Call the Senate Finance Committee to order.
Today's February the 11th couple of minutes after 9 a.m.
Please silence your cell phones present today.
Senator Stedman, Senator Olson, senator Keel,
Senator Carcman Senator Cronk, and myself Senator Hoffman, we have a
form to conduct business today's agenda.
We have four items on the agenda today
It shouldn't take too long.
We have the first item is Senate Bill 213,
the operating budget, Senate bill 215,
the mental health budget explanation of the veto
of repealed appropriations by alleged legal
and the presentation of Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation,
which is probably the most important item on the agenda.
So the first item, adoption of CS0 for Senate Bill 213,
appropriations, operating budget, amendments, and
supplemental, Senator Stedman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I move that the Finance Committee adopt the committee substitute for
Senate bill 213 Finance, 34-GS 2249-8
and I'll object for an explanation and invite Pete Ecklund to explain the CS, Mr. Echlund.
Good morning, Mister Chairman, thank you for the record.
My name is Pete Eklund, the staff to Senator Hoffman and the Senate Finance Committee.
The committee's substitute you have in front of you, mr. Chairman is referred to as CS 0.
It is simply put into the format of legal and
alleged finance, technical and informing changes.
The substance is the same as the governor's introduced budget.
With one exception this year, Mr. Chairman, we do have a unique situation.
Where the Governor has introduced a Department of Agriculture.
There is ongoing litigation, as you are aware, there was an executive order issued
the Department of Agriculture, the legislature filed a suit about that and disputed whether
that was a legal creation.
So far in the lower court courts, they have ruled in favor of the Legislature.
And so for the purposes of this committee's substitute, we have rolled in,
the department of agriculture back into, as a division, into the
Department on Natural Resources.
Thank you for that
Explanation I remove my objection. Is there any further objection to adopting?
The CS referred to CS 0 for Senate bill 213
Seeing none that
Motion is adopted
We'll go to the second item on the agenda
Again, this is CS04 Senate Bill 215, the appropriations for the mental health budget.
Senator Stidman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I move that the Finance Committee adopt the committee substitute for Senate bill 215 Finance 34-GS 252.
That's 2502, backslash N before the Committee as our working document.
And I will object for explanation from mr. Eklund
Thank You mister chairman, and I guess for brevity. I'll just say ditto on this
Committee substitute technical and conforming changes
Now we'll remove my objection is there further objection to the adoption of the CS
seeing none
That CS is adopted
The third item is the veto
of repeal appropriations.
I invite Marie Marks from ledge council,
legislative legal to come to the table.
And Emily Newman, the director of legislative
legal services and Megan Wallace,
the chief council is online.
Please introduce yourself and give us the explanation.
Good morning for the record. My name is Emily now my director of legislative legal services and with me. I have Marie
Good Morning and good to see y'all in person
As many of you know, my name, is remarks and I'm a legislative council with legislative Legal Services
I draft in a few different areas
You probably recognize me or my Name on things and one of those areas is the language sections of the operating budget
One of the services that legislative legal services offers to you the legislature is we just identify issues and concerns to help the Legislature make informed decisions.
My memorandum dated January 21st, 2026 outlines the legal issue relating to last year's operating budget, HB 53.
I plan today just to give a short summary of a question and the discussion in the memo, and then I'm happy to take any questions the members may have.
So, just a short brief summary is Article 2, section 15 of the Alaska Constitution grants
the governor the power by veto to strike or reduce items in appropriation bills.
And we generally refer to this as the Governor's light item veto power.
previously enacted appropriations.
The governor subsequently vetoed language
repealing these appropriations,
the issue here is whether that line item veto power
in Alaska Constitution grants the governor
the power to use that veto,
power in a way that has the effect
of increasing an amount reduced by the legislature.
This issue has not been squarely addressed
by The Last of Supreme Court.
However, in the case of Alaska Legal or Alaska Legislative Council v. Knowles, the Alaska
Supreme Court did address what is a line item veto and what does the governor's line
item, veto power encompass?
And the court interpreted the phrase strike or reduce as follows, reducing an item lessens
It explains the terms, those two terms strike and reduce, have equivalent effects, they diminish the amount appropriated.
Here, as you know, the governor's action and strike in repeal of a previously enacted appropriation does not reduce the
amount of appropriation to nothing or otherwise diminish them out.
It actually has the effect of increasing the amounts of the appropriation.
That's really a quick summary of issue in my discussion, but I'm happy to take any questions.
Do members have questions of the discussion right from the table?
Senator Keel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So, Ms. Marks, if memory serves, the courts have defined item in this context.
Can you remind me what an item is?
Through the chair senator keel correct in the Knowles case the court said an appropriation item is a sum of money
dedicated to a particular purpose
senator Keel name is Truman and and so
And as I read your memo
It it seemed to me that the
There's a court case that said
It's clear what reduce an item. Is but the courts said to strike an Item
isn't simply to eliminate it from the bill, it is to reduce the money.
Could you help with that, the difference between just taking away our addressing of a bit of
money for a purpose versus reducing the spend?
Through the chair, Senator Keel, in the Knowles case that I discuss in my memorandum,
Interpreted what is strike and it specifically said it is
Quantitatively or qualitatively the same as reduce it diminishes an amount appropriated and specifically the court said strike is to reduce an
amount to nothing
Senator keel. Thank you, mr. Chairman, so
So then for the argument that's out there
The there's an argument out. There that strike
Simply means to take it out of the bill
For the court to agree with that it would have to explicitly overrule its prior ruling
Is that is that what I'm hearing you say?
Through the chair senator keel. I think that that issue
Was not directly on point in that Knowles case it was talking about
whether the governor can strike language
That doesn't appropriate a sum of money for a particular purpose in the case
The governor had appropriated money relating to positions or
extraneous money that is not a sum of money, or extriniest language that's not some of the money for a particular purpose.
So I think the argument would be, did it directly address striking a veto of repeal?
In that sense, the court would not necessarily have to overrule itself.
Clarify the court could clarify. It's really the Knowles, but you're absolutely correct that the Court
I think would have to address this language and Knowls that explicitly stated striking is
Reducing on Mount to nothing it would. Have to clarify
Clarifying just one last if I may was true. Yes, sir. Kiel at one point in your memo, and I apologize skimming while I listen isn't I strong to suit
There was someone a reference someone saying that that
close the purse strings who was that through the chair senator keel that was
in the same nulls case that explained what does the power the governor have
under the line item veto power-grounded in
the Constitution and it was only to tighten the state's purse
strings it cannot loosen them thank you mr. Chairman that sounds like more
The decision is before the legislature whether we go forward or not it remains to be seen
I just wanted to have this on the table so that members in the general public understand
where we are.
Any further questions before I set this aside?
Thank you very much for that explanation.
which is the permanent fund corporation.
I invite Devin Mitchell, the chief executive officer,
an executive director, and Marcus Frampton,
the Chief Investment Officer to the table
to give us a presentation on the Permanent Fund Corporation.
Our crown jewel.
Devon Mitchell, I'm the CEO of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, and as you stated,
I have with me today our Chief Investment Officer Marcus Frampton. We have a slide deck
to update you on. Some of things are going to be reminders because we have some of
the same slides we share every year, but obviously beneficial to your wider audience,
corporations performance over the course of the last year and historically prior to that.
So this is the fiftieth year of 50th anniversary of The Fund's creation by the Alaska Legislature.
The statute was passed in legislative session 50 years ago that provided the joint resolution
for the constitutional amendment that was approved in the fall or the summer of 1976.
And so we're in the process of celebrating that.
We had 75,000 people back at that point that sacrificed the ability
to have a resource rebate for themselves and instead decided to save money for the future
of the state of Alaska in that intergenerational concept that we have finite resources
that were developing as a resources oriented state for that benefit of residents of this state
after those resources are depleted as one-time use resources.
And certainly that's something to celebrate that 75,000 in the electorate of the day represented
66 or 7% of voters of this state.
So as much of a landslide as you could have in an election generally.
So an incredible act of thinking beyond oneself that occurred that we're benefiting from today.
The constitutional amendment that was approved was pretty simple.
All it said is we're going to save money, we are going invest money and then we spend all the money
unless we otherwise are directed by the state's statutes to do otherwise the legislature.
And so that, that is the debate in 1976 and the corporation and
the permanent fund dividend program were created subsequent to that in 1980 and
Ultimately the program that wound up paying money in 1982 and the permanent fund the first permanent Fund dividend distribution
On slide three we show some of the history of The Fund's development you can see that initial deposit in
1978 of seven hundred and eighty thousand dollars that's
grown to
balance at
the point of this
financial reporting of about eighty six billion dollars
And a portion of that, of course, is in the earnings reserve account that's spendable,
appropriateable by 51% vote of the legislature in concurrence to the governor and the balances in principle.
This slides a little, I don't know, there's not as much clarity in here as there could be because a
balance of the fund is actually unrealized income that we'll delve into later in CIO
I'll call it a gray area in between the two and it is allocated between
the 2 accounts while it's unrealized and if it in fact realized when those
investments are sold then it shifts over to the earnings reserve account. But in
the meantime it somewhat overstates both the ERA balance as well as the
principal balance. The actual
constitutional principal balance is less than the amount you would see on this chart.
It's actually 59.8 billion rather than, you know, the 70 some billion that's reflected on
on the chart, so just something to be aware of. The so 73. 8 billion is reflected in here as the
ERA balance and 12 point, I'm sorry, that the principal balanced and
12.5 is the ERA balanced, but you had have lesser balances in the principle of those earnings
Greater balance in the ERA if
Again those are realized those unrealized earnings. Can you inform the committee and the general public?
What year did the legislature
first
spend funds out of the
earnings reserve account
It would have been through the chair mr. Chair it would've been 19
The first permanent fund dividend was funded out of the general fund, the $1,000 distribution.
So that would have been the first year of a permanent funded fund from the permanent
fund would've been 1983.
Determining draws from the dividend was shifted from a historical percentage of earnings draw to a percent of market value draw in statute.
Both of those things are obviously still in statue, but the state's been following the percent
of the market-value draw, a historic average balance of
the last five years taking a percentage that initially it was a higher percentage, it's now a 5% percentage.
using that methodology since 2019 and
That was also the point that the permanent fund was used for more than just permanent fun dividends
It was always used first support of other governmental operational needs and that was Senate bill 16 that
Came from the Senate Finance Committee
Sponsored by the senate finance committee
Please proceed. Thank you
One important thing on this slide that when you're talking about things that the legislature did, that kind of brownish line that goes across that winds up.
Around $20 billion. That's how much money would be in the permanent fund today if there wasn't a statutory framework that provided for the earnings to be retained in
the fund through special appropriations and special
appropriations have occurred from both the general fund as well as the Earnings Reserve account as
well the inflation-proofing appropriations that have been made regularly by the legislature to the principal of the
fund so a
A financial resource, again, that's been built on the structure and the discipline of past
generations of Alaskans.
So the permanent fund invests more than just the permit fund corporation invests
more then just permanent funds we also invest the mental health trust funds
money I think you had a presentation earlier this week related to that as
well as the power cost equalization endowment and so those
total about $1.8 billion that's part of the assets
under management that the fund's currently managing.
And if you just looked at AUM, assets under
management were actually over $91 billion
that is being managed by the corporation today.
So that would include this $2.88 as well as liability money
that we're going to pay to the state this fiscal year.
So it's not counted as part
Financial net worth at this point because we have a we haven't offsetting liability
But we're still managing that money until it's needed by the state of Alaska
pay it over through the
The plan that's developed by The Department of Revenue and Treasury Division
The Amaretta has settlement money is a
It's a subcategory of the permanent fund it is principle of permanent fun that can't be spent
But the earnings are used in a different fashion from other earnings of
the fund this settlement based on the
Fact that the jury was it was a oil and gas litigation settlement that
The jury Was comprised of Alaskans and there was A fear from the defense that The Alascans on the
Jury Would be compromised by the knowledge that Any deposit from
The settlement would go into the permanent funding affect their dividends so they had a conflict and so to avoid that potential of conflict
the emeritus settlement was
directed by the court not to be incorporated into any calculation of the permanent fund
dividend, so the historical 21% of last five years earnings calculation and has maintained
that status and is still held separately within the principle of permanent funds.
We have a board of trustees six member board at trustees for from the general public appointed by the governor on staggered four-year terms as well as two from
the executive branch one of which must must be the commissioner of the Department of Revenue and
one other member of The Cabinet and
we
everyone at the permanent fund works every day to
in their
Rule maximize the risk-adjusted rate of return of
permanent fund for the residents of Alaskans.
It's something that every person I believe
that comes to work at the corporation
has an opportunity to embrace that mission
because it's somebody everybody can be proud of
that works there.
And it is, I think, part of a culture
that drives us to success.
And at that same time, we want to be accountable
Senator Stedman, can we go back to that slide, please?
The power cost equalization, is there any creative way we could roll that into the constitutional protection so it can't get looted?
Through the chair, Senator Steadman.
I mean, this outside my, maybe you would ask your attorney, but
Based on my experience in the Department of Revenue, knowledge of the state of Alaska's constitution that has prohibitions on dedications of state revenue.
Unless there's some carve out, which there may be for the mental health trust.
But so there would be a legal analysis that would need to occur.
If there is not an ability to dedicate that revenue already,
then there will need be some modification to provide for it,
which would of course require a constitutional amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I think maybe we should ask that question. I
think it's probably not able to do it. But if there's some
creative way, we can get the power cost equalization
endowment protected from overdraws. We should definitely
seriously consider that.
We
should.
Thank you, Senator Stegman. Mitchell. Thank
you.
of the permanent fund in replacing finite resource revenue
with infinite investment income from not just concentrated
investment or economy in the state of Alaska but the world economy.
So we have investments around the
world primarily in
the United States but around
All of those investments return come back to the state of Alaska to benefit us in our state.
And so we have, at this point, in my view, the most diversified revenue stream of any state in the United States
that's predicated upon the permanent funds investment around the world
relative to a reliance on our local economy for income to support our states' needs.
The acid allocation has evolved over the years, we started off and kind of dipped our toe on the water and everybody was very conservative at that point in time, the 1970s were relatively...
It was an after-inflation and negative performance year for the S&P 500 and so the idea of taking
additional risk wasn't in the forefront of folks' minds.
All fixed income when the fund was initially invested in then gradually as the funds matured
and the structures matured surrounding the corporation and ability to perform as an institutional
Additional asset classes added initially with real estate and public equities and then absolute return private equity
And then we have the eight asset class as we currently have
which is intended to
this asset Class is
equivalent to an
80% equity 20% fixed income portfolio. It just has greater diversity
within it so that we have an expectation of lesser volatility risk equals volatility. So risk
equals uncertainty in greater wins and greater losses. We're going to be a little bit closer
to the middle, but we expect over the long term to have outperformance as a result of
Portfolio construction and Marcus can talk more about that if you have questions
This slide shows the historical earnings rate of the fund and we
We talk a lot about the return objectives of The fund, and We have multiple return
Objectives, but maybe the most important or arguably is the CPI plus five so we want to earn a
real rate Of return a rate-of-return
After inflation of 5% and this chart looks at five-year historical
Bands of time and in the gold dot reflects the target of CPI plus five over that ten-year
Lifespan of the fund and the the blue represents the real rate of return or the rate return after inflation and
The gray represents inflation, and if you add those together, that's the return that was achieved for each one of those segments
Interestingly, if you look at this same chart with a five-year look back, there's more volatility,
predictably, more volatility to it, and so you see in the years leading up to the global
financial crisis, outperformance above the gold dot, then it goes negative, the real
is informative when you consider what happens
when look at shorter time frames rather than longer time
frames.
And again, when consider is a 5% draw rate,
an appropriate draw
rate for an institutionally invested fund,
like the permanent fund.
And this chart suggests that it's a not to exceed amount
in many ways.
If we actually had a draw back in like 2009, for example,
I asked the question the other day and the draw based
on the historical earnings formula was like 2.85%.
And a year that we had loss of close to, it was in the high teens.
So we have a loss in high teams and we were paying out.
2.85% for just permanent fund dividends at the time, of course.
And so if you said, what if
you'd use that formula where you use the other half for state services?
So this, if
you recall, the formula says half goes to the permanent
fund, uh, dividend account and half
goes
to state of Alaska under the, um,
the old statute that
there, there would have been a draw during a year that you had
high teens negative performance of almost 6% and so there's it's
It's very difficult as you contemplate the potential of negative markets and the long-term
Stability needs of the state of Alaska with this fund
To not consider how we're investing the money and how are taking risk and
How we are going to draw money from from the fund and those are all
Difficult questions to answers with with a lot of nuance to them
But certainly is our our issues that the committee should should be thinking about and aware of
Senator Steadman
If he's done with this slide, I have a question. Yes, sir
Yesterday we had a presentation from Leskham mental health and they had changed their pale, right?
They raised it from I think four and a quarter to four-and-a-half and we asked them about that
and he said that took
their consultant, Cowlin, recommended that they move up to four and a half to get that
balance between current demands of the beneficiaries of The Alaska Mental Health and future demands
on the mental health members or what have you.
If that sweet spot between current and futures, four and a half for mental health, why isn't
it four-and-a-half for the permanent fund, because they're both in perpetuity, both have
draws every year.
There is a concern that at five percent draw, it's pretty much at the top of the range for
It doesn't seem to be a lot of cushion there.
So I was just wondering what your thoughts are on that,
because I surprised yesterday when
Alaska Mental Health moved their payout rate to 4 and a half.
Through the chair, Senator Steadman.
Yes, that's.
So there's statistical probabilities based on historical markets in your asset allocation
as to whether or not you break your model based
on a draw rate.
And so the lower the draw rates, the higher your statistical probability
of not breaking the model is kind of common sense, right?
And, so, at a four and a half, our chief risk officer has done analysis
He gains confidence as you get into that four and a half range that you would have high
probabilities of not breaking the model.
And so, Calin and their modeling, as they're also our general market consultant, there's
a lot of variables that go into any model in particular in this scenario.
Under consideration that at the point in time that the POMB was created for the state of Alaska the needs of the State were dire
There was a lot of need the draw rate initially was higher than five percent
It was I can't remember was it five and a half or five-and-a-quarter
Maybe five in half one year than 5 and 1 quarter for a couple years
Yes, that was said that yes, and then it just right was set in Senate bill 26. Yes
And so there was there established like
kind of a stair step down to 5% and I think a lot of that was driven by just the pure
necessity of the day, right, and so it's difficult.
And if you look, in my time at the fund there have been discussions at board meetings about
the draw rate and our advisors have consistently are, we have external board advisors, three
have expertise specific financial expertise that advise the board and they have uniformly suggested
that 5% is either the maximum or too high. Callan is a little bit more squishy I think that they
haven't maybe been as forceful but I but i think if if you looked at our meeting of december 2023
were saying that 5% was a maximum and shouldn't be exceeded and perhaps too high.
If you look at other sovereign wealth funds around the world,
it's challenging to find one that has a 5%.
And so you see a lot of 3 to 4 range, 3-4% range which arguably is too low.
And so it is, it's like this challenge of how do you take into consideration the needs
of the current generation of Alaskans at the same time you consider the need of future
state of Alaska and generations of alaskan that are going to live here and balance those
two kind of conflicting needs.
And the difference between the mental health trust, they have the authority to set their
permanent fund and for our cost equalization are set by law
Yes, I believe so mr. Chair though if we want to change the draw rate for the permanent
fund to something lower such as the
Board mental health board did we'd have to introduce legislation to do so
Where are the comments?
Yeah, just one comment.
I think if we consider that, we could also consider
a step down from five to four and a half
if somebody's contemplating that.
And I guess it comes down to, you know,
how much, from a particular viewpoint,
you want to put on future generations of Alaska
versus current generations, Alaska.
How much you wanna try to take care of your grandchildren
and great grandchildren that aren't even here yet
the immediate needs of making the ends meet in this current budget cycle.
Senator Stedman, are you considering recommending to the committee that we introduce legislation
on a step down?
I would, Mr. Chairman, I'd like the members of the Committee to think about that for a
little bit and maybe have some conversations and see if there's support at the community
to have that policy and discussion at a table, and if it is or isn't, if not, there is not.
to follow along with the Alaska Mental Health proposal.
I think that made a lot of sense,
and I recognize that once you have a draw rate
to the general fund, it's like a heroin addict.
You know, what's hard to get off of that draw rating,
if it was six or six and a half or five,
whatever it is, you know.
It's tough to do, but we can do it over time
if to make it easier on the folks that have to
do with your operating budget.
Mainly, Mr. Chairman, yourself.
So members of the committee should consider this,
and we may consider introducing legislation
as a committee if that is the desire of members.
Senator Teal.
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Maybe the folks from the permanent fund
could help inform the discussion a little bit.
I mean, it looks as I look at this chart,
like we've done just fine since 2010, maybe 2009,
or.
I mean, do we just have sort of negative Nellie sitting to the right of me who contemplates your future failure or do you guys have it figured out?
Through the chair senator keel. No, that's negative. Nelly sitting tomorrow, right?
But I think what this chart shows and you have to remember that during this time frame there wasn't a POMB draw
There was a permanent fund dividend draw so you had a lesser
use of the fund. And the most critical thing about the time frame that you have negative
market experience is, well, fiscal discipline and ability to leave your investment intact.
So if you're putting money in the S&P 500 and never drawing it, then that's hard to
argue with. But when you start using it actively every year, it changes the math because when
a correction in a loss in value and then you have a draw of a fixed percentage of
a higher value that percentage just became higher right so you're not drawing five now
you are drawing six or eight and when the market recovers that money is not there to
recover and buoy the results afterwards and so if you if
you look at those time trams our ability to withstand those negative markets was buoyed by
the lesser use of the fund at the time.
So I'm not sure that the historic, what you were saying,
like a historical example is necessarily the same fact set
that you would see on that chart if the draw rate we have today
was in place back in that timeframe.
So Mr. McKeel, just to make sure I am clear on
that, right, this isn't dollars.
This is return percentages
Through the chair senator keel that's correct that the percentages would change
Because you wouldn't have the money to invest anymore it would have been spent so if you spent if u had a
Fixed 5% historical average draw in
2009 that example I used where I said oh there was a 2.85%
distributed for dividends, well, you would have taken that historical balance, and it would
have been 5% of that, not 2.85%, so you'd have had taken more money out of the fund,
and then when the markets started recovering, immediately after 2009, that money wouldn't
have have in there, so your performance and ability to build back wouldn t have
been in place.
Thank you.
For the record, my name is Marcus Frampton.
I'm the Chief Investment Officer
of the Alaska Permanent Fund.
I just have one comment on this page.
Just from a historical standpoint,
I started at the fund in 2012,
and we had just come out of
the global financial crisis.
And as you see on the chart, at that point,
it had been about three years since
on a 10-year basis we achieved the CPI plus five.
And six years into that time in 2018, we first hit the point where on a 10-year look back,
we were hitting the inflation post-5 return objective of the fund.
And I don't think that's more a reflection of where the markets were than how the investment
being done at the time. And every year we set an asset allocation that's intended to
have roughly a 50% chance of hitting inflation plus five over the next 10 years. So.
We look at expected returns and we understand
there are bull markets and there bear markets.
And it's roughly 50-50 that it'll be inflation plus five
outcome with that ass allocation.
If you look the decade ended 2009,
that was a very difficult decade with the dot com bust
and then the global financial crisis.
We had a modest positive real return on the fund.
The S&P 500 had a negative real return.
And so that was a period where diversification really helped.
The last 15 years, more concentrated,
large US stock portfolios have done better.
5% POMV draw with an S and P 500 portfolio.
And the decade end of 2009 would be crippling.
be under, with drawing 5% of the fund with no real return
for a decade, would erode half the value of a fund
on a nominal basis.
And then when you layer an inflation,
would a road another 20% percent of fund?
You'd be left with about a third of their real value
of that fund by the end of decade.
If you got into a difficult US stock market environment
like that with a concentrated US portfolio.
You'd have a similar outcome in the 1970s, negative real return on the S&P 500, similar
outcome, in 1940s the Great Depression, a negative, real, return, on S and P 500.
And they may seem like isolated impacts, but those are three out of the last 10 decades.
So you have like a 30% chance of a crippling outcome with a concentrated S & P500 portfolio.
larger decisions that affect the fund itself
are the amount of the payout for the permanent fund dividend
that is fluctuated and we have not followed that law.
And have used that as sort of a buffer.
And the other major factor is whether or not
we inflation proof it.
or non-inflation proof the fund, and those would have big swings on the
fund. But those decisions are made by the legislature.
Mr. Mitchell, please proceed.
So, one thing I wanted to do today was do a review of the performance of
the fund and to that there's three measures that get assessed and they tell us
different things so we've just talked about the funds performance against the
CPI plus five return objective that's the bottom numbers all kind of start on
If we look at the five-year basis,
that is the toughest period against inflation plus five
on this one, three, five, 10, 42- year framework.
So on a five year basis it's one of those periods
that around half the time that metrics not achieved.
But the good news is that on the longer-term basis
10 years and then
42 years, the fund's older than 42, years old,
but that was when Cowan started doing performance reporting
for us, so that's when we've got good numbers to look at.
The fund has achieved actually CPI plus six effectively.
I'm gonna go into later how we make decisions
on asset allocation, but from a day-to-day investment
We don't manage the inflation plus five.
If there was an instrument, you could,
a financial instrument that gave you inflation
plus 5, we'd consider buying that.
But if you want to lock in an inflation
plus return,
you'd have to buy a treasury inflation protected security.
And that's giving you kind of inflation
plus one and a half or two right now.
So by necessity,
we invest in risk assets.
across six major asset classes.
The largest is public equities,
the second is fixed income.
Then we have our private asset class's private equity,
real estate, private income,
which is infrastructure and private credit.
We have a hedge fund portfolio.
The performance benchmark is what we manage to on a day-to-day basis.
So after we do the asset allocation and conclude,
the board concludes with staff input that we're going to do 30% global stocks,
the performance benchmarks then sets 32% of that calculation is how did global
stocks do. Fixed income is 20%. So 20%
the composite of investment grade institutional fixed income and our team gets assigned these
benchmarks and they manage against them and accumulate up on a percentage basis on how
assets are allocated.
So day to day, we're looking at in terms of execution, are we in the right real estate
the portfolio against this performance benchmark and similar to the return objective, it's not
a situation where every year we beat the performance bench mark. It's more than the 50% of the time
that's the returned objective but it is certainly well under 100% percent of that time. When you
look at these numbers where the biggest pressure we've had, you see the slight underperformance
The biggest driver, the majority of that is an underweight in our stock portfolio to software
and technology companies.
And that has been well covered in the financial press, that the big, they call MAG7 tech companies,
and then the next level down software companies have been the market leaders for the last
are trading at a very extended valuations now.
That's been a major headwind.
I'm pleased that in spite of that,
we're still being our benchmark on one year and five year.
The three years, the toughest period.
We've actually started seeing this calendar year,
a real sell-off in software companies
under threat from AI.
And the AI companies that are threatening
the software company tend to be private companies.
We're not underweight, the AI companies that are threatening the software companies and
we are very much under weight the companies under pressure as this calendar year has started.
So through today we're beating fiscal year to date, if this keeps up we'll trend back
positive over the three year.
I would say we're trying to manage the portfolio conservatively given the exuberant market.
We're holding a little extra cash and we are underweight the very expensive stocks,
which has led to this mixed performance on the three year and the fiscal year to date.
Another thing I just wanted to mention is something that Devon mentioned is that we
It's a very competitive spirit.
People are very focused on every basis point.
And we're very proud of these results.
When I joined 12 years ago, I think the culture was a little more,
I don't even think this is a bad thing necessarily,
but it was much more conservative, protect capital
at all cost approach and a bit less, let's beat benchmarks.
And that does show up in these numbers.
If you look at the 10 year, we're beating our benchmark
by 30 basis points, but on the 42 year
we've underperformed per annum by nine basis point.
So if we are beating in the last 10 years
and underperforming on that balance, or for the full 42
it does imply that for 32 years before the ten years
the fund did under performance benchmark.
And I attribute that to like this very conservative
Management philosophy that was in place and I think we still have a very conservative management philosophy and our port and it's reflected in
Underweighting expensive stocks holding a little more cash, but we're balancing a performance orientation a bit better in the last 10 years
So that's the performance benchmark
I I Think it is a strong record over long periods and the way the markets turning now
turning into a very strong performance on short periods.
We also have a passive benchmark, which
is the next row down.
That is a benchmark that we do not manage two day to day,
but stakeholders should be very attuned to,
because it represents what a similar diversified portfolio
that could be invested in with the click of a mouse
in anyone's Vanguard account.
So, that portfolio is 60% global equities, 20% fixed income, 10% REITs, which are real
estate securities that trade, and 10 percent tips, treasury, inflation protected securities.
There's no magic to that 60,20,10, ten, it's just a mix that was arrived at when that passive
benchmark was created something like 15 years ago.
And what we see with that passive benchmark, because it's 60% global stocks, and our portfolio's 32%
global stock, is when you have big run-ups, big bull markets in the stock market, our
portfolio generally can't keep up with the passive
benchmark that's sixty percent, that is twice the stocks that we have.
If you look back over time, we commented probably half the time we outperform inflation plus five, more than half
the times we
outperformed the performance benchmark. The passive benchmark is much more consistent on the long term
for the whole time I've been at the Perm fund if you looked at like
five and 10 year. We almost always are beating the passive benchmark because there's time for our
illiquid equity investments to generate return. But on a year-to-year basis, it's basically like
what did the stock market do? If it was strong, we underperformed passive. If the
So I hope that's clear and I didn't confuse everyone with the three different metrics
But they are very different measures and tell very
different things about how the funds performing and
if I left you with anything it's that we're very performance oriented and
are trying to balance that with also being conservative and
Carried tremendously about all the funs doing and we think the fund's doing well
This light
Please proceed
Let's skip these I covered this
I also covered
Some of this on this page, but I'll just reiterate a couple points there has been conversation about should the fund just invest in S&P 500
that's a bad idea and
There is real value to diversification. It just hasn't shown up in the last five to ten years
the SMB 500's been an index since the late 1800s and if you go back through the history of SMP 500 and
Think about a 5% POMB
It's hard to conclude that you'd want to be a hundred percent in it
We've looked at we know a lot of different endowments and state funds. No one is a hundred percent in the S&P 500
There's no one who has their stock portfolio a 100 percent and the s&p 500
Every every other pure organization has looked it this question concluded
That they want small cap stocks that they won international stocks, but they don't want just the 500 biggest
US stocks
So we don t see it in our industry
We feel like the S&P 500 today has a lot of risk because it's concentrated in the tech
sector.
That concentration increases risk.
And then there's also a legal point.
All funds like The Permanent Fund are established with guidelines and statutes and we have a
It's not to say that a hundred percent SMB 500 portfolio would necessarily violate that statute, but we think it would likely violate it
Senator Kaufman
Thank you through the chair
I think
Some of the questions are are maybe very narrow to just the S&P, But some of those questions I've heard are more general
with respect to indexing.
So I don't know if you had a VTI for a certain piece of it.
And BND, as far as a couple of ETFs,
just come up with a very low cost diversified and risk
balance ratio of that, maybe some REITs.
Real estate investment trusts.
Portfolio like that perhaps with some AI management just trying to keep you
You know maintain your your asset allocation over time
Just for the sake of those that wonder those things
What do you think about that type of model?
Yeah, through the chair senator Kauffman, I think highly of that model. I that's a good model that
in particular institutions that have limited resources
or, you know, Warren Buffett, everyone likes to quote Warren
Buffett. He has a great quote.
He says, once you acknowledge that you're dumb money,
you stop being dumb, money because you do exactly
what you just said.
I mean, in our industry, dumb
money is a commonly used term for someone who
doesn't have an insight in the market
to validate active management.
It's not a pejorative necessarily,
even though it sounds like it.
But most people should do exactly what you're doing.
Like in their accounts,
probably most institutions should that.
And we don't see it that much in our industry,
but even if no one does just that some people 500,
people do versions of what he just said.
Well
Known for that and they have one employee they're active in private equity in real estate
But they outsourced it so they've hired a firm to go find private
Equity investments in Real estate investments and the index stocks and bonds and it's worth really well for them and
They're a top-performing fund. They've low-cost
I always look at how we do versus them some years we beat them. Some years they beat us
So I'm not, I think what you described is a good approach to manage money.
Our institution has decided to do active management and we've built a 27 person investment team
and have expertise in the different markets.
And we don't take it as a given that we're going to be trusted to actively manage the
fund.
that failure should result in the Nevada model.
I don't think that we've failed on those measures,
and I think the analysis that's been done
that argues that have is faulty analysis,
but I look at our passive benchmark,
and we beat it on five and 10.
I thing that validates the active management we're doing,
and when we beaten our performance benchmark
I think that validates it, but you can't look, you know, it I, I
think I answered your question. I have a lot of respect for that model.
Senator Koffner.
Thank you. Uh, through the chair, just, yeah, thank you for your answer. And I just want to add,
you I respect the work that you're doing. So I'm not trying to chip away at that,
Mentioned it and I just thought I'd take it a little bit beyond the simple S&P argument just for the sake of the conversation about diversification
So, thank you. Thank you senator Kaufman send a keel
Thank You, mr. Chairman, so it's it it. It's a good sort of threat of conversation
You know folks are looking at their 401 accounts. They're seeing some pretty big numbers in the last couple of years
We're not necessarily seeing those numbers
Here and you talked a bit about
That in light of the fact that we need to draw money
each year
Did did our predecessors mess this up?
Did our predecessor's should our
predecessors not have told you to diversify the fund and your predecessor to
diversified the Fund until the time when we needed to to start drawing from it in a more significant way
through the chair, Senator Keel.
So don't misunderstand me.
I think those are two different issues,
like the impact of having a draw during a volatile market
is different than diversification
within our portfolio construction.
And so as far as whether or not,
I I'm sorry, CIO Frampton has already provided
a lot of explanation about the history of the S&P 500
The almost unrecoverable events that occur from time to time in that market and the value
of diversification is going to be borne out during those times.
We're in a time of extraordinaryism.
Yeah, I don't know if you've heard that term, but it's a term used for the U.S. markets
in recent times, U S. extraordinaryism.
There was kind of a shift away from that, and you saw a sign of kind
of balance in international markets in the last year,
but otherwise the US markets have been doing extraordinarily well,
and that's primarily been born upon the...
the fate or the work of a small number of companies
that have done extraordinarily well, the MAG-7.
And if you look at the percentage of the S&P 500
that those companies represent
from a historical perspective relative to today,
it's become a challenge for organizations like ours
that might have a more strict.
Diversity mandate that they can't even invest in the S&P 500 because it's too concentrated in seven companies the diversification has gone away
If you remove those seven company's from the s&p 500 the performance is
Somewhat mediocre to not great and so it it is
The time frame that as an individual
It has been an amazing time if you have a lot of money deployed in the S&P 500 because
it has an extraordinarily strong market, but whether or not that will continue into the
future is highly questionable based on historical experience.
four fathers and mothers that created this structure that we have of diversification.
I think that that's definitely a prudency issue and a fiduciary standard that you would be irresponsible.
It's more like you, you'd set yourself up for larger failures if you didn't
have those constructs built into your portfolio construction.
Sorry, Marcus.
Yeah, through the chair, Senator Keel.
It depends on who 401k it is.
If it's a young person, and they're all in stocks,
and then they've done well, that's fantastic,
and the did the right thing,
but they should be aware that the market can go down.
If there's person closer to retirement
who's done really well in their 401K,
because they were all on stocks
then even though it was a good outcome,
I think they made a mistake because
they're exposing themselves to a lot of risk.
Like the stock market today is more expensive than it was in 1929.
And that could be devastating to
a near retiree if they've got their 401K on stocks.
Can you proceed?
So I thought I would just comment quickly on
the expected return of the fund and the asset classes and how we come up with asset allocation.
So, Cowan Associates, our consultant, has capital market forecasts,
and those numbers on the right are the 10-year capital markets forecast that Cowen has
for each of asset class' the funds is in.
So they believe that private equity will return on average 8.5% per annum, global...
global stock, seven and a half, and so on down the list to, you know, fixed income, being
the lowest major asset class at 4.7, which is still a much higher return than in the past
fixed incomes had when rates were lower.
Down at the bottom on the right, we have talent inflation forecasts.
So they're forecasting two and half percent inflation.
be it CPI plus two would be the expectation for the fund's return.
When you add up our targets which are on the left there to their forecasts,
it arrives at a before inflation return of 7.3% and a real return
of 4.8.
So that's, I earlier made the comment that we build portfolios that are expected
Cowan would score our portfolio at CPI plus 4, 8,
and then we attempt to get to 5
through beating our benchmarks is the strategy.
And they would assign on a probability basis
roughly a 50-50 that over the next 10 years
this portfolio would hit CPI close 5.
For the next portion, I'm gonna spend a few minutes
on how we make investment decisions
and the due diligence process when we go into investments.
And I hope to leave everyone with an understanding
of how to make decisions and also an understand of
all the checks and balances in place
and third parties that get involved
to help us review investment opportunities.
So at the core of our investment process
is an investment committee.
The investment committee meets once a week on Thursdays and there are three
Parties that vote at the investment Committee, so it's myself and then we have a deputy CIO for private markets
Alan Waldrop and a Deputy Cio for public markets Jim Paris
So to pursue an investment
It's majority vote of those three so
It hasn't happened yet, but I could be against it another two for it. I would go ahead
And similarly, if I want to do something and Allen and Jim don't want
to it, it doesn't go ahead.
So we meet, and then also importantly, our chief risk officer,
Sebastian Vadakamcieri participates in the meetings.
He reports to Devin, not to me.
And he makes sure that we follow all the policies
and are in compliance with our investment policy statement.
We maintain a pretty open investment committee.
In my career, I've been at places that have had investment
committees that are pretty tight,
and it's a little secretive with the partners.
Ours is open, our interns,
our analysts join, anyone can ask a question.
So that's the overall process,
and that committee reviews decisions on private investments,
like going into an investment, exiting an
investment refinancing a real estate property,
And then it also reviews like major moves on the public side.
It doesn't, it delegates to the investment team,
individual stock and bond purchases,
but things like what tracking error,
which is a risk limit, do we want to run equities at?
The investment committee will review major policy matters
like that.
intensive part of what we do on an individual investment basis are private investments that
we pursue, whether it's buying a building or investing in a fund or co-investing with
a private equity fund. And we have an investment process that's laid out on this page that
roughly fits into four categories and spans three to 12 months. I won't go through every
We review a lot of funds at the initial review stage,
so like hundreds of private equity funds,
hundreds venture capital funds.
In the case of Private Equity, we have a six-person team.
So the portfolio managers and the analysts on that team are
like always talking to the different funds that are in
the market and looking at their track record,
how it fits with our portfolio,
how they've done versus the managers we
And that's the initial review.
If we get interested in an opportunity,
it then goes into due diligence,
which is a one to three month period
where there's additional meetings
where we're doing more formal review of track record
and performance comparisons.
Usually at this stage is when we start looking
at the legal terms which are important on private funds.
But at this point, and at that point it's probably been introduced to the IC, but not
in detail.
And if that yields a positive outcome, it goes to extensive due diligence.
That's when we often bring in a third party consultant, which would do things like background
might not be accessible to us like for example we're investing Asia funds and
funds that we might necessarily have an on-the-ground presence but our
consultant would have a presence and at that point we often bring in council to
look at the fund documents that's anywhere from one to six months and then
And at this point, the investment committee is well briefed on the opportunity and has heard
in fair amount of detail why it's a good fit with our portfolio, and once the
investment community makes a decision, then it goes to Devon, unless he has otherwise delegated
So I wanted to just give them the dollars involved in the fees we're paying and the amount we have in private investments.
I want it to, even though this is a bit of a summary, we've everyone with a sense of the level of work that we are doing when we make a private fund investment.
And I think the process that the permanent fund goes through to select investments are different than the Department of Revenue, particularly considering this company.
Could you walk through the processes, if, you know, how, what, from a recollection,
what did your bridge went through, to be selected and worked in with the Permanent Fund?
And the reason I asked that, Mr. Chairman.
At some point we'll have the Department of Revenue here, and we can compare and contrast the
management process between those two
entities dealing with the same company
Can you help me with that?
The chair center of Stedman. Yes, we have two investments with digital bridge and
They're in our private infrastructure portfolio
In any given year we deploy roughly 500 million dollars into private infrastructure opportunities
and the team follows all the major infrastructure funds and digital bridges, one of them.
And I don't have the exact date, but their most recent fund was in the last, call it,
18 months, and their predecessor fund, was probably three or four years earlier.
Their prior fund went through this exact process.
It was initial review of many different opportunities.
At that point, we did not, in our infrastructure portfolio,
have a very extensive holdings in digital infrastructure,
data centers, things like that.
And we felt like it would be a good area to get involved.
And, and we made an allocation to that fund.
But, went though this whole process,
I won't repeat everything.
We got a consultant that we looked at several digital-oriented infrastructure funds.
We felt like Digital Bridge was the horse we wanted to pick and went through
and made a commitment to their fund.
On their last fund, in the last couple years, they came through the same way.
The differences were deploying a little bit less money into infrastructure than we were four years ago.
We were building up the portfolio.
In contrast to four years ago, we now have some good data center exposure.
And there were also questions about some changes at the firm and
things I won't go into necessarily.
I would probably need our infrastructure PM to do it in depth.
But we passed on the last fund.
But they showed us a co-investment that went in the
last Fund that we liked.
And we made a commitment to an individual portfolio company.
that is in their most recent fund and it went through this process to make that
co-investment and so we didn't want the fund but we wanted an individual
company. Okay so if I could so and this Mr. Mitchell you probably should answer
this question. The process if you were to have legal counsel look at that particular
And what kind of costs would be expected to be incurred by the permanent fund to have a review?
Through the chair ballpark, this isn't like in the pennies, but in concept in ballpark range.
Sure through the Chair, Senator Steadman. We have attorneys on retainers, so we have
a general counsel in-house and then he allocates works.
to specific expertise oriented law firms
based on asset class and needs of the corporation
and for review of a potential deployment
to a general partnership, a private equity
or private income infrastructure deployment,
it would be somewhere in that range of like 20 to $40,000
for that legal review you're talking about attorneys
that are very high caliber.
you know, a thousand plus dollars an hour, it's a attorneys.
20 to $40,000.
I think, Mr. Chairman, we should remember that in America.
Just at some point,
we're going to have another discussion on this.
Just for the record, I got some serious concern
what went on with the Department of Revenue
and the ex-commissioner.
There's no doubt about that.
That's not a secret.
I don't have the concern with
the permanent funds holding a digital bridge
for saying the process they went through.
Complete issues
So I just don't want anybody to you know assume that that there's a
direct correlation and how things are managed
With with that and I've talked with mr. Mitchell about this so I knew roughly how he is gonna answer that question
That's why I asked him I'm not mister
Not as chief investment officer, so
Thank you, mrs. Chairman
Thank You
Senator Keel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, on that one particular investment.
Can you give us a sense of your time horizon on
that, Ballpark?
Through the chair, Senator Kiel, these private funds
generally are a 12-year life, so
I think we probably have eight years remaining on the fund we invested in.
similar on the company we invested plus maybe two years.
So we'll be in business with Digital Bridge for the next 10 years at a minimum, I think.
Senator Keel, thank you.
Thank you, Senator Kiel.
Please proceed.
We're just going to have a little.
Senator Stegman.
Just a real quick follow up, just a point, the permanent funds in perpetuity and
we know what to draw as it's 5% a year and we sit down and talk about this every year in the asset allocation.
It's a whole different ball game when we're dealing with the Constitution of Budget Reserve,
which looks to be having a high probability of significant capital draws, the two to four
or five hundred million a year.
There's been proposals put in by the governor of a billion and a half a-year on a three
billion dollar account.
So that's much shorter life than the perpetuity life of the permanent fund and the liquidity
I thought I'd put that on the table.
Thank you, Senator Stedman.
Please proceed.
OK, I have a few of my remaining slides
get into statutory net income and unrealized gains.
And this page shows the history of statutory
net-income.
And statutory-net income is what fills up the earnings reserve
account every year.
And it's realized income.
in contrast to a stock goes up, but we don't sell the stock,
that's not realized income.
Realized income is interest payments on bonds.
We hold rental income on real estate we own, dividends on stocks,
and then when we exit and when you sell a stack
or we sell at private equity holding,
the gain goes to saturate net income,
and saturating net is an important number
because it fills up the earnings reserve
and provides money that is available.
I think it's helpful just to look at the history,
just see how lumpy this number is.
So in 2009, there was a negative over $2 billion
statutory net income.
We had a very high in 2018 statutory
net-income because of two very large private investments
we sold that were very-large.
And so booked like multi-billion dollar gains.
In 2021, it was real strong stock market.
kept rebalancing back to targets of selling stocks when it went over our target, and that
just led to, in a couple of the few other things, but mostly that led
to an $8 billion a year. And then the white lines to the right are
Callum's forecasts for what the fund's statutory net income will be going forward,
and it's an annual statutory
But it's based on assumptions and all forecasts
or could go different ways.
But I'm just pointing out that history is a lot
lumpier than the forecast.
And I want to get into what drives
statutory net income and how to think about it here
on this page.
So we have a number that is pretty bankable,
which is I am calling baseline statutory
net-income.
That's our dividend-income interest payments
on bonds and rental payments on our real-state properties.
And so we did $2 billion last year in really recurring
statutory net income.
If you go back to this page, the forecast is $5 billion a
year and growing of statutory and income starting in 27.
The 26 numbers hire because we've had a big statutory
net and come first half of the year.
So they're forecasting six this year, and then five
and grow next year so that number,
5 plus billion, the majority of it comes from booking gains on investments, which are much
less recurring in nature, and to think about how to forecast how we're going to book gains
on investment.
And I also point out we don't manage this at all, like we just manage the allocations
I've been at the fund for 13 years, there's never once in my time been a decision that's
been driven by we need to book a game, like it has never occurred.
So I'm just explaining how you would look at it, but I am not implying that this is
what we do look out when we manage the portfolio.
If you look the at portfolio today there is 17 billion of unrealized gains, portfolio
On average, we churn about 25% of our unrealized gains
in a given year, but there's wide spectrum.
There have been years that it's been 10%,
and there is years it has been 50%.
But when we model it going forward,
we assume 25%, because that's the average.
And that is how you get to a five to six billion dollar
statutory net income, is that if you churn 25%.
$16, $17 billion number, you get about $4 billion
a statutory net income.
You add that to the baseline of $2 and you're at $6.
On that table on the right there,
I'm just indicating the sensitivity to a stock market.
So if the stock mark goes down 25%,
the 17 becomes 10, the far left column.
So, if you churning 25% of your unrealized gains then,
well, now you down at 2 and 1 half billion.
And the reality is a little worse than that,
because if you're just looking at the stock market
going down, and you look at that first row,
a 25% decline in the Stock Market
would wipe out all our unrealized gains
in our public equity asset class.
So at this point, any rebalancing of equity
stops generating statutory net income.
And most of our unrealized gains at that point
would be our private portfolio, the biggest
being private equity at 4.6.
And that's really outside our control.
That's when private-equity firms decide
to take companies public or sell them.
And when every dollar that that occurs
sends statutory net income our way in a downstock market,
that would dry up a bit.
is what leads to years like 0.2, 0, 3, or 0 9,
where you have like really weak statutory net income,
is that a decline in the stock market
wipes out unrealized gains,
and you could even be in a situation,
like in 0 8, the stocks market went down 50%,
so you'd actually have 5 billion of unrealize losses,
and then every time we trade stocks
for spitting out negative statutory and netting home.
So, I just wanted to share that because it's a complicated situation and in a bear market.
It has difficult implications for statutory net income, which we all rely on to fill up
the ERA.
Senator Keel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr., some of these numbers probably move some with bull in bear markets, right?
a trade in income from private equity until there's a sale,
but as you mentioned, the private-equity deals,
I think you said dry up some in a bear market.
So likely, if we were to try and sell something,
you're gonna get a little less from it, right?
Through to the Chair, Senator Keel,
that's exactly correct.
It's easier to calculate the impact on public equities,
but private equiaxit's absolutely dry-up.
We could analyze that and we do when we model different scenarios, but directionally what you're saying is absolutely correct
Thank you. Thank You, Mr. Chairman. It would be helpful to get
We don't need it, you know to the dollar but some some sense of what those correlations are
Expected to be just just
Because this chart sort of implies that the only thing
That's volatile the stocks and I don't I know that's really the implication. We mean to convey
Thank you through the chair just curious with
Some of these investments we're doing that become you know highly
Evaluated over time that they grow like crazy and
Maybe the dynamics are such we we just we want to get out of it and so we realize those very large gains and
in those situations.
So if you could just confirm for me where that money goes
when we realize a very large gain.
Yeah, through the Chair, Senator Kaufman,
that we have about 40% of the fund in private assets.
And when you have that much in-private assets,
managing the cash flows is critical.
Specifically, when we exit a major asset, I mean, it comes into our cash portfolio.
And we don't want to hold too much cash, so that day I would reallocate it to stocks and
bonds.
We're trying to maintain our exposure to our targets on private, so we have investment
activity that can be lumpy and exits that could be lumpy, and then we've got elaborate
spreadsheets that pace it out and estimate where it's going so that we don't end up
in a situation where we got a lot of cash that's we can't.
We don�t have something we want to invest it in, but the bigger the lumpier the private
our cash planning and
What other things we're buying but we put a lot of thought into it. It stays in the fund
I guess is the point, but then we have to figure out where to put it
Thank you for that if individual members have additional questions they could ask
After the meeting of the employees of The permanent fund the bells have rung a little over ten minutes ago, and we had joint session
Mr. Mitchell do you have any closing comments?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I
Sorry that we weren't more expedient and getting through our slides, but I think there's important information and it's hard to rush and
We appreciate the committee's time and if there are additional questions when you produce the rest of the slide deck
Please reach out and we'll answer those
All the meeting back to order, that concludes the morning session.
We have an afternoon session at 1.30, we have three bills on the calendar.
Senate bill 140, the fire station grant program.
Senate Bill 23, civics education.
SGR 2, a constitutional amendment, needed for a veto override.
So we will stand in adjournment until 1 30.