Yes, I thought of that as I wrote my comment. However, I see it as a somewhat separate problem. The pension funds were, essentially, raided. If that were prevented (that dreaded word, regulation), we might still be in a situation where pensions provide a very stable retirement income. Further, preventing such behavior would force the pension providers to own up to and correct their problems sooner, instead of milking retirement earnings as a short term compensation for those problems. Those that couldn't correct their problems would fail. But the pensions would remain intact.

I think what is currently happening with many pensions in the U.S. -- e.g. underfunding followed by default of one manner or another that transfers the pension obligations to the increasingly underfunded Federal government insurance/guarantor program that pays a small portion of their original value -- is criminal, ethically where not (explicitly enough, apparently) legally. But it does not of itself discredit the concept of pensions.

At the same time, I'm no expert in this. I'm open to considering opposing arguments. Let me put part of my point another way: Expecting every future retiree to become an investment expert is inefficient. All that time and effort duplicated across so many people, to manage in each individual case relatively small amounts (excluding that small percentage of the very wealthy).

But maybe it's like democracy; all that work by individuals is necessary to keep the system honest. And when the work isn't done, the system degrades. Perhaps the best we can do is to all hire investment advisors (whom we choose) and to treat no investment, no benefit as "guaranteed".

But, with regard to the topic of risk, this is a lot of individual risk.