Skip to main content

tv   Ali Velshi on Target  Al Jazeera  May 22, 2015 10:30pm-11:01pm EDT

10:30 pm
>> this is my selfie... what can you tell me about my future? >> ...can effect and surprise us... >> sharks like affection >> tech know where technology meets humanity... only on al jazeera america i'm ali velshi on target killed by police in america. who is keeping track. broken promises in baltimore, how a 100 million neighbourhood fix turned into a failure. more than 900,000 law
10:31 pm
enforcement rick their lives to protect those in cities towns and state. every year scores pay the ultimate price, last year 117 police and other officers died in the line of duty that is according to the national law enforce. officer's memorial fund. it's a nonprofit group whose records go back to 1791. the fbi keeps an eye on officers killed by felony or accidentment there's no shortage much information of police officers who die on the job. here is what some consider a different crime. it's impossible to get complete data on the total number of people who die in encounters with police. this is one of many troubling facts to emerge in the aftermath of the deaths of michael brown in ferguson missouri ashraf ghani in new york. there's no database. the department of justice compiles data but admits that it misses half of all the homicides
10:32 pm
caused by police. that is because police departments are not required to report to the federal government when someone dies in their custody or is shot by police. a recent wall street journal analysis found that in 105 of the largest police departments in the country, about 45% of the killings by officers went unreported to the fbi between 2006 and 2012. and one reason is records from three large states - florida, new york and illinois are not in the federal bureau of investigation's database. it's a growing source of frustration as the nation debates lethal force and the role that race plays in police shootings. informed debates rely on solid data telling the whole story, and not just a shot in the dark. to get the full story, people that care about the issue are taking matters in their own hands.
10:33 pm
>> reporter: every weekend journalism students meet here in brian's dining room to crunch data drawn from police reports around the country. bern hart is the founder of fatalencounters.org and uses old-school journalism to figure out how many are killed by police. there's no government agency tracking the number of people dying in police custody. >> okay. so these are the records that came from our public records request in texas. >> the federal government tracks anything that matters, the numbers of shoes sold you know rain fall in death valley. the fact that they weren't collecting this information suggests that it didn't matter. >> reporter: zooek edwards of the american civil liberties union believes the lack of information is unsettling. >> we need to have this data to
10:34 pm
know what the police are doing, what are they doing this year last year the year before. are they shooting more people are they disproportionatery african-american, are the rates going. >> reporter: it was not supposed to be like this. congress passed a death in custody act in 2010. the law expired in 2006 and had no teeth, and 16 states and the distrulent of columbia popted not to participate. >> our knowledge on use of force is patchy. and dependents on dets collecting and sharing the data. they don't do that necessarily reliable. >> reporter: the department of justice is only able to identify half of arrest-related homicides. the d.o.j. believes it could be as high as 928. brian burke hart's fatal
10:35 pm
encounter organization has positively identified 1,192 lives lost at the hands of police in 2014. 28% higher than the official estimates. >> in a perfect world police departments would report this and be transparent about it. i don't have faith that that will happen. >> this person is a 25-year-old graduate creating a website called mapping police violence. he analysed the data and other websites like killed by police. drawing from his background in statistical analysis he broke down data by race gender age, location. and came up with stunning conclusions. >> we found protesters are correct. black folks are more like lac to be killed even if unarmed, compared to white forks. more black people unarmed from
10:36 pm
killed by police despite the fact that white people are greater in terms of population in the country. >> his analysis uncovers other disturbing friends and he found that your odds of being killed by police depends on where you live. if you are black and live in st. louis. you are five times forlikely to be killed by police than if you live in new york city. a black person is 10 times more likely to be killed in oklahoma than virgin. despite nearly twice as many african-americans, an african-american is less likely to be killed by police. a new death in custody reporting act was passed by congress and signed into law in 2014. experts say it's not enough. >> the reason it's insufficient it's voluntary. we are relying on the goodwill of police departments to be transparent and accountable. which history showed doesn't come naturally. >> failure to report the death of a prisoner in police custody.
10:37 pm
>> really. >> reporter: for now brian plans to keep his dining room table stacked with bombs of police reports -- boxes of police reports. >> most people think human life matters more than anything you can be concerned with. for our government not to track who it is killing, why it's killing them is incomprehensible. next failed promises in the baltimore neighbourhood home to freddie gray. a look at why millions investment couldn't turn around the poverty stricken city.
10:38 pm
10:39 pm
10:40 pm
the death of freddie gray in baltimore became a symbol of what protestors say is a pattern of police brutality, thursday all six officers were indicted. regardless of what happens in the case the area in which violence erupted still has problems. at one point san town city and developers attempted a turn around pumping billions into the area. del walters went to sandtown to find out what happened to the promise and the money. >> reporter: what happened in the neighbourhood after the riots? >> five or six killed and a good 16 shot at.
10:41 pm
>> reporter: this is what is looks like when a family is caught in the crossfire of a political system. bullets flew when the broadcasters left and bodies piled up outside front doors. >> it's in this neighbourhood. like last night. you could hear the shots. it was "there they go again." it's ridiculous. >> reporter: tiffany and tayvon are trying to raise their twin sons. she had no job, neither does he. it is not for lack of trying. >> i can pop my trunk and show you uniforms that i had from autogas and electric jobs i have resumes in my car, in my pocket on a disc. who wants to sit around and be broke with no money and can't take care of children. >> i don't know why i can't find a job.
10:42 pm
i have a lot of qualities and qualifications. >> reporter: like many, they want to know what happened to all the political promises and money. in 1990 politicians and developer james rouse announced a plan to spend 130 million to fix sandtown - schools, infrastructure, the people. >> we look at the dollars. wasn't enough. they are crazy, of course it was enough. >> reporter: diane remembers all that money as part of a project to transform sandtown saying it looks differently on paper to reality. >> we'll look at everything we did to destabilize and devalue the people. >> reporter: here is why it didn't work. according to the breakdown of the sandtown reece winchester project there was a plan to build thousands of new homes. 900 were added. a success? no.
10:43 pm
this is what that success story looks like. we have houses next to houses boarded up. there was also money set aside for job training but too few jobs once the training was over. in one programme, jobs plus of 244 eligible households. 180 received job place. training. of that many only 50 were placed in full-time jobs. >> reporter: right now there's a politician screaming saying "why can't the people get the jobs?" >> if it's a politician screaming ot me it's probably a white politician if it's a black politician it's someone not in touch with the world. i don't have bootstraps. >> reporter: also including money to fix schools forced to close because more moved out than moving in. even today no one seals to know where all of that money went.
10:44 pm
how do you spend $100 million and wind up with what you have? >> it's not enough money. business development. >> reporter: how can it not be enough? >> all you do is the maths. when you drill it down to how much it costs in terms of to get someone moving into training or remove barriers when you talk about moving a house, when you have an infrastructure old and falling down and businesses starting to invest in them when you take every one and add it up, $100 million is not enough. >> in the middle of it all, crack. it destroyed any chance of anything succeeding in sandtown. the mayor and others demanded that the bad guys be locked up. morgues filled. sandtown became a war zone. >> for you this is personal. >> it is very personal. >> one of them is the grand son of diane. >> he was incarcerated, drugs -
10:45 pm
not using, but selling them. he was found shot in the head. >> reporter: you still miss him? >> i do i do. >> reporter: that is why the death of freddie gray was so personal to so many. many fom lis here had -- families here had a freddie gray, and a dream. the explosion that followed was not about fixing sandtown it was the straw that broke the camel's back. >> i saw a lot of things as a child early. i knew what cocaine was, weed was, dope was. i seen needles, alcohol, all that stuff. i knew that. i knew what junkies was, it felt normal to me. >> so in sandtown there's no winners, losers just survivors. tiffany makes ends meet one stitch at a time quilts for
10:46 pm
friends, selling them online. tayvon is working towards a commercial driver's licence. they pray their two sons see a better life. like many they know there are no guarantees. it's been like that for decades. >> next - high 401k fees can cost you thousands in retirement. now the supreme court is ordering employers to protect your savings. i'll tell you what they have to do in 2 minutes.
10:47 pm
do in 2 minutes.
10:48 pm
chalk one up for the workers. the supreme court ruled unanimously that employers must do more to protect the nest eggs of employees. that includes roughly 52 million
10:49 pm
americans investing in 401k retirement savings plans, and if you are one of them you may be paying more than you should. that could change now that the high court has weighed in. mary snow has more. >> reporter: at the heart of the case, high fees eating into retirement savings. employees at edison international argued the energy company invested in funds with excessive fees. the high court ruled that the employers have a duty to monitor the fees and economist monique morrissey says it sheds light on a large problem. >> the employer chooses investment options and sets up the fan, but the fees are paid by employees, that creates tension or conflict of interest. >> reporter: the fees can make a dent. let's say you have a $100,000 investment, with a 0.25
10:50 pm
investment fee it grows to $2010,000 over 20 years. but with a 1% annual fee, that investment would be 30,000 less over the same time span. >> all services have costs. even those related to investments through your retirement plan. >> the department of labour made a push to educate consumers following a 2012 rule requiring financial institutions to disclose fees and expenses in requirement plans. nine in 10 americans underestimate the 401k fees according to a survey. if they did know about the fees employees don't have the pour to change their -- power to change their companies. and the supreme court's ruling some say, can force employers to pay more attention. >> they are not getting a nudge, they are happy to leave things
10:51 pm
alone. up till now the fiduciary sponsor is loosely termed. >> it can open the door to more lawsuits potentially encouraging smaller companies to stop offering 401 qs. >> mary snow joins us now. we are not done with people shoeing about 401ks. >> no and this case only made it to the supreme court because there was a statute of limitations questions kicked around. now that the ruling came about, it has wider complications, there are major companies, but lawyers say that this will open the door to lawsuits and is likely that companies may be likely to settle. >> offering a 401k retirement is not an obligation, is there a danger that a lot of companies will say they are not interested. >> for smaller companies that could be the risk. some argue that the smaller companies may pay higher costs.
10:52 pm
if they face the risk of getting sued for that there's the potential that they may say we are not offering that any more. >> thank you. it's a story that didn't get as much coverage as it should have. you can't talk about mutual fund fees or the concept of active versus passive management of the funds. active managers select specific stocks monitor them in an attempt to beat the market. passive managers basically make sure that the stocks match whatever the index is it's more automated. having an active manager comes at a price. according to 'morning star' the average expense for actively managed stock funds is 1.2% meek you give that up before you make anything. compared to passively managed funds, charging 0.7. some index funds like vanguard snp can be as low as 0.2.
10:53 pm
why invest in actively managed funds at all. someone that runs actively managed funds. michael is the president and chief executive officer joining us from san francisco. good to see you. you and i have been talking for 15 years about actively managed funds. actively traded funds, beat the mash, was only a third of the time. this is one of those years that the funds are doing better. given the odds why would it make sense for someone to pay you to manage a mutual fund. >> good to see you. inherent in the question is a third of active managers are beating the index, and that makes it worthwhile. i think when you have the debate, and we hear it all the time. it's not a bipry discussion -- bipry discussion where one or the other is the right answer. it depends on a lot of factors.
10:54 pm
the needs of the investor in terms of liquidity. the comfort in taking risks, the market dynamics that we are in. this year is a better year an thast years, some years -- than past years. there's a number of factors. it's not an evener question. it's a deeper question than that. you put your finger on the pulse. you expect if you pay a higher fee than an average index fund fee to get a manager to outperform the index. it's a legitimate cost benefit analysis for the investor to make. >> what is the thing that makes a good active manager god. what am i paying for, if i pay 1% 1.5% for an actively managed fund by someone like you that is actively managing. what am i paying for.
10:55 pm
>> in its simplest form, you mentioned vanguard and a number of other funds. you are getting market performance for better or worse. if you pay an active manager, we have a fund. we are running it since 1990, and it has peat ep the s&p. our expenses are higher we have achieved a return greater than the index after expenses. in that instance maybe it was a better reward to higher the managers to do that. you are expecting that you are going to pay a higher fee, that that manager, after fees will outperform the index that you are trying to beat. in simple form. >> it doesn't matter if you out perform the index by a big margin that the fact that i'm paying you the fee because i'm making more money. what are the types of things where the active manager makes a
10:56 pm
difference over an index. >> well, the biggestar would be the -- biggest area is the types of area that a manager has experience in. you may be willing to say for broad stock market exposure s&p works. but if i want something in a merging market or something in commodities or real estate. maybe you want to pay that extra fee for someone that is an expert in the area. that would be an example. if it's a training strategy you may be willing to pay a fee for someone in a certain type of trading. from our perspective, we have someone paying us for outperforming the index. that's what we seek to provide for the cost we are charging investors. >> i don't know to what degree the funds you manage are
10:57 pm
available in 401ks, but do you have a -- an understanding on how had ruling will affect funds like yours. >> it's interesting. i'm a small business and we run a 401k. as a trustee of that plan it puts a greater onus on us to make sure we have a good mix of funds at reasonable cost. that's an area. to the extent that there's higher focus, that matter. from our perspective it's pretty cost effective. we are not worried about the funds being too expensive. i think the ruling in general will place a lot of scrutiny on planned trustees and you also have to keep in mind that these are self-directed plans, and the
10:58 pm
onus is on the investor to focus. it's self-retirement plan you can't expect them to have the best interests of thousands of employees at their fingertips. >> you and i are on the same side as this. someone should be looking. the investor has to take responsibility. you are a small business you offer a 401k plan. pretend you were the administrator saying "i can invest in this one" where the management fee is 1.2% versus this which is two-thirds of 1%. why pick yours? >> that would be typically when you discuss performance, whether it's an index fund you are doing it after expenses. it's pretty easy to ascertain the ultimate performance. if you are going to pay a higher fee, you are expecting to get out-performance in the fund and cost is not the only driver in
10:59 pm
an investment decision. it's distant yes, so are taxes. you are looking for the ultimate performance. if you find a fund that had a history of outperforming, whatever objective it's trying to achieve. after cost. the cost is less important. you are getting that performance. if you are not. the cost is more. you pay someone that is underperforming. there's no value, and you have to ask yourself maybe you would be better off in a straight-up index. i think it's a situation you have to assess on a fund by fund level at all times. >> you make a good point that we haven't talked about taxes, because i'm talking about the ruling as it applies to 401ks, where you are not worried about turn over. we'll talk about taxes another
11:00 pm
times. thank you for joining me. good to see you. michael, president and c.e.o. of pacific hicts pacific heights asset management. that is the show. have a great holiday weekend. i'm ali velshi. an escalating threat - i.s.i.l.'s alarming military gapes, seizing more ground -- gains, seizing more ground in iraq and syria, striking deep in saudi arabia rescuing the coast line - officials step up a response to the california oil spill as crews face new challenges cleaning up the beach and the ocean. going public. >> i'm glad the emails are

19 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on