Hacker News
points by consensus1 13 hours ago | 0 comments
Do you remember the context of that speech? He was presenting a takeover offer to the shareholders of a poorly run company with a bunch of useless execs with no skin in the game. He may be the villain of the movie, but not of that scene. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHnZi87272U
[–] getpost 13 hours ago
He's still the villain. He sounds perfectly reasonable. His criticisms of Teldar paper are plausible. He makes a compelling case for greed, but by definition, greed is excessive, it cannot be good.

His apparent reasonableness obscures the fact that he's appealing to the rapacious or covetous nature of the shareholders. He wants to override any moral objection to the fact that he's buying the company, in part, to strip the overfunded employee pensions, and by accepting his offer, shareholders get a cut. (IIRC, it's been decades since I saw the movie.)

[–] consensus1 13 hours ago
What is the moral argument against this? What is the "rapacious and covetous" nature of the shareholders? Pensions are not 401Ks. If there is money left after benefits are paid out, that is the property of the company.
[–] getpost 12 hours ago
The fact that you see pension savings as the property of the company seems "greedy" to me. I'm not criticizing you. It's technically true in at least some companies. Similarly, the Social Security Trust Fund is the property of the US Government, not the future beneficiaries.

The moral failure is treating a retirement fund, and the people whose livelihoods depend on it, primarily as an opportunity for personal enrichment. Pension assets do not belong to the company in the ordinary sense. They are held in trust for the benefit of employees and retirees. The employer generally cannot withdraw funds while the plan is operating.

Wall Street was released in 1987, and the law regarding pensions has changed since then, in part to address employers reverting pension assets. As I understand it, there is a now a 50% excise tax on reversions, which are only allowed in specific circumstances. I imagine this tax is intended to discourage reversions.

Personally, I don't understand why any of the money I put away for retirement belongs to anyone but me. Usually such funds are managed by finance companies, not the employer, and the finance companies are already getting their cut, any lucky excess should come to me.

(The substance of the issue with overfunded pensions is itself a complicated separate topic, which I don't mean to oversimplify.)

[–] frmersdog 11 hours ago
It's crazy how this conversation is a microcosm of the contemporary economy.

Can I add another wrinkle? Wealthy Gekko is obviously the villain, trying to raid pensions to expand his own coffers. Now, what if the pension raid is the cratering of index funds (and the financial contagion that follows)? What if the beneficiary isn't a rich financier, but a generation of workers who finally see asset prices plummet enough to allow them to afford homes, cars, etc.?

Seeing the parallels to our current (or coming) moment, I wonder how others read it.

[–] blargey 3 hours ago
Not sure why you think a market crash will help housing affordability, much less cars and "etc", and do so enough to overtake the proportionate squeeze on jobs, income, and credit availability. The "pension raid" is decried because a small rich cabal is seen as using it to cash out on inflated valuations before the subsequent correction, and basically everyone whose retirement plan isn't "an early grave" pays into it equally.
[–] consensus1 11 hours ago
The overfunding isn't separate. It's central to the entire thing. If a company owes $5000 a month to its employees, but it has enough to pay them $6000 a month, that money does not go to the employee. It is called a "defined benefit" for a reason. Also the money is not put there by the employees. It is put away by the company. Pensions are not 401Ks.
[–] watwut 2 hours ago
And yet, those useless execs are better for the company and for employees then him. Much better.

Villans usually see themselves as heroes and everyone else as either stupid or sucker. That does not mean I have to adopt villans framing just because he looks charizmatic.