>We've recently witnessed, though, how much investing practice can
>impact pension funds and retirement plans, to the tune of trillions.
>It should matter much more now whether investing in an Enron or a
>stable slow growth utility, or frankly in bonds vs. stocks (pension
>funds tend to be overweight to stocks by 60-70% even though stocks
>are far more volatile, because of the prevalent mantra that 'they
>will outperform in the long run' .) Enrons and WorldComs also pop up
>in portfolios because of the sheer force of marketing and collusion
>that Wall Street and Asset Managers engage in. My point was, it's
>high time to take a proactive informed independent view for future
>investment practices.
Allow me once again to make dinosaur noises: who needs pension funds? What does it really mean for a society as a whole to "invest" in stocks, be they Enron or Con Ed? Stocks are merely residual claims on future profits, but the cash necessary to keep pension checks from bouncing has to come from the present - either taxes or contributions from not-yet-retired workers or the sale of stock to investors. The very existence of the damn things causes fund managers to salivate, and to run the funds in accordance with conventional financial principles (and often against the class interest of beneficiaries). Abolish pension funds, I say. Pay as you go.
Doug