Canada Pension Plan posts $115 million loss , $300 million of which is attributable to Harper's income trust decision

Canada Pension Plan Board Posts Third-Quarter Loss of $115 million
By Frederic Tomesco
Bloomberg News
February 6, 2008

See also: Mark Carney's fraudulent actions have cost the Canada Pension Plan $300 million and counting

To: contact@caiti.info
Date: October 30, 2007 2:15:48 PM
Subject: Re: CPP has lost $158 million
Good Afternoon,

I would like to speak to someone about your scrolling marquee on your Web site that declares that the Canada Pension Plan has lost $158 million as a result of Haper’s broken promises.

The only contact information on you Web site is this e-mail address.

Regards,

Manuel

Manuel Pedrosa
Specialist, Communications
Communications and Stakeholder Relations
CPP Investment Board

------------------------------------------

From: brent.fullard@rogers.com
Date: November 1, 2007

Manuel:

Thank you for calling yesterday. I was unable to respond fully to your request as I was en route to Ottawa at the time.

As I indicated to you, I am unable to comply with your request in the name of the CPPIB to remove the reference on the scrolling newswire of our website that reads. “CPP has lost $158 million as a result of Harper’s broken promise” on the basis of your argument that that this is “not a focus area for the CPPIB”.

As I indicated to you, the CPPIB is a legally distinct entity from the CPP itself. The CPPIB may be of the view that ”this is not a focus area” for it, however I do believe the loss of pension assets which you manage of this magnitude by the pension beneficiaries, namely all Canadians, is. Particularly, since this material loss was the direct result and sole consequence of a tax policy that was enacted without any public consultation and misleadingly proffered up as “strengthening Canada’s social security system for seniors and pensioners” in the enabling legislation, the Ways and Means Motion.

Not sure which pensioners they had in mind, however certainly not the ones who you manage money on behalf of.

As I indicated, if you are interested in providing us with your detailed analysis of the effects of this policy on the CPP assets you manage, we would be happy to incorporate that into our website, provided we agree with your methodology and level of disclosure.

Meanwhile, the analysis that underlies our estimation of the loss sustained by all Canadians in the CPP is based on the limited visibility that the CPPIB affords its pension beneficiaries. Please find attached the analysis performed by Les Parsneau of Collingwood as at the one year anniversary of the trust taxation surprise announcement, namely yesterday’s closing values.

The one year anniversary loss sustained by the CPP on this basis is therefore $168 million. We will update our website shortly with this data, unless we receive additional portfolio information from you in the mean time

I am also still waiting for a response to this correspondence sent to the CPPIB on November 2, 2006 concerning comments made by Ian Dale, Senior Vice President - Communications and Stakeholder Relations on behalf of the CPPIB, who judging from your title, you report to.

Thank you,


Brent Fullard
President and CEO
Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors
www.caiti.info

647 505-2224 (cell)

------------------------------------------

From: The Fullards
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:52:12 -0500
To:
Subject: CPPIB Supports taxation of Income Trusts?

Based on comments attributed to Ian Dale, I understand that the CPPIB came out yesterday in favour of the new tax to be levied on Income Trusts.

I find it highly unusual that the CPPIB would make such a statement on such a highly politically charged issue particularily when it directly contradicts the position previously taken by other prominent Canadian Pension Funds, namely Teachers. Would the fact that CPPIB answers to Ottawa have anything to do with it, whereas Teachers answers to its pension beneficiaries?

As I analyze it, there only exists two scenarios, either CPPIB presently has an investment in Income Trusts or it does not.

In the first scenario, why is CPPIB shooting itself in the foot by taking such a position, given that over the long term these new rules will result in a permanent impairment in value of some 30% of CPPIB's investment, whilst killing the viability and sustainability of this important asset class ( at least important to some Canadians...namely those seeking stable and consistent income for retirement.)

As perplexing as the first scenario may be, in some respects the second scenario is the most troubling as it calls into question the independence of the CPPIB from the elected officials in Ottawa. If CPPIB has no "skin in the game" why is it supporting these moves when it most negatively affects the income of retired Canadians. Afterall, I thought that's the business CPPIB was also in.

I look forward to your response.

Brent Fullard
Toronto