Hacker News Reader

Comment by wongarsu | Hacker News Reader

Ah, a classic paperclip maximizer. Pension plans got the goal of multiplying the money so pensioners have more of it. Nobody bothered to mention that they should also make sure there's a world the pensioners can live in, so now that gets slowly sacrificed in the pursuit of the only explicitly stated goal

View on HN

If multiplying money is the goal why does the article say they're doing a worse job of that than just buying index funds? If that claim is true, then clearly there are other issues at play than just that.

Longbets: “Over a ten-year period commencing on January 1, 2008, and ending on December 31, 2017, the S&P 500 will outperform a portfolio of funds of hedge funds, when performance is measured on a basis net of fees, costs and expenses.” - https://longbets.org/362/ (won by Warren Buffett)

Should New York’s $270B pension fund abandon Wall Street? - https://www.semafor.com/article/08/07/2025/new-york-comptrol... - August 7th, 2025 ("Drew Warshaw is running for New York state comptroller, a job most voters would struggle to define but one that includes oversight of the state’s pension fund. If he unseats 18-year incumbent Thomas DiNapoli, Warshaw’s plan is to move much of its nearly $300 billion of investments into ultra-cheap, passive index funds. The New York State and Local Retirement System has more than $90 billion invested in private equity, private credit, real estate, and other complex assets. All promise high returns — catnip for pension managers facing future payouts to retirees — but charge high fees, too. The question facing New York and hundreds of other state and local pension funds, charitable endowments, universities, and government funds around the world: Are these high-priced managers worth the fees they’re charging?")

What Does Nevada’s $35 Billion Fund Manager Do All Day? Nothing - https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-does-nevadas-35-billion-fu... | https://archive.today/ywTFd - October 19th, 2016

The management fees are, broadly speaking, a grift/rake of capital flows and economically inefficient, based on the evidence and the data. The issue at play is that the capital market ecosystem has become a bureaucracy that demands to continue to grow, versus cannibalizing itself in the name of economically efficient capital allocation.

Tangentially, the markets are moving to more trading (24/7/5) versus less because when trades are made, money is made in a Parable of the Broken Window sort of way by the capital market industry.

Yes, that's my point. That bet ended 8 years ago. If "multiplying money" is really the sole goal then why didn't all the pension funds switch to investing in index funds back then? There are clearly some structural issues here which don't align well with the idea that pensions are a "paperclip maximizer" with the goal of maximizing returns.

I find it interesting that the OP isn't arguing pensions should switch to investing in index funds, but rather into other projects the OP considers morally superior and that he personally believes will give better returns then hedge funds. To me that just feels like trading one set of hedge fund managers for another.

Are you asking why people getting paid to manage pensions inefficiently want to continue to get paid to do so?

Why would it matter what they want? I'm making a rhetorical point that "multiplying the money" is de facto not the sole goal of these funds, there's clearly something else at play.

Pension funds have a different time horizon / cash flow needs than individual investors (namely, they need to meet their liabilities every month) and so are going to have a more conservative asset mix (read: lower expected returns w/ lower volatility) than your average S&P500 index funds.

For example, CaLPERS has ~45% of their assets under management in debt / real estate.

Is high volatility really such a concern when you're dealing with a large pool of funds over such a long timeframe? Sure, if you need to withdraw funds during a downturn that's bad, but over the long term isn't that statistically balanced out by other months where you get lucky and withdraw during a peak?

I dont think its safe to assume perfect balance.

Further, I know it goes against economic orthodoxy, but I am a big fan of buying low and selling high. When the market is bad, I become more frugal, I might even run on debt instead of selling. When the market is at all time highs, I'll sell some from riskier and move that into other things.

Another oddity in this situation... People die slightly more often during flu season, so you could game this and plan to withdraw less.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com