3 ms·
I'm honestly not sure if it's 50% or not, but I suppose the idea is that not everyone withdraws at the same time. Ideally, you would only sell off assets that
by cbanek 9y ago
I'm honestly not sure if it's 50% or not, but I suppose the idea is that not everyone withdraws at the same time. Ideally, you would only sell off assets that you need to raise capital to pay for benefits. Also, there's new money coming into the fund by employees paying in, and I'm not sure they can stop.
But in general, if everyone wanted to sell their assets at the same time, that's when the stock market "crashes", because there's no buyers. I suppose the pension fund managers can make these types of decisions, but in general they are governed by rules and best practices in terms of what investments they can make.
If these funds stopped investing their money, they'd be at greater risk of inflation, and where would they put it? What would be the next step?
But you're right there is a lot of retirement money in the market, and when people start to retire, some of that money will go out of the market, but also a lot of people are trying to live only off the interest/dividends, and keep the principal because they are worried they will live longer than they were expecting.
- dv_dt 9y agoIn general not everyone withdraws at the same time, but there are generational demographic pressures. As more and more time progresses, the baby boomers will withdraw more and more of their savings - so one could characterize a set of outflow models of some sort there. The saved amount of discretionary pay going to younger generations is an inflow. I really don't know if the outflow will exceed the inflow, but I would note that younger generations live under many decades of squeezing of 'excess' margins in wages to labor. And that makes the question of wether the outflow will exceed the inflows much more of something to ponder.