Hacker News Reader

Comment by VikingCoder | Hacker News Reader

> At the end of the day, it's their own fault for cutting lousy deals.

Victim blaming. Well done.

Oh please. If you're in charge of $160 billion, you better be one of the most sophisticated investors on the planet, and wield your extraordinary power to achieve the greatest returns for your stakeholders. Those fee agreements are clear as day. They should know precisely what can happen if they choose to pay fees on yearly gains instead of on net gains from inception.

Stupid people aren't victims; they're just stupid. The bankers had a responsibility to their shareholders to ask for the highest fees possible, and the managers of the $160 billion had a responsibility to say no. Looks like the bankers did their job.

Well said. Honestly.

So, let's play out the theories:

1) The pension managers WERE some of the most sophisticated investors on the planet.

So what the hell happened? You originally called them "irresponsible." Now you've edited to call them "stupid." What's your theory about what happened to these world-class investors? My point being, they can't simultaneously be in the "most sophisticated" class, and also in the "irresponsible" / "stupid" class.

Kickbacks? Got overly greedy and mis-fired? It could happen to literally anyone? Bad luck?

2) The pension managers WERE NOT some of the most sophisticated investors on the planet.

I agree with your assessment that they SHOULD HAVE BEEN. So what the hell happened? Did they lie when they were hired? Did they have a great track record (luck?), but flubbed this? Or did the person who hired them and put them in charge (the mayor?) trust someone they shouldn't have?

The real victims are the pensioners, and this story should be investigated. If not on their behalf, then as a lesson for other pensioners, pension managers, and the people who manage pension managers.

I edited it because "irresponsible" wasn't strong enough in this case. What they did was idiotic. I think they were on the stupid side...with this kind of money floating around, any hint of kickbacks or corruption would quickly float to the surface. I'm sure that the funds they invested in were run by world class investors, but the pension manager(s) simply didn't understand the implications of the fee agreement.

Again, they can't simultaneously be in the "most sophisticated" class, and "idiotic."

Unless your assertion is "even the most sophisticated investors can be idiotic."

I'd say "idiotic" should be upgraded to "colossally idiotic." $40M earnings on $160B in 10 years?

So, what do you think?

I don't think that the pension managers were sophisticated, but rather were idiots. They went to world class bankers to deal with the money, who did a world class job of creating an awesome fee structure for themselves.

So then who put idiots in charge of a $160B pension? And why did they do it?

Not expecting an answer from you - I'm saying these become the questions I want answers to.

It would not be surprising if there was a bit of corruption involved in picking the managers, setting the fees, the whole process.

Isn't the blame falling to the pension managers who picked the hedge fund, and the victims are the individual pensioners who each have negligible influence over decisions? Or am I misunderstanding something?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com