You may not approve of either BP or News Corp but if they satisfy the criteria then so be as far as pension funds are concerned then so be it. Any funds which dumped NC shares after the BSkyB takeover lapse and the NOWT debacle have not done their members any favours - share values are already back at they where they were prior to either event.

News Corp had already made it clear that their policy was a major share buy back. Pissing everyone off allowed them to do that at c.2/3rds of the current price. Sometimes you really can't make this shit up.

and anything less than that can not be invested in.

And what kind of returns should be demanded.

After what they did with regard to bundled toxic mortgages and the exotic financial instruments based thereon.

But as to specifics, I'm afraid I can't be of any help, sorry. I don't trust the market - it's for 'dumb money', IMO. The smart money knows how to manipulate markets and suck your blood until you're lifeless and impoverished. Obviously, that's not everyone, but it happens far too much.

I'm curious what a market would look like without rating agencies.

Maybe not technically, but the point is, yes, there would be pension funds without markets.

A market without rating agencies probably would look something like pre-Great Depression, as I don't think they were established until round about that time. But there have certainly been markets without rating agencies.

That makes all the difference.

By that I mean, you would have much more market manipulation, pump-and-dump, cornering markets, etc. Stocks would be pumped and primed for sale to 'dumb money', stock price goes way up, then the stock, suddenly, is dumped by 'smart money', cratering the value of the stock.

So return rates would really be much more like casino rates - that is, have a spin, maybe you'll hit the jackpot, maybe you'll lose everything, but in the end, the house will always win.

Anyway, this discussion is beyond my paygrade, but there are lots of really good books about markets and how to invest.

It seems like a better option would be some sort of super social security that actually paid a guaranteed living wage after retirement.

As with single payer or the public option.

Congress serves big money interests. Voters ALWAYS come second in their list of priorities. Since the social security tax eats into the resources available to businesses (and invariably reducing maximum feasible profit), Congress and DC will only diminish social security, not seek to strengthen it. Certainly, if benefits lag the real rate of inflation (which is the current state of affairs), it serves the unspoken agenda to weaken the program.

Talking about a 'super social security' program is fun, but so much needs to change before we even get to laying groundwork for it.

Before that they can be in more agressive funds,say 7-10% annual return.