The irony is that PEs exist largely because of pension funds. So to sum it up (not so nicely) we are transferring value from our current standard of living to pay for retirement checks for our old folks.

Pensions fund a significant part of PE and they do so because they need around a 7% return in order to look solvent. If they do not have the higher PE returns, they basically go out if cash in 10 years and everyone would scream bloody murder. But with the higher returns from PE they have 40-50 year runways and people can pretend everything is fine.

So PE firms exist to extract value from basically all high quality goods and services to show a high ROI to prop up pensions. They extract wealth by buying up companies and gutting the “extra” things in them - for luxury goods, it’s quality, customer service and warranties (like my venta humidifier or reformation dresses), for services it’s stripping the underlying excess risk management and quality control. One can argue that PEs make the business more efficient but in my opinion they just turn worker or consumer related benefits into profits (stakeholder and business benefits). It’s a transfer of value from worker and consumer to business and asset holders at a massive scale.

But sadly it’s not some evil dudes at the top doing this transfer, the market force behind it is because we promised old people way too aggressive paychecks when they retired. Pensions need to invest massive amounts of money into higher rates of return and PEs just happened to be the medium that is the most successful. Sure the people running the PE firm extract a ton of value drying up all luxury quality and robust services from the daily lives of working families, but their take home is a tiny fraction of the wealth they extract (but yes they take home a massive amount of wealth for an individual). Instead the wealth extracted shows up on a 1400$/m for some old person probably living in a retirement home somewhere.

So if you wanna fix or ban PE, solve pensions.

> So if you wanna fix or ban PE, solve pensions.

We solved pensions. People have defined-contribution plans now. I would expect insurance float to dwarf pensions as a source of PE funding.

The real reason PE exists is because it charges high fees. The financial industry does not make products to serve customer needs, though by happy accident that sometimes happens. It makes products to charge fees. Index funds removed a big chunk of the fees that active mutual funds used to charge, so financiers went looking for a replacement.

Even if you snapped your fingers and all remaining pensions (and insurance float?) disappeared, PE is aggressively going after individual retirement accounts, now. Most insidiously, trying to work their way into the "target date" funds that are the defaults for most plans. So "solving pensions" will not make PE go away.

One of the tools we use was bought by PE last summer. When it was time to renew our support contract had tripled in price. I use it across 10 projects so our costs went from $200k to $500k. I let our account manager know this was unacceptable but even his hands were tied. Cancelled those contracts and let them know we were retooling with a competing tool and opensource to fill those gaps. The impression I got was we weren't the only ones. Sales were getting squeezed between customers bailing and PE management wanting to stay the course.

I've seen PE make businesses more efficient by reviewing all contracts and dropping or renegotiating ones that no longer align. Closing product lines that aren't profitable. But that is year 1-2. By year 3 they start the squeeze, layoffs, asset selloffs (stripping), and lowering quality, raising prices. That is where the real teeth of wolf are shown.

> The irony is that PEs exist largely because of pension funds.

The irony goes way deeper than that.

A large part of PE clients are university endowment funds.

Harvard for instance has close to $60B in its endowment fund, 40% of which is invested in PE. At this point, Harvard is more an investment fund, with a university as side business.

You often see them “monetizing the brand.” That’s a nice way of saying “betraying customer trust.” They buy a company that’s known for high quality and then cut the quality. They can keep charging the high prices for a while until people realize that it’s not what it once was. After a while, higher end customers realize what’s happened and stop buying. Then the brand typically becomes a mid market brand and they start selling on Amazon to a less affluent clientele who still associate the brand with quality but wasn’t in their price range before. They usually cut quality again at this stage.

Effectively it’s burning all of the trust built up with consumers as firewood by tricking them into buying mediocre products at high prices.

I don't get it. If pensions stopped existing, would people stop doing PE even though it's profitable? If it is possible to get outsized returns "because pensions need them" then isn't somebody gonna notice and get those returns anyway, pensions or not?

> Pensions fund a significant part of PE and they do so because they need around a 7% return in order to look solvent.

Pensions fund PE because PE can do a short term cooking of the books in order to smooth out the growth curve. So the return is usually positive each year, not raising problems.

Also what does significant mean? Pensions are the main mechanism non-wealthy people are investing in PE. Being that millions are involved, you would expect pensions would have a sizable portion of the market, but family offices and high net worth offices dominate. If it offers above average returns, why would they not invest? PE is like every other asset class other than housing, the top 1% own a large chunk, the top 20% own the majority, and the bottom 50% own very little. Decisions are not driven by sone fireman, they are driven by the wealthy like everything else. And the origin and continuation of pushing for retirement to come from capital investment comes from the wealthy as well.

> if you wanna fix or ban PE, solve pensions

PE is a bogeyman, emblematic of a problem but not the problem per se. The problem is leverage. Critical services should have a borrowing limit and prohibitions on any pay-outs to owners while any leverage is in place.

Kicking out private equity and replacing them with family offices doesn’t solve anything; removing the debt does.

The S&P 500 already returns 7%. Why do pension funds need PE?

And like FIRE devotees, maybe they should model a lower withdrawal rate.

> But sadly it’s not some evil dudes at the top doing this transfer, the market force behind it is because we promised old people way too aggressive paychecks when they retired.

You seem to be quite confused about pensions, not only "old people" have pensions. Actually the vast majority of contributions to pensions funds come from people who aren't old at all and are actively employed.

> If they do not have the higher PE returns, they basically go out if cash in 10 years and everyone would scream bloody murder.

Where would they "scream"? On the internet? And who'd hear them? The answer is nobody in any PE cares about anyone screaming.

PE's operations have nothing to do with screaming old people, that viewpoint simply avoids the real issues and replaces them with red herring age baiting.

I wonder if this creates opportunity for spinning up competitors to these PE owned companies. If they are underinvesting in their products in order to extract value eventually their offerings will not be competitive.

I have no idea how reliable this source is, but it looks plausible - from the "American Investment Council", which appears to be some kind of private equity trade association ( https://www.investmentcouncil.org )

https://www.psprs.com/uploads/sites/1/AIC_PublicPensionRepor...

Some interesting details:

- "Nearly 50 percent of the private equity investment dollars that make their way into American businesses come from public pension funds", which substantiates OP's thesis.

- "U.S. public pension funds invest 9% of their portfolios in private equity, on a dollar-weighted basis." 46% is in public equity, so obviously the lion's share is in still in public markets.

I've been saying pensions should not exist, as they are contradictory to our political system. Some politician 40 years ago can promise everyone the moon, and never force the next generation to figure it out. I'm from Chicago which has a nightmare pension system that's keeping me from ever buying a home in the city I love, because my property tax increases just go to retired people who moved to Florida.

I really appreciate this perspective as It helps fill in gaps in my mental model of where our economy has gone wrong the last 50 years. Unrelated but - I've read an interesting paper on how allowing private banks to create money has led to the infinite profit growth goose chase...

> we are transferring value from our current standard of living to pay for retirement checks for our old folks

Well, yes, that's how any retirement (or any social benefit, really) system works: people who actually do work support the people who don't. Those latter include children, the elderly, pop-stars, politicians, etc. So unless you make people work until the day they die (which is possible, and have been done in the past, mind you — it just severely decreases the average life expectancy), we're going to transfer some of the created wealth to the elderly. The exact form of how this transfer is performed is a fascinating topic for discussion (make their direct descendants care for them! make a state-, or charity-funded fund to feed them hot soup once a day! make them save up for retirement themselves! lots of options, really) but it will still happen one way or another. After all, some people simply do have lots of money (and keep getting more) with doing no labour; some of them are retirees.

This is an exceptionally high-quality comment. You on bsky or threads or somewhere I can follow you?

The stuff that old people need in their retirements to live is getting more expensive due to the types of shenanigans that PE firms are doing. So their pensions appear solvent now but when those old folks actually retire, their money won't go as far? Doesn't add up. I think the people who are really benefitting here are the usual suspects - the ultra rich, and the PE guys at the top doing this transfer really are evil.

Why don't pensions just invest in index funds generally? High required rate of returns or?

This reads as apologia, blame-shifting, "I was just following orders".

People have to eat. They need water. They need a roof over their head. Nobody has to buy out all the veterinarians in an area at rates they can't say no to, have them sign non-competes and them jack up all the prices by 300% because, hey, you now own all of them. Nobody has to buy up all the trailer parks, which are normally peopple's last stop before being homeless, and then jack up the ground rent because, hey, where else are they going to go? Nobody has to buy up utilities, spend big on capex because legally you can pass on that charge and effectively double people's electricity bills.

Hannah Arendt coined the term "banality of evil" [1] decades ago and, in all honesty, I think it applies to the predatory nature of PE. It also goes for working for Palantir and a bunch of other companies. "I need to pay my student loans", "I'm just doing data science", "I'm just writing AI software that identifies when somebody is home" and on it goes.

PE serves no useful function in society. It's pure rent-seeking and incredibly predatory in many cases. ~15 years ago, there was a story about Goldman Sachs invented a derivative on the price of wheat and then essentially conspired to jack up the price of wheat [2]. This wasn't just manipulating a ticker on a Bloomberg terminal. It had real-world consequences. People starved and died because of this decision.

Yet I'm sure there were people who argued "I'm just doing legally allowed financial engineering here".

[1]: https://aeon.co/ideas/what-did-hannah-arendt-really-mean-by-...

[2]: https://theecologist.org/2011/sep/13/how-goldman-sachs-start...

Had pension fund just invest in VOO, PE won't need to exist.

My State is essentially screwed for budgeting, because for years, our public retirement system garunteed "AT LEAST 8%" to accounts. Some years was much higher. I have a parent that make more, 10 years after retirement, then they ever did working.

They moved around the year 2000 to accounts that don't have the AT LEAST clause, and they earn what they earn, but due to the backlog of people still retiring that were grandfathered in, its wrecking our state.

My city has a huge budget deficit, but 24% of its total payroll budget goes to the public retirement system to 'catch up' from years when it did not make 8%. Next year or two, that is supposed to jump to 28% of payroll.

Problem won't start getting better until something like 2034 when the boomers start 'leaving the retirement system'

A 30-year treasury offers 5% and A-grade corporate bonds offer 6.5%. You don't need to exploit essential services for the other 50bps.

[0]: https://fixedincome.fidelity.com/ftgw/fi/FIYieldTable?popupM...

Old rich folks

Pension funds still exist?

> we are transferring value from our current standard of living to pay for retirement checks

Isn’t this just what happens when you have an inverted pyramid (older population is larger than the younger population)?

> One can argue that PEs make the business more efficient

I’ve never seen it (I agree with you). To improve something they’d have to understand the business and do a bunch of work. Mostly they show up at quarterly meetings and want spreadsheets that measure some number that will go up (regardless if that number means anything).

> if you wanna fix or ban PE, solve pensions

How does one solve pensions?

Interesting perspective. I had never considered that before.

No, if you wanna fix or ban PE, ban PE. PE is just a really easy and safe way for financiers to make extra cash, with huge externalities that everyone else pays for. The people benefiting from this are those who already have a lot of capital, and while it is true that old people generally have more than young people, don't fall for this simplistic generational warfare narrative. PE is also going after retirement homes and elderly care services.

It's just a ploy for the wealthy to extract even more wealth from the rest of us, while stripping the country for parts and dooming the actual economy for years to come.

On the subject, if you have 50 minutes to waste: https://youtu.be/tyNFosOFUDM?is=hwDH5tFCAYc7soHG

If the government guaranteed basic human needs are met for every person (food, shelter, healthcare) there would be less of a need for giant pools of public money (pensions, insurance) sloshing around.

Mass index fund investment is basically socialism but stupid. My retirement money is going to get invested in the SpaceX IPO against my will. The market is not efficiently allocating capital, it's structured to allow elites to skim off the top while forcing middle class people to subsidize them.

These are side effects of PE fund behavior, and where many of them get investors from

There are also many benefits you don’t notice because they don’t bother you

I wrote about this not long ago: https://theloop.ecpr.eu/its-not-finance-its-your-pensions/ "It's not finance, it's your pensions"

(it's a blog summary of a much longer, and rather esoteric, academic article)

We all own the means of production. Communism crept in right under our noses.