http://blog.canadianbusiness.com/let-pension-funds-run-the-economy/ Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:52:10 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://blog.canadianbusiness.com/let-pension-funds-run-the-economy/comment-page-1/#comment-30167 Larry MacDonald Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:33:47 +0000 http://blog.canadianbusiness.com/?p=3092#comment-30167 Marc Thanks for info Marc
Thanks for info

]]> http://blog.canadianbusiness.com/let-pension-funds-run-the-economy/comment-page-1/#comment-29662 Marc Ryan Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:26:03 +0000 http://blog.canadianbusiness.com/?p=3092#comment-29662 The best reason for the 30% rule is that beyond a certain percent (under securities law it is 20%) a shareholder is no longer a passive investor, he is managing the underlying businesses of the companies he has invested in. And except for unusual situations (example: passive real estate REIT-type holdings)there is no reason to think pension fund managers have any particular expertise to manage businesses as opposed to investments. And if things go poorly a 30% holding is often very illiquid, thereby compounding the problem. I think the Peter principle kicks-in for most pension fund mangers at 30%. Raising it would be a serious error, if anything we should be reducing it. Marc Ryan www.independentinvestor.info The best reason for the 30% rule is that beyond a certain percent (under securities law it is 20%) a shareholder is no longer a passive investor, he is managing the underlying businesses of the companies he has invested in. And except for unusual situations (example: passive real estate REIT-type holdings)there is no reason to think pension fund managers have any particular expertise to manage businesses as opposed to investments. And if things go poorly a 30% holding is often very illiquid, thereby compounding the problem.
I think the Peter principle kicks-in for most pension fund mangers at 30%. Raising it would be a serious error, if anything we should be reducing it.
Marc Ryan
http://www.independentinvestor.info

]]>