragnet says:
01 Jul 2006  at  01:05 pm | #

The Dean never said anything has been proven, but I think Smitherman raises some interesting questions. If you know otherwise, prove him wrong, but to simply attack his character isn’t going to impress anyone. Just the facts ma’am.

The Banker says:
01 Jul 2006  at  01:10 pm | #

What actuarial tables is Smitherman using to derive his figures?

That’s really going out on a limb saying with absolute certainty that the City will be bankrupt in 6 months. Those in the underwriting & actuarial fields give predictions given on the basis of a calculation & forecasting projections. You will never hears those in the actuarial science flat out say that success or doom will come to pass.

The market situation & the prime are too volatile & in constant churn to render such ridiculous statements.

For instance, let’s envision that the hurricane season doesn’t result in devastating losses this season. That would lessen crop shortages, allow time to get the oil fields operational in the Gulf, other weather patterns change so the East Coast dries & returns to functionality, etc., the market picks up. The Fed decides there’s no need to hike the prime again. The market & the economy finish 2006 with a satisfactory flourish.

Where does that leave Smitherman’s dire statements?

Then say the ecomony grows weaker. That still leaves Smitherman hanging out there. There are many build in givens on the Retirement System & although the City’s contribution would shrink, it would only slow the performance of the retirement plan.

Smitherman is making the City’s pension system look like a wholesale ripoff of the Enron system. He hasn’t documented his actuarial information, nor how he derived at his figures.

I’d advise those writing in on behalf of their retired families to not give this another look. It’s strictly campaign malarkey. There’s too many variables & variances that need to be considered & no one worth their salt would make a firm pat statement like the ones rendered by Smitherman.

anon says:
01 Jul 2006  at  01:17 pm | #

A professional financial planner and a former office holder is more “inherently credible” —from a standard journalistic perspective—than an anonymous blog commenter with no data.

The Beacon can’t seem to make up its mind re: its own editorial position on the subject of experts. Isn’t Andrew Warner a member of your editorial board? Didn’t Warner recently write an article raising doubts about why one source’s credentials are irrelevent to whatever facts that source is presenting? Dean, you’re relying on just the opposite argument, apparently to win the immediate argument.

BTW, you don’t seem to understand what a financial planner does for a living, which is to sell investment products (mutual funds, etc.) to clients. This requires no specific training or expertise and it’s easy to get licensed ("certified"). Claiming this “credential” gives Smitherman credibility is silly.

Finally, why do you demand that commenters provide documentation to back up their positions when you apparently haven’t held Mr. Smitherman to the same standard?

Why are you putting yourself in the middle of this anyway? Rather than defending his position, wouldn’t it be more prodcutive to forward these questions to him and requesting his answers for publication?

The Judge says:
01 Jul 2006  at  01:20 pm | #

step up your game!

There’s no game here. Smitherman hasn’t offered solutions, which is the hallmark of a seasoned financial planner. Nor has he produced anything to back up his claims, another rule followed to the letter by financial planners, as in the client’s right to know.

The people, anon or otherwise, don’t have to dignify with comments of proof or facts. The burden of proof is on Smitherman.

Folks, go on about your holiday weekend. This case is closed & Court’s adjourned.

You retired people need to talk with the Retirement Board & seek legal counsel if there isn’t anything else forthcoming from this Smitherman person.

says:
01 Jul 2006  at  01:22 pm | #

The Beacon can’t seem to make up its mind re: its own editorial position on the subject of experts. Isn’t Andrew Warner a member of your editorial board? Didn’t Warner recently write an article raising doubts about why one source’s credentials are irrelevent to whatever facts that source is presenting? Dean, you’re relying on just the opposite argument, apparently to win the immediate argument.

Not quite.  It’s interesting how no standard is acceptable, apparently.

In other words, when we give a platform to those who are typically ignored—we are not doing a good enough job because certain people are deemed not credible.  When we give a platform to those who are have all the qualifications of credibility, they are still considered not credible—if the view expressed is one unliked.

Yet the Enquirer, which never does any research, provides less details than The Beacon—and they are considered “professional.”

The comments here are such a hack job.

says:
01 Jul 2006  at  01:24 pm | #

I’d advise those writing in on behalf of their retired families to not give this another look. It’s strictly campaign malarkey. There’s too many variables & variances that need to be considered & no one worth their salt would make a firm pat statement like the ones rendered by Smitherman.

Campaign malarky?  Ineresting… You think Smitherman is trying to win an election at the end of 2007 by saying the City will be bankrupt at the beginning of 2007?

says:
01 Jul 2006  at  01:26 pm | #

The people, anon or otherwise, don’t have to dignify with comments of proof or facts. The burden of proof is on Smitherman.

You know, there is only so much I can do with a video camera and YouTube.  I will be happy, however, to attempt to identify the apparent “deficiencies” of what Smitherman says on the tape, to then see if he can provide hard data to support his original claims.

Why not clearly state the questions, and then see if he has the goods, before jumping to these hasty conclusions?

Howard Lipschitz says:
01 Jul 2006  at  02:45 pm | #

when we give a platform to those who are typically ignored—we are not doing a good enough job because certain people are deemed not credible.  When we give a platform to those who are have all the qualifications of credibility, they are still considered not credible—if the view expressed is one unliked.

This vague complaint speaks more to your delusional and embattled perception of yourself than it does to reality. I think it is precisely this sense of victimhood which you use to justify taking both sides of any issue, as long as you win.

says:
01 Jul 2006  at  03:06 pm | #

This may provide any concerned here with a similar playing field. The city gathers 15 different planner representatives. These tables numbers and tables are hard enough to follow, so using what the city officially notes may be a better ground to look at then ask Smitherman for the specifics of his concerns.

This link will supply Osborne’s article during Mayor Mallory’s run for office and his take
versus the concerns Monzel and Malone raised:
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050507/NEWS01/505070359

This link from the City of Cincinnati’s website notes of July 1, 2006 provides the official meeting notes from several years, and will help with what Retiree’s daughter has provided and may clear up some of the concerns advanced by both Mr. Smitherman as a council member, former council member, financial planner and citizen:
http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cityfinance/pages/-7432-/

Retirement Information overview as of City website notes as of July 1, 2006:
http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cityfinance/pages/-7388-

Board Members from immediate above page as of City website notes as of July 1, 2006:
http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cityfinance/pages/-7442-/

Investment Managers cited by their company’s name as of City Website notes of July 1, 2006:
http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cityfinance/pages/-7450-/

anon says:
01 Jul 2006  at  03:10 pm | #

Why not clearly state the questions, and then see if he has the goods, before jumping to these hasty conclusions?

Dean, That’s what you should have said in the first place, as well as to offer to forward questions to Smitherman or to include his e-mail address if publicly available or, if not, with his okay.

Videos like this and articles are welcome. But it is Smitherman’s responsibility to field questions and to answer them, not yours. Unless it’s your battle, you should stay on the sidelines. If it is your battle, fight it in a separate editorial, not in the comments sections.

says:
01 Jul 2006  at  03:20 pm | #

I think it is precisely this sense of victimhood which you use to justify taking both sides of any issue, as long as you win.

It is not about winning; it is about uncovering truth.

The Enquiring Mind says:
01 Jul 2006  at  05:56 pm | #

"Yet the Enquirer, which never does any research, provides less details than The Beacon—and they are considered “professional.”

The comments here are such a hack job.”

I’m not of the belief that the Enquirer or any daily print is a “professional” medium. They have their biases & bents. Further, politics plays a significant role in what they report & how it is reported.

The comments rendered by those anonymously & by pseudonyms may be a hack job in your view, but one must go back to the original story, which is devoid of completeness & rift of inaccuracies, lack of proof & reasoning.

Nowhere in this original story was Smitherman asked to provide his foundation for such accusations. Everything was taken as complete face value because this guy claims to be a “financial planner” & once held a seat on City Council. These 2 items make him very worthy, extremely credible & an accurate expert, bringing forth the absolute, bottom line facts.

Then because bloggers find holes in the whole story & blast it & Smitherman to smithereens, Dean wants to hold the Anons accountable for their side of the story for proof & substantiated facts. Journalism? Naw, not on your best day. Doesn’t even come close to Hobby Journalism or “factual reporting”.  Smitherman hasn’t put forth any facts & Dean didn’t bother to seek them out because he gives Smitherman ultimate credibility.

Meanwhile, enough time will pass for Smitherman to cover his tracks in an attempt to find something to placate those questioning his position.  This is the exact stuff one expects from the Enquirer.

BTW Dean, anyone submitted questions for Smitherman? I believe we should be permitted to see them.

Chuck says:
01 Jul 2006  at  06:43 pm | #

If you all have questions and a little patients, I’m sure the Dean will get some answers from Mr. Smitherman. You can save the insults and you should of blah, blah blahs. The Dean provides a free service and catches a lot of shit for it. If people weren’t aloud to remain anonymous they would show a little respect or remain silent.

I hope that Smitherman was exagerating when he said the city would be bankrupted in 6 months, but then again there hasn’t been an audit. We have 3CDC acting as our planning department without any oversight. Steven Leeper bankrupted Pittsburgh and Alleghany County. Bob Castellini took advatage of the fact that Carl Lindner owns the politicians when us taxpayers paid $70 million for land that was appraised at $10 million and now he’s in charge of the Banks. There’s been a lot of bad deals going on and being number 1 for population drain doesn’t help.

says:
01 Jul 2006  at  07:18 pm | #

All I have in the way of follow-up question suggestions is what I get from the comments here.

I know Smitherman has holes—for example, he always says things like “But don’t believe me—do the research yourself.” This is just a strategy for shifting the burden of proof.

The Enquiring Mind says:
01 Jul 2006  at  08:07 pm | #

I know Smitherman has holes—for example, he always says things like “But don’t believe me—do the research yourself.” This is just a strategy for shifting the burden of proof.

Dean, you’ve got that pegged! You know, he injected that phrase countless times when he was on Council while giving his eulogies. Cheez! I wished I had a dollar for everytime he said that, I’d need a solid financial planner to help me manage the cash. Repeatedly dishing out that verse made me very wary & distrustful of him, not only as a politician (which you can’t trust anyway), but his character in general.

One can very easily establish themselves, their credibility & their professional posture by supplying simple annotations as to where they found the info or derived at their end numbers. It’s simple. But to shift the burden of proof, is shady & makes people think twice.

However, I don’t think the retirees & their families are going to wait for Smitherman’s explanations. I’d expect a steady walk-ins & phone calls to the Retirement Office & the folks slamming the phones to their family attorneys. Rightly so. People are upset.

Anon says:
01 Jul 2006  at  08:10 pm | #

I submitted several questions to be directed to Smitherman & they haven’t been posted for other contributors to review & add on their commentary. Will they be published before or after Smitherman chooses whether to respond?

says:
01 Jul 2006  at  08:53 pm | #

Anon 10:10—you have been signing several names from your IP address, but only “The Banker” above includes questions.  Are those the ones you mean, in comment 15?

You also posted a question about questions, signing the post “Enquiring Minds.”

I guess what I’m saying is that I can’t figure out if your questions really got lost, or if you are posing as several people to make it look like I censored questions.

While I admit that I’m still getting the hang of the technology of this site for comment moderations, I feel most certain that I have not accidentally deleted anything.

Why are you playing these games?

If you have questions, just post them and I will approve them (unless they are radically offensive, or something...)

Anon is FOS! says:
02 Jul 2006  at  01:05 am | #

They are one of the usual trolls who assaults someones charcter for having an opinion and act like they are winning an argument. Prove him wrong or shut the fuck up.

Ask him yourself! says:
02 Jul 2006  at  01:06 am | #

Call him on the Buzz tomorrow around 2pm!

Smitherene says:
03 Jul 2006  at  09:48 am | #

Smitherman tried to win votes by publicly accusing Crowley, Tarbell and others of cutting AIDS funding, when they did nothing of the sort. He literally tried to use AIDs , and scaring AIDS patients, as his wedge issue.  That incident alone made it clear to me that he can not be trusted.

He does the same thing with scare tactics and wedge issues that Karl Rove and George Busg have done to us for years.

Urbanists II is dead says:
03 Jul 2006  at  04:30 pm | #

Dean: didn’t you once profess to not know how to check IP addresses?

Regardless: Smitherman’s an idiot.  Yes, he’s a Certified Financial Planner.  He passed a test.  Why doesn’t he work for Franklin in Kenwood anymore?

Anyone who wants to know the City’s financial position, regarding Retirement or other aspects, can read the budgets on the City’s website.  They’ll tell you how capitalized the system is, what the accrued liabilities are (funded or unfunded), and the gain/loss on assets in the past year.

This is what Smitherman does: creates non-issues that obscure reality.  In 2003 he’d wave around an envelope he claimed contained other candidates’ financial reports, imploring voters to “see who’s giving them money.” This in opposition to managed competition.  What was in the envelope?  Who knows.  Who cares!  Smitherman was in labor’s pocket: why not just say so instead of deflecting?  On the radio he talks to listeners like their his children being lectured.

Just go away already Mr. “I’ll be happy as a one-term councilmember.” Apparently not.

Urbanists II is dead says:
03 Jul 2006  at  04:32 pm | #

PS:

“Bandaids break”?  hahahahahaha

Dean: what was the occasion for the taping of this “episode”?  Was it at his Walnut Hills office?

Urbanists II is dead says:
03 Jul 2006  at  06:54 pm | #

Not to beat a dead horse, but if Smitherman has time for interviews might he not have time to update his tired ass campaign website?

scooter says:
07 Jul 2006  at  12:24 pm | #

If Smitherman is so crazy and so wrong, then why haven’t the councilmembers who troll this site or other powers that be in the city’s financial ranks jumped all over this to dispute his claim.

When his presentation of the retirement system was presented to council almost 2 years ago, not one city official disputed the dire state of the city’s retirement plan.

As much as Ghiz, Bortz and Berding jump all over facts and stats to prove the others are wrong, where are their thoughts on this.

Better yet maybe someone should ask the opinion of Councilman Cranley since he has information that may prove Smitherman is not the crazy one at all...But isn’t it just like Cincinnati to shoot the messenger.

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

<b>

<i>

<u>

quote

code

@

<a>

Close Tags

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: