|
|
|
|
|
by ypzhang2
1472 days ago
|
|
There is a big difference in Canadian pension funds and US pension funds. Canadian pension funds are run more akin to a private equity firm. They invest directly in growth stage deals and therefore take commensurate risks like any other private equity firm. That means that they make bets with more asymmetric risks and balance their entire portfolio rather than staying at a specific risk band with all of their investments. They pay for professional staff commensurate with that model. A canadian pension fund's employees earn salary and bonuses comparable to a investment bank or private equity firm. You can't necessarily look at one off investments and have to look at return over time which is generally healthy and their funding ratio, which is generally much healthier than US pension counterparts. There is a reason the "Canadian Model" is held up as one of the ideal pension management models. |
|
Why would this model be held up as the ideal, and by whom? Why would pensioners be better served by expensive and underperforming active management rather than more cheaply balancing risk through a pension manager picking a balance of index funds and periodically rebalancing?
Perhaps I’m missing a crucial detail unique to pensions, but it just sounds like yet more expensive financial industry snake oil to me.