3 ms·

It appears you're conflating two things. 1. "Pension funds", which include stuff like TIAA-CREF, who administer 401(k)-like plans for tax-exempt organizations.

It appears you're conflating two things. 1. "Pension funds", which include stuff like TIAA-CREF, who administer 401(k)-like plans for tax-exempt organizations. Those are definitionally fully funded because the annuities that retirees receive are only based on the money they put in over time. 2. "Pensions" as in the old-school corporate-owned "you work for us for n years and then we give you an annuity for the rest of your life, based on a percentage of ending salary." Those have a lot of problems with funding, for a load of reasons including life expectancy, and because bankruptcy relieves companies of a lot of those obligations. Either way, a shareholder owning a comparatively tiny amount of stock has neither a duty nor the impetus to align their interests with that of the corporation in which they hold stock.

r_smart 8y ago
>It appears you're conflating two things. I probably am :) I'm definitely guilty of playing loose with my words. I was thinking of all of the various pensions. But as far as unfunded liabilities go, I was thinking of public employee pensions, where the amount they get out is not at all what they've paid in, and many (most?) of the various public pension programs are paying into the pensions to cover shortfalls from their investment portfolios. Many of them are looking at large amounts of financial liability in the future they don't currently have a budget for paying as I understand it. >Either way, a shareholder owning a comparatively tiny amount of stock has neither a duty nor the impetus to align their interests with that of the corporation in which they hold stock. I make no argument about what anyone should or shouldn't do. My point is that I think a lot of people picture four or five guys leering at each other around a table when they talk about shareholders, but in reality there are a lot of small fish with a vested interest in companies getting them the best return they can on their investment because they're relying on those returns to pay their expenses during the fixed income period of their life.

r_smart 8y ago

>It appears you're conflating two things. I probably am :) I'm definitely guilty of playing loose with my words. I was thinking of all of the various pensions. But as far as unfunded liabilities go, I was thinking of public employee pensions, where the amount they get out is not at all what they've paid in, and many (most?) of the various public pension programs are paying into the pensions to cover shortfalls from their investment portfolios. Many of them are looking at large amounts of financial liability in the future they don't currently have a budget for paying as I understand it. >Either way, a shareholder owning a comparatively tiny amount of stock has neither a duty nor the impetus to align their interests with that of the corporation in which they hold stock. I make no argument about what anyone should or shouldn't do. My point is that I think a lot of people picture four or five guys leering at each other around a table when they talk about shareholders, but in reality there are a lot of small fish with a vested interest in companies getting them the best return they can on their investment because they're relying on those returns to pay their expenses during the fixed income period of their life.