HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What type of investments ...

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 02:42 PM

 

What type of investments should pension funds be invested in and what % returns should be expected?

Always a dicey issue. If adequate returns are not garnered, then what should occur?

15 replies, 1374 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 15 replies Author Time Post
Reply What type of investments should pension funds be invested in and what % returns should be expected? (Original post)
Snake Alchemist Jan 2012 OP
dipsydoodle Jan 2012 #1
Snake Alchemist Jan 2012 #2
dipsydoodle Jan 2012 #3
Snake Alchemist Jan 2012 #4
closeupready Jan 2012 #5
Snake Alchemist Jan 2012 #6
closeupready Jan 2012 #7
Snake Alchemist Jan 2012 #8
closeupready Jan 2012 #9
Snake Alchemist Jan 2012 #10
closeupready Jan 2012 #11
Snake Alchemist Jan 2012 #12
closeupready Jan 2012 #14
Snake Alchemist Jan 2012 #15
Swede Jan 2012 #13

Response to Snake Alchemist (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 02:55 PM

1. Its up to the trustees to get best possible returns whilst being prudent.

You may not approve of either BP or News Corp but if they satisfy the criteria then so be as far as pension funds are concerned then so be it. Any funds which dumped NC shares after the BSkyB takeover lapse and the NOWT debacle have not done their members any favours - share values are already back at they where they were prior to either event.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 02:56 PM

2. That is the rub. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 03:06 PM

3. There is a further irony

News Corp had already made it clear that their policy was a major share buy back. Pissing everyone off allowed them to do that at c.2/3rds of the current price. Sometimes you really can't make this shit up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 03:09 PM

4. Did not need to hear that. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 03:10 PM

5. Many pension funds have by-laws mandating only AAA ratings are acceptable,

 

and anything less than that can not be invested in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 03:13 PM

6. I'm looking for suggested AAA investments

 

And what kind of returns should be demanded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 03:19 PM

7. Well, of course, another question is whether to trust the rating agencies.

 

After what they did with regard to bundled toxic mortgages and the exotic financial instruments based thereon.

But as to specifics, I'm afraid I can't be of any help, sorry. I don't trust the market - it's for 'dumb money', IMO. The smart money knows how to manipulate markets and suck your blood until you're lifeless and impoverished. Obviously, that's not everyone, but it happens far too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 03:29 PM

8. Yes, but without the market there would be no pension funds.

 

I'm curious what a market would look like without rating agencies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 03:36 PM

9. Pension funds are nothing more than savings accounts; these exist even in communist countries.

 

Maybe not technically, but the point is, yes, there would be pension funds without markets.

A market without rating agencies probably would look something like pre-Great Depression, as I don't think they were established until round about that time. But there have certainly been markets without rating agencies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 03:41 PM

10. So return rates would be around?

 

That makes all the difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 03:57 PM

11. Would likely be much, MUCH more volatile than today.

 

By that I mean, you would have much more market manipulation, pump-and-dump, cornering markets, etc. Stocks would be pumped and primed for sale to 'dumb money', stock price goes way up, then the stock, suddenly, is dumped by 'smart money', cratering the value of the stock.

So return rates would really be much more like casino rates - that is, have a spin, maybe you'll hit the jackpot, maybe you'll lose everything, but in the end, the house will always win.

Anyway, this discussion is beyond my paygrade, but there are lots of really good books about markets and how to invest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:17 PM

12. What I'm trying to get at is that pensions and 401K's may not be viable soon.

 

It seems like a better option would be some sort of super social security that actually paid a guaranteed living wage after retirement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:32 PM

14. 95% of people here (& me) are going to agree with you. We know that means it will go nowhere.

 

As with single payer or the public option.

Congress serves big money interests. Voters ALWAYS come second in their list of priorities. Since the social security tax eats into the resources available to businesses (and invariably reducing maximum feasible profit), Congress and DC will only diminish social security, not seek to strengthen it. Certainly, if benefits lag the real rate of inflation (which is the current state of affairs), it serves the unspoken agenda to weaken the program.

Talking about a 'super social security' program is fun, but so much needs to change before we even get to laying groundwork for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #14)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:33 PM

15. Too true :(. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:30 PM

13. Once you retire they should be conservative funds,around or above inflation.

Before that they can be in more agressive funds,say 7-10% annual return.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread