Well Permanent Fund amount disclosed

[Bandit]

Under a thousand dollars for the first time in over a decade. 2000 saw the highest PFD at almost two grand. Since Republicans took over it has dwindled to less than half. every year during Clinton's term and Knowles it went up. Since Bush* and Murkowski it has nose dived. I would hope this becomes an issue with the voters. Republicans asked for the chance to show what they could do and they have done just that. Are Alaskans as dumb as the rest of America? Republicans have shown they know as much about economics as my ten year old grandson, hell maybe less.

[Tempest]

1. The reason is obvious

Dwindling oil production in Alaska means less to invest from revenues.

The permanent fund took a major hit from the stock market crash in 2001 and has yet to recover fully.

If you want your permanent fund allocation increased, you're going to have to support drilling in ANWR and other areas of the North Slope.

[Bandit]

3. I totally disagree

Most earnings come not from oil but from investments. Anwar is a bank account for Alaska and it would be foolish to squander the resources at this time. If the economy were doing well the Permanent Fund would grow. The high price of oil right now is what is keeping Alaska from deficits. The State Government is run of oil royalties not the Permanent Fund. Imagine how much those reserves will be worth when oil reaches a hundred dollars a barrel?

[Tempest]

4. You do agree, you just don't realize it

I said:
Dwindling oil production in Alaska means less to invest from revenues.


Since dividends earned from investments are down, the only way you'll see an increase in your fund allotment is through increased revenue from oil sales. Unless the stock market makes some major gains, and the experts say don't count on it.

Since production is decreasing, thus revenues to invest are decreasing, the only way to increase the fund is to increase production.

Also, Alaska lost principle on its investments in the stock market, which lowered their stake.

The other problem is that the fund investments in treasury notes are not earning. No one is buying treasury notes, only 2% were sold in the last go-around. If no one is buying notes, Alaska can't sell what they have to purchase notes at higher rates.


Bottom line: The fund is not earning as much as it was during the 1990s, the fund balance is lower than the 1990s, oil is the only source of revenue the state has to increase the balance and oil production is decreasing.

[Bandit]

6. The fund has not lost money in fact it gained 14% this year

Alaska Permanent Fund returns 14.1 percent for fiscal year
August 02, 2004
Monday

Alaska - The Alaska Permanent Fund ended the fiscal year on June 30, 2004 with a 14.1 percent return and a total value of more than $27.4 billion, according to preliminary Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation figures.
"We're pleased that the Fund had such a strong year, especially after coming through several years of down markets and low returns," said Acting Executive Director Bob Bartholomew. "The Trustees' commitment to making long-term investment decisions and adequately diversifying the Fund's portfolio put us in a good position to take advantage of the upswing in the markets earlier this year."
Bartholomew added that all of the Permanent Fund's asset classes produced positive returns this year, with domestic and international equities showing double-digit returns. He cautioned that these are still preliminary figures and that audited year-end financial results will be included in the APFC's annual financial report in September.
"These figures really highlight the importance of a diversified portfolio," said Bartholomew. "Assets sometimes run counter cyclical, so investing the Fund in various markets helps protect the value of the Fund while providing for steady growth and distributions over time."
The Fund saw growth from two sources, receiving oil revenues of $353 million and a $3.4 billion increase in the value of the investments. After accounting for the scheduled $581 million payment to the Permanent Fund Dividend Division, the Fund had a net growth of $3.2 billion over the fiscal 2003 year-end balance.

http://www.sitnews.us/0804news/080204/080204_pfd.html

[Tempest]

8. This year

"We're pleased that the Fund had such a strong year, especially after coming through several years of down markets and low returns," said Acting Executive Director Bob Bartholomew.


The fund balance in 2000 was $28.2 billion.
http://media.apfc.org/iceimages/theapfc/FinR2000Mo03.pdf


Also, expenses are up. See the annual report I posted.

[Tempest]

5. Permanent fund annual reports

http://www.pfd.state.ak.us/annualreports/reports/2003AnnualReport.pdf

And your statement that the state government is not run from the permanent fund is wrong.

In 2003, $33 million of the fund was used for state programs.

[Bandit]

7. If I stated the fund doesn't help finance state government then

I mispoke. When the fund was originally set up it was set up so that earnings off the fund would be divided in this manner. Fifty percent would go back into building the fund, twenty five percent would go towards government expenditures and twenty five percent would go back to the people in the form of Dividends. The fund itself is protected and can not be tapped without voter approval. Only the Earnings are used and they are supplimental to other more prominant means of revenue. Licensing and User Fees, moorage fees, and Oil Royalties are major source of revenue. No state Income tax or sales tax at this time.

[izzie]

2. How come?

The line is pumping more than when my ex worked on the line even if they are working on new spots and oil cost more. I gave a friend a jar of the oil from the pre-first barrel, that is how long ago I lived in Alaska. I got the first year perm. fund when they fought about it.