Talk:Pension fund

superannuation funds?

are pension funds the equivalent of superannuation funds? If so, shouldn't the two pages be co-joined?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.164.220 (talk • contribs)

Superannuation fund currently redirects to Pension. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

article is pathetitic really

Ok this article is pathetitic really apart from listing the various pension funds listed around the world. It fails to explain to me what the hell a pension fund is. For example, what are the cashflow structures of a pension fund, what is the implication of Asset Liability management for a pension fund. Also this article only explains the type of pension funds you can get. It in no way does it explain what a pension fund does. Please change it otherwise I'm gonna have some retard blame me for changing this article the un-wiki way. Aamirc (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

How would you change the lede paragraph? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Pathetic is a gross understatement. Instead of being treated as a trust fund, what I always thought, it appears my pension is used in a big poker game ( called the stock market). No wonder the stock market is so high. My pension, etc statements may have no cash behind it - like in a bank - but may be an index of Wall St. activity - can go up or down on someones whim. My employer deducts money from my check ( probably doesn't really match it with real cash and plays poker instead with my money ( not his). CDamn, I bet this is even legal! Of course I could have had a 401K? - but I would be playing poker but it seemed the cards were being held by someone else. Damn! 2601:181:8301:4510:ED9A:F369:F2D4:34EB (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Where can I find the regulatory aspect of the topic....

The following does not have the category

• http://etf.com/

--124.78.225.90 (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Red links maybe associated with the following....

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=superannuation+funds&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en

--124.78.225.90 (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Not acceptable for a "See also" entry. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wealth per capita/participant

The wealth per capita/participant column of the table is a bit confusing as it is, I think, with its ambiguity when it comes to capia vs. participant. For example, the Dutch fond is half the size of the Norwegian one, while the Dutch population is 2.5 times as large. Both countries provide pensions to all old citizens as far as I am aware, so they should be directly comparable. But from the numbers above, you would expect the wealth per person to be 5 times less for the Dutch fond, while it is actually about the same according to the table. So clearly appels are being compared to oranges here, somehow. Could somebody weigh in on how the Dutch number was computed? Are only the poeple who are actively receiving a pension now being counted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaurea (talk • contribs) 00:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pension fund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101102042855/http://www.btimes.com.my:80/Current_News/BTIMES/articles/epf07/Article/index_html to http://www.btimes.com.my/Current_News/BTIMES/articles/epf07/Article/index_html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Top 20 funds

Hi

I suggest the top 20 list is taken down until it is accurate. Australia has 13 superannuation funds with excess of $30b in assets.

The UK has seven pension funds with excess of 20b pounds in assets.

Russia's National Wealth Fund doesn't get a mention - over $90b in assets. Nor does Singapore's Central Provident Fund.

Also, the article bizarrely contradicts itself by stating the Federal Old-age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund is the largest pension fund by assets in the top 20 list when in the leading paragraph we state (correctly) it is the Japanese gov. pension fund. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry! (talk • contribs) 12:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Take a look of page 35 of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry! (talk • contribs) 12:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

References

my pension benefits

Hi I receive a pension from Citizens Bank and I was wondering if there is a way I could get a advance on my pension my e-mail is cussin6569@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:902:4302:319:4D16:BE32:3406:E7D7 (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Is OASDI a "fund"?

I've just reverted the removal of a short paragraph about OASDI, the rationale for removing being that OASDI didn't meet the technical definition of a "fund". I'm unsure what technical definition is being referenced here. I do agree that the securities held by OASDI are non-marketable, but they are nonetheless real. Their existence explains, for example, why the OASDI system is able to continue paying benefits even when Congress has failed to authorize any government expenditures. The OASDI funds are very much "funds". NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@NewYorkActuary: The issue with the OASDI is that it's debatable whether it's "real" or not. For example, this paper describes how government saving has not increased despite the significant increase in the value of the OASDI. This is alleged to be because the budget seems to treat OASDI surpluses as revenue. Most other pension funds invest in marketable securities, real estate, or other "actual" investments that directly affect the economy instead of funding the government that they are run by. While the OASDI can continue paying benefits without a government appropriations bill, so do many other mandatory expenditure programs. I think there should be a note of some sort on the definition of a pension fund, because the OASDI (and CSRDF for that matter) only put their surpluses into the federal government, unlike (almost) every other government pension fund around the world, such as in Japan, Canada, Norway, China, and others. Most defined benefit private pensions also do not invest in the companies they are run by, hence not becoming an effective PAYGO system.

For that matter, Australia's system doesn't seem to be one coherent "fund" either, such that the definition of a "fund" is a collection of pooled contributions that are invested with a view to funding a pension system. It seems to be split into many different superannuation funds that are run separately.

I would suggest based on the substantial differences between the OASDI/CSRDF and most pension funds that there should be some sort of clarification on the status of these two entities. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Chess: Hello, Chess. My apologies for the delay in response. I doubt that you and I are going to agree on the answer to your question, largely because we are each approaching it from a different perspective. As such, we are both right -- OASDI is a "fund" in the legal sense even if it might not be in some economic sense.

The issues you raise regarding the proper economic "reality" of the OASDI funds certainly can be the subject of an encyclopedic discussion, but I suggest that this article will not be a good place for it. The sad fact is, this article is little more than a list of things that have "fund" or "plan" in their names. Even an attempt to define "fund" is going to be out of place here. Frankly, I think it would be more productive to convert this into a List article (i.e., List of pension funds) and then write a real article about the global history of pension funds and the economic discussions that have surrounded them. I'll be unable to devote any attention to this in the near future, but it seems the better approach in the long run.

And yes, I agree that the Australian system is really playing fast-and-loose with the definition of "fund". The notion that the Australian system is almost as large as OASDI is what caught my attention the first time I saw this article. Of course, comparing the Australian fund(s) with OASDI is an apples-to-oranges comparison (more appropriate, I think, would be comparing it to the collective assets held in the U.S. under 401(k) plans and IRAs). But here, too, this article isn't designed to address such definitional issues. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)