How would you like to deliver a fee invoice for your services that comes to £600 million? For just one year's work. Can you think of anyone who could?
Radio 4's 'File On 4' show will reveal tonight the latest details of an ongoing scandal which has just become dramatically worse.
I was able to inform File On 4 of the results of my latest research into the scale of investment management fees paid by local council pension funds.
READ MORE: {}
There are now publicly available reports from around 100 separate local government pension funds (the LGPF) across the 海角视频.
Adding up all of those separate funds' investment management fees, the grand and shocking total comes to £597 million - for just one year's work!
The year before I had pointed out in my book The Secret Wealth Garden that there was a scandalous payout to the investment managers of a record £477 million.
I was personally shocked then that those kinds of sums were being annually creamed off the pension savings pots of 5.3 million local government workers and pensioners.
This is a £600 million payout from funds where the average pension currently paid out is £4,800 a year - for women the average payout is just £2,800 per year.
Most Read
These are the savings pots of mainly poor council workers. With this year's fee bombshell just dropped, you have to ask: In whose interests are the council workers' pension funds ultimately being run?
But here's the rub. While the investment managers get paid their £600 million, taxpayers are being asked to pay hundreds of millions of pounds extra to make up what I believe to be illusory deficits in these healthy and wealthy funds.
In Birmingham alone, for example, the council was presented last year with a pay-up demand of £80 million, as one of the employers of the West Midlands Local Government Pension Fund.
The hard-up council started paying the bill in the sum of £17 million last year and over the next three years is paying about £23 million a year.
This, all while the pension fund making the demand is currently paying out £11 million a year in investment fees. It's paid out £35 million in fees over the last three years.
You have to ask why these funds didn't get their own houses in order first by radically cutting their payments from the fund to ineffective, unnecessary investment managers before asking you and me as taxpayers to help them out?
Your local council's revenue is being taxed by these funds before they even start to address their reduced spending due to austerity cuts.
Don’t miss
I would suggest the cart is being put well and truly before the horse here. Or even that stable doors are being bolted long after the investment managers' horse has bolted off into the sunset.
If you take out £600 million a year for the next 22 years (the notional lifecycle of these illusory pension fund deficits) from these pension funds and factor that in now, then I would suggest that very little in the way of a demand from you and me would be necessary.
It's a merry-go-round whose tickets are made available to the exclusive already very wealthy few. The tickets aren't subsidised by the taxpayer, they are paid for in full.
The investment managers simply (though disguised in a myriad apparently market-based, benchmarked, objective mechanisms) cream off about 0.26 per cent of the funds pretty much every year, come rain or come shine.
If the funds take a dive, they get their 0.26 per cent. If the funds have a spike, they get their 0.26 per cent. Performance of the fund really is irrelevant.
In fact, their £600 million was for a net return on investments which was (in percentage return) HALF what it was the year before when they got £477 million.
The trick is for each fund to benchmark their performance against the 100-odd others. That way, as long as everyone else is performing to the same rubbish or great standard, you get paid the same. That's essentially how the game works. 0.26 per cent is not much, you might think.
But the combined total of the 海角视频's council workers' pension fund last year, I was also able to reveal to the BBC, is a staggering £232 billion. That's how they get their payout.
The returns to the council workers' funds by being actively managed by these investment managers simply does not justify the stellar returns being doled out to them.
Without system-wide public sector intervention to save the financial system from collapse, and then the pumping in of £trillions into the markets through quantitative easing, over the last six years these funds would have been left in a parlous situation.
Equity markets and asset prices have soared as a result. It takes simply no skill or expertise to have 'managed' these funds' investments to their current height in such a rising market. Tracker investments would have delivered the same results.
Let's face it, the fund managers are not being paid a fee for performance, they are simply effectively being paid an annual salary with built-in massive annual increases while the council workers, whose money these funds actually are, have suffered pay freezes.
It would be cheaper and more responsible to appoint a few of the world's top investment managers and pay each of them a top salary to oversee a tracker-based system.
Instead, over the last three years, the investment managers have been paid £1.5 billion.
William McChesney Martin Jr. was the longest serving chairman of the US Federal reserve. He is famous for saying that it was the Fed's job "to take away the punch bowl just as the party gets going".
Why do I get the feeling that, just as some of us (including, possibly, the Government) have woken up to the fact that so much wealth is being leached away from these funds, that the investment managers sensed in the air their massive, jewel-encrusted punch bowl (filled with the world's finest and most expensive concoctions) was about to be removed, and that the party was about to stop, so they thought they'd better take a bigger, perhaps last, long cool draught from the bowl of £600 million?
John Clancy is a Labour Birmingham councillor in the Quinton ward