34..... The problem here is that the pension participants almost certainly do not meet the qualifications of accredited investors individually. Treating accreditation as a "pass through" property of investor suitability is a gross lapse in the regulatory structure.
Your info whether cut and pasted or not is mostly correct. But when you paste statements as wrong as the above sentences I just have to shake my head. 25% of the all American pension assets are in alts. The pension is obviously accredited by definition. To say the pensioners need to be is completely false. And so far from the truth as to discredit everything else you 5yped.
Oh and your comments on sales practices, come on kkr bx and Pam were not created yesterday. They know the rules. And these weren't firm based black boxes, they were funds of funds which is far different. You completely ignore that these were multi year durations and absolve the boards role of monitoring returns. They stayed with them, why? And who's fault is that. Crying after the fact is sour grapes, the old would have could gave should have.
Model asset allocation strategies were thrown on their heads after 2008 2009. Pension funds were decimated by a 8 to 10 year negative return in equities. And QE, bought to us by Obama, killed their fixed income multi decade future returns. In other words, it forced pensions to consider alts.
Its easy to say they should have been all s+p in 2010, but the boards were too scared to do so.
From what little I know of their portfolios, bonds have normally been their largest allocations