Modernizing pension fund legal standards for the twenty-first century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I made the mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity of the firm. Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Alan Greenspan, at a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working. Chairman of the Committee, Rep. Henry Waxman Absolutely, precisely. Greenspan Introduction The growth of pension funds and retirement savings over the last three decades into a huge global block of capital has dramatically changed the effect that pension investment practices have on the global economy. Prevailing interpretations of fiduciary duty have encouraged this pension fund capital block to “herd” around similar investment practices that have become focused on the short term. This “lemming” behavior has contributed to the severity of economic booms and busts. It has also destroyed long-term economic value, transferred wealth from younger to older pension fund participants and raised questions about compliance with the fiduciary duty of impartiality. This chapter argues for a modernized interpretation of fiduciary duty that recognizes the symbiotic relationship between the sustainable success of both corporations and pension funds. It describes the impact that pension investment practices have on both the well-being of fund participants and health of the global economy. It also argues that fiduciaries should adopt pension fund governance practices found to be associated with improved investment performance, better align pension fund service provider incentives with the clients’ long-term interests and expand risk identification and management practices to consider systemic and extra-financial factors that contributed to the current financial crisis. The authors recommend development of pension fund governance best practice guidelines, combined with adoption of a “comply or explain” reporting scheme, as a way to improve the ability of pension managers to meet their fiduciary obligations and promote economic stability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".