Hacker News Reader

For some reason this reply below the parent comment was marked as dead. Am I missing something? Why was it killed?

> Part of the deal is that if their yearly returns are not high or met, the city has to make up the shortfall. Which is absolutely disgusting and insane for tax payers.

View on HN

I'm not sure why it's insane. It makes it more like a loan than a risky investment, and with 3.2% return one must be crazy to take the deal without some kind of guarantees. I mean if you are promised a 3.2% APY investment and then told "but we can actually decide at any time to mess with your income or do anything that breaks it completely, and you'd have to trust us not to do that for 75 years" would you take that? Would you buy an annuity which pays less than a savings account, but the holder can at any time restructure it in ways that makes it return even less? No sane investor would do that. At least not with 3.2% APY - that'd require much higher income, commensurate with the risk.

Sometimes it's the account rather than the specific comment. (Idk in this case.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com