>This doesn't at all address the core point I'm making: that pension funds are not required to achieve a given rate of return in any meaningful sense. You're b

>This doesn't at all address the core point I'm making: that pension funds are not required to achieve a given rate of return in any meaningful sense. You're being uncharitable in reading gp's (erentz) word "required". No, there isn't a statute or law that says the pension fund must get 8% returns or the pension administrators go to jail. Nobody is saying that. Here's how to interpret the word "required" in a more reasonable manner... Using Illinois Teachers Pension as an example: the pension fund manages ~$50 billion but they still have a ~$70 billion shortfall.[1] The CIO (Chief Investment Officer) is currently Stan Rupnik. His salary is ~$400k per year and he's responsible for investing the pension fund in a way that balances max returns with safety. If he just sits back and folds his arms in a defiant manner exclaiming, "hey, the pension fund is not _required_ to achieve a given rate of return so I'm just going to invest all $50 billion in T-Bills which returns a negligible 0.19% yada yada yada" ... he's not going to keep his job. That's what a meaningful interpretation of "required" is for the context of this discussion. [1] https://www.chicagobusiness.com/finance-banking/teachers-pension-fund-levers-risk-investment-portfolio https://www.chicagobusiness.com/finance-banking/teachers-pen...