Maybe, but pension funds (should, at least) invest in multiple asset classes and assets to diversify risk. Not only equities and bonds, but if in hedge funds, then multiple hedge funds. Further, hedge funds generally have multiple investments going as well. In both cases if one particular thing goes to zero, not all the money (should) be lost.
Whereas with workers it is hard diversify risk away from your employer and your retirement savings if you have a pension.
This is why, contrary to popular opinion, shareholders are not actually owners of a company, but 'just' another stakeholder: other stakeholders would include employees, suppliers, bond holders, retirees, etc.
Shareholders are often lowest priority, and for taking on that risk of losing more, they get typically get rewarded more (i.e., stock goes up).
Bond holders and pension employees don't have a seat to control power.
This, shareholders are true owners of the company. But laws prevent them taking other stakeholders for a ride.
There are laws and legal precedents in multiple countries that state the shareholders are not owners:
* https://edwardslaw.ca/blog/shareholders-agreements-in-canada...
* https://www.ippr.org/articles/who-owns-a-company
* https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-instituti...
Further, directors and such have a fiduciary to the corporation and not to the shareholders:
> This separation of ownership and control provides the basis for many of the fundamental principles of corporate law. One example is the principle that the directors and officers of a corporation owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation: see Canadian Aero Service Ltd. v. O'Malley, [1974] S.C.R. 592.
* https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/699/ind...
And that stakeholders must be considered as well:
> Under the CBCA, directors have a fiduciary duty to act honestly, in good faith and in the corporation’s best interest. 2 Until a few decades ago, the corporation’s shareholders were often considered its primary beneficiaries. This shareholder-centric form of corporate governance was known as the shareholder primacy model, a model that would, theoretically, obviate managerial self-dealings. 3
> However, at the end of the last century a shift to include non-shareholder interests began to emerge. Many attribute this shift to the hostile takeover wave of the 1980s, which increased shareholder wealth efficiently but left employees scrambling for work and government institutions struggling to respond.4 The shareholder primacy model came under further scrutiny, in both Canada and the US, after the burst of the tech bubble in 2002 and the 2008 financial crisis.5
* https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-ca/knowledge/publicat...
The primacy of shareholders started to become in vogue in the 1970s, and so (because of recency bias) is what is best known now, but there is a history of other philosophies before that:
* https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/865/
And the primacy of shareholders, being thought of as the most important stakeholder, did not change the legal precedents.
... right after hedge fund "costs" are limited to a microscopic amount.
If you're going to treat private financial service organizations as if they are organized for public good (i.e. paying employee pensions), then they need to operate as such, rather than as wealth generators for their officers.
And don't come at me with "that keeps the incentives aligned - if the managers/officers make money, the hedge fund is making more money". I don't buy that the only way to get effective investment growth is by making the officers wealthy beyond all belief. Vanguard agrees with me.
The ruling is just about where that money comes from, the money would be paid either way.
Also the "shareholders" are taxpayers, they are in general just ordinary people investing in businesses.
> About 162 million Americans, or 62% of U.S. adults, own stock. The top 1% holds 50% of stocks, worth $21 trillion. The bottom 50% of U.S. adults hold only 1% of stocks, worth $437 billion.
> Most Americans indirectly hold stocks through a mutual fund, an index fund, or a retirement account such as a 401(k). A smaller percentage directly holds stocks, meaning they purchase individual shares.
- Motley Foolhttps://www.axios.com/2024/01/10/wealthy-own-record-share-st...
> There is a statutory maximum benefit that PBGC can pay. Participants receive the lower of their benefit as calculated under the plan or the statutory maximum benefit. If a participant’s benefit is higher than the statutory maximum benefit, the participant’s benefit is reduced. Participants in single-employer plans that terminate in 2021 and are trusteed by PBGC may receive up to $72,409 per year if they begin taking their pension at the age of 65. The single-employer maximum benefit is adjusted depending on the age at which the participant begins taking the benefit and on the form of the benefit (e.g., the maximum benefit is lower for a joint-and-survivor annuity). The maximum benefit for participants in multiemployer plans that receive financial assistance depends on the number of years of service in the plan. For example, a participant with 30 years of service may receive up to $12,870 per year. Currently, most workers in singleemployer plans taken over by PBGC and multiemployer plans that receive financial assistance from PBGC receive the full pension benefit that they earned.
> However, among participants in multiemployer plans that were terminated and likely to need financial assistance in the future, 49% have a benefit below the PBGC maximum guarantee and 51% have a benefit larger than the PBGC maximum guarantee (and therefore, would see a benefit reduction). At the end of FY2020, PBGC had a total deficit of $48.2 billion, which consisted of a $15.5 billion surplus from the single-employer program and a $63.7 billion deficit from the multiemployer program. PBGC’s single-employer program has been on the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO’s) list of high-risk government programs since 2003. PBGC’s multiemployer program was added in 2009. PBGC projects the financial position of the singleemployer program is likely to continue to improve, but the financial position of the multiemployer program is expected to worsen considerably over the next 10 years.
The shortfall will eventually be made up from the general fund, funded by taxpayers. But, we are in the weeds unnecessarily. The PBGC should be a last resort, based on the above context.