Can someone clarify this? Because the article explains:
> "Over the last 10 years, the return on those “public asset classes” has surpassed expectations by more than $2 billion, according to the comptroller’s analysis. But nearly all of that extra gain — about 97 percent — has been eaten up by management fees, leaving just $40 million for the retirees, it found."
Note "surpassed expectations" in there. That makes it sound not like the total return was $2B but that the return was $2B above projections, and after fees this was functionally erased leaving return at projected level. Am I misunderstanding the language here?
> "Over the last 10 years, the return on those “public asset classes” has surpassed expectations by more than $2 billion, according to the comptroller’s analysis. But nearly all of that extra gain — about 97 percent — has been eaten up by management fees, leaving just $40 million for the retirees, it found."
Note "surpassed expectations" in there. That makes it sound not like the total return was $2B but that the return was $2B above projections, and after fees this was functionally erased leaving return at projected level. Am I misunderstanding the language here?