I consider this issue of considerable import as it represents another obligation that could very well wind up in the lap of US citizens; and another promise reneged.Mark: Can't tell from your comments whether you deny there is a problem or just that you thought the article didn't present it very well but, here's a few other references...it's not just the airlines, nor just publicly held corportations."Pensions that Bear Mention"http://www.forbes.com/work/management/2005/07/07/pensions-ibm-hp-cz_bc_0707pensions.html"Sinkhole! How public pension promises are draining state and city budgets"http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_24/b3937081.htmAs for one of the reasons why this occurred:"40 companies sitting on pension time bombs"http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P87329.aspOddly, companies are allowed to include returns on pension investments in their net income -- even though they owe the money to retirees, and those returns are based on assumed rates of return of 8% to 12% that are far bigger than real market returns in many years.Another interesting tidbit:"While pensions fall short, CEOs fly high"http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P119362.aspSo I wouldn't be inclined to say that asset allocation per se is the sole culprit. But I'd think that a more market neutral investment strategy would make a lot of sense even if it meant going against the advice of money managers who have a vested interest in charging fees from purchasing equities when that is a high risk gamble. A fiduciary duty was neglected. The relative safety (and suitability) of bonds was under-utilized. Perma-bullishness and Enron-style accounting became the norm and guess who is going to suffer the consequences...Rusty
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Ma