ABF | Central States Pension Financial Update

Not sure why I try, but here it goes anyway:
I don't understand why Crystal keeps trying. Accolades to the man for his respectable attempts but he has come hopelessly overarmed to the match.
 
Not sure why I try, but here it goes anyway:

(1) I haven't wavered on my stance.
(2) Read what I post, not what you think I mean. I said specifically "Western States is in much better shape than CSPF" That isn't the same as saying Western States is in "Good shape"
According to the actuary’s report to the IRS, on the Plan Funding Status and 2014 Funding Certification, required by the Pension Protection Act, the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Plan is at 91.5%. Just what funding percentage would a pension plan have to be at for you to call it in great shape?
http://www.wctpension.org/forms-documents-webcasts/plan-documents/funding-status

Why do you believe those "healthy funds" aren't under the federal consent decree? I think if you decide to really look into that issue with open eyes, you will see that millions in brokerage fees wasn't/isn't the problem. No matter how convenient the "blame Wall St" mantra.

I have already posted that I'm just a retired truck driver and not qualified to debate pension financing or investing. So unless I provide a link I don't claim anything I post to be a fact. It is just my opinion and I can only go by what I have read and the little I remember from back when the events actually occurred.

Why don't you tell me which other Teamster pension funds were taken over by the government under the consent decree because I don't know any other than the CSPF. But I do know that my pension fund is not under the consent decree.............This is an old article that I think pretty much explains it.
Since 1982, under a consent decree with the federal government, the fund has been run by prominent Wall Street firms and monitored by a federal court and the Labor Department. There have been no more shadowy investments, no more loans to crime bosses. Yet in these expert hands, the aging fund has fallen into greater financial peril than when James R. Hoffa, who built the Teamsters into a national power, used it as a slush fund.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/15/business/15teamster.html?pagewanted=print&position=&_r=0

No, following my logic it is the fault of the members of those funds that they allowed their representation to negotiate and accept the things they did. In this thread we are talking about the CSPF. If you want to debate why the 149 funds are in trouble we can do that too.

No, I don't want to debate anything with you. I only offered my opinion on this thread in response to Homesick's question if anyone cares. Debating with you would be a waste of time. The way you twist words and imply there meaning reminds me of Clinton's it depends on what the meaning of the word is is answer to the grand jury.
 
According to the actuary’s report to the IRS, on the Plan Funding Status and 2014 Funding Certification, required by the Pension Protection Act, the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Plan is at 91.5%. Just what funding percentage would a pension plan have to be at for you to call it in great shape?
http://www.wctpension.org/forms-documents-webcasts/plan-documents/funding-status

In my opinion exceeding 100% would be great shape. 100% would be good shape. Anything less than 100% means there isn't enough "there" to meet obligations, that's not great/good shape unless you are only speaking relative to other funds in worse shape.


http://www.actuary.org/files/80_Percent_Funding_IB_071912.pdf


Crystal said:
I have already posted that I'm just a retired truck driver and not qualified to debate pension financing or investing.

What you chose to do for a living is irrelevant to how well versed or qualified you are to debate a topic. You seem to have a better grip on pension related topics than most we just disagree on the "chicken or the egg".

Crystal said:
The way you twist words and imply there meaning reminds me of Clinton's it depends on what the meaning of the word is is answer to the grand jury.

You mean, I twist words like you took my words "in much better shape than" to mean something is in "good shape". Rosie O'Donnell is in much better shape than Michael Moore, doesn't mean that Rosie is in good shape. You call twisting words. I call it being "literal". You seem to insert motive into my words and interpret them to mean something other than what I say.
 
In my opinion exceeding 100% would be great shape. 100% would be good shape. Anything less than 100% means there isn't enough "there" to meet obligations, that's not great/good shape unless you are only speaking relative to other funds in worse shape.

Interesting but how, in your opinion, can a pension fund legally maintain a funding level over 100%? It is my understanding that IRS regulations prohibit pension plans from being overfunded. It is my understanding that it's a use it or lose it situation. That is why during past good years the funds used the excess money to raise accruals and other adjustable benefits like the 13th check. Pension plans were not allowed to invest or save the extra money for the inevitable down times in the stock market.
 
Interesting but how, in your opinion, can a pension fund legally maintain a funding level over 100%? It is my understanding that IRS regulations prohibit pension plans from being overfunded. It is my understanding that it's a use it or lose it situation.

I could be wrong, but that is not my understanding. I'm not aware of any such limitations, maybe it applies to public employees pension funds? As those funds are being bolstered by the taxpayers, I don't know.

Pensions and Investing Online issues an annual report where they gather data from the largest 100 "pension plans" and post their average funding percentage. In 2013 it was 93.5%, in 2007 it was 108.6%.
 
I could be wrong, but that is not my understanding. I'm not aware of any such limitations, maybe it applies to public employees pension funds? As those funds are being bolstered by the taxpayers, I don't know.

Pensions and Investing Online issues an annual report where they gather data from the largest 100 "pension plans" and post their average funding percentage. In 2013 it was 93.5%, in 2007 it was 108.6%.
Try this article and see what you think of it. The last paragraph does suggest that overfunding is now permitted. But the article also explains how the tax laws did prevent MEPFs from overfunding back when the money was there.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/09/how-the-irs-wrecked-your-pension.html
 
I'm not sure if I agree or not., but I do care. You and EX396 have taken the discussion to a level that's way out of my league. You and I started out arguing over the way the Kline-Miller Pension Reform bill was enacted. I still disagree with you on that. But I now see that you are knowledgeable on pension and funding issues so I quietly read and respect your opinions.....................As for EX396, he does bring up some good points. But IMO he has lost all credibility on this forum with his biased posts against the union and the our MEPFs. As I read his posts I expect to find comments aimed at attacking the Teamsters.
Crystal, you are right we all care. I know they are going to upset the apple cart sooner than later. If I am an ORPHAN and I do not know for sure, then I will miss the $16000.00 per year pay cut. But I shall live as we planned for this day because both of our parents outlived their pension plans which went bust. MY worries are for the ones who did not for reasons not of their own making. Take this case... A man retired two yeas ago, age 57 to take care of his sick wife who never worked. He is five years short of Social Security. He may be an orphan and takes a 60% hit. What is left for him?
 
That may or may not be true, I don't know. I have stopped reading the FedEx forum in which some of your posts attack the Teamster's pensions in general not just the CSPF. You have bad mouth the Teamsters for not insisting that Congress change funding rules years ago. Why should they change a system that has been working well for over 50 years?

The government created the CSPF problem not the Teamsters union or the fund's trustees. The Teamsters have been trying for years to have the consent decree lifted. The consent decree which turned control of the CSPF investments to Wall St resulting in billions of dollars in losses........The IRS added rules that forced the pension funds to raise accruals and adjustable benefits or lose the excess funds. Yet you blame the Teamsters for not insisting that the government change the rules. Only 10% of all MEPFs are Teamster funds but you blame the Teamsters. Your bias is obvious to me.




You have blamed the Teamsters union for not renegotiating contracts or work some magic to correct a problem that Congress has created and only Congress can fix.




You are correct, your posts on other threads have led me to believe you are only here to discredit and slander the Teamsters union. I said weeks ago that you had an anti Teamster agenda. You can't unring the bell. I expect nothing positive from your opinions.
Thanks Crystal!!!!!!!, it is about time someone else tells it like it is. The Teamsters are not in charge of the Central States Pension Fund.
 
Opps, I didn't mean to start a fight; it just looked like EX396 and I were dominating the conversation. I like to hear what others have to say so that I can learn. You know two ears and one mouth. So you can listen twice as much as you speak.
 
Try this article and see what you think of it. The last paragraph does suggest that overfunding is now permitted. But the article also explains how the tax laws did prevent MEPFs from overfunding back when the money was there.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/09/how-the-irs-wrecked-your-pension.html

I read the article, thanks for the link. I'm curious how the tax laws prevented MEPF's from overfunding. How did the code actually read? What I gathered from the article was that contributions made once the fund was "fully funded" were not tax deductible. That may act as a deterrent (no tax incentive) but certainly doesn't appear to have prevented it.
 
I read the article, thanks for the link. I'm curious how the tax laws prevented MEPF's from overfunding. How did the code actually read? What I gathered from the article was that contributions made once the fund was "fully funded" were not tax deductible. That may act as a deterrent (no tax incentive) but certainly doesn't appear to have prevented it.
I don't want to get in too far over my head on this. And I'm certainly not going to try and look up old tax laws which I probably wouldn't understand anyways. I'll leave that up to you if you want.

It's easy for you to sit there and second guess the decisions made by pension fund trustees 20-30 years ago. But remember the funds are made up of an equal number of trustees from the companies and the union. The trustees did what they felt was best for the funds at that time. The MEPFs had multi year nation contracts that I would think neither the unions nor the companies wanted to renegotiate every time the market went up on down. Do you actually think the company trustees would allow the pension contributions to have continued if they weren't still tax deductible? Don't forget that the pension funds had administrators and attorneys advising them on the laws and what their fiduciary responsibilities were.

The linked article explains the situation in a way that I can understand. You are entitled to your opinion but remember the funds operated under the watchful eyes of the IRS, DOL, DOJ, and the US Congress.

But the big multi-employer plans (MEPs) run by the unions had an even worse problem. Pension contributions were set by multi-year collective bargaining agreements with each local. Those companies didn't have the option of stopping their contributions; to do so they'd have had to go back and negotiate a whole new contract with the unions (at the height of a labor market boom, to boot). So the money kept pouring into the pension funds even though they were already overfunded.
For obvious reasons, the pension funds didn't want to go to employers and explain why their contributions suddenly weren't tax deductible any more. But the IRS rules had them in a difficult place. The rules were very clear: if the fund was overfunded, you had to either stop making contributions, or increase the benefits. And the IRS refused to budge. So the pension plans increased the benefits.

If that explanation is an accurate description of the situation then I agree the funds were forced by IRS regulations to do the prudent think and use the excess fund to increase benefits rather than the alternative of renegotiating the contracts. Don't forget we are not just talking about the Teamsters. There are over 2000 MEPFs that were affected by the tax code.
 
The crux of the issue is that once the funds were grossly underfunded the members did not make it clear to the IBT that next time they sat down to negotiate a new contract it was imperative that the pension be brought up to snuff. In retrospect, it is quite clear that wasn't demanded by the members and other items to be negotiated took precedence. Now, you have the situation you have. I don't blame the IRS, the tax code, the employers or even the IBT. The IBT negotiates for its' members. You have to let them know what is important/unimportant to you. They didn't make this a priority, so it's reasonable to conclude that most Teamsters were more worried about a $1/hr raise or some work rule.
 
The crux of the issue is that once the funds were grossly underfunded the members did not make it clear to the IBT that next time they sat down to negotiate a new contract it was imperative that the pension be brought up to snuff. In retrospect, it is quite clear that wasn't demanded by the members and other items to be negotiated took precedence. Now, you have the situation you have. I don't blame the IRS, the tax code, the employers or even the IBT. The IBT negotiates for its' members. You have to let them know what is important/unimportant to you. They didn't make this a priority, so it's reasonable to conclude that most Teamsters were more worried about a $1/hr raise or some work rule.
Again I don't want to get in over my head. But I'll give you my simple opinion on that. Before our 2008 contract was renegotiated I received a questionnaire from the IBT asking me to choose from the list, in the order of importance, the issues that were up for negotiation. At that time my pension fund was in great shape. But with 39 years in the union I chose pension funding as the most important issue. As it turned out the new contract took $1 an hour from the negotiated raise and added it to the company's funding of our pension and welfare. So apparently the Teamsters listened to the members and negotiated accordingly. Who even suspected what was going to happen to the economy just 6 months later?

The pension "bubble" burst, for the approx.150 of the 2000 MEPFs, 6 years ago due to the great recession. The Teamsters were already in the first year of a 5 year contract and no one in my little world expected this could have happen.

Retirees can't vote or don't have any input into the contract negotiations. Many actively working needed that raise in their pockets to feed their families. I think that the Teamsters negotiating committee did what they felt was best for all of it's members. It's easy for you to sit there and tell me what we should have done. Like they say hindsight is 20-20
 
Thanks FreightMaster, That is basically what I was arguing with EX396. The pension fund is not broke (loosing money) but it is only holding ground because of the ROI (Return On Investments). The problem is what happens when the fund managers cannot get HIGH ROI? Or the fund invests into equities that loose money (2008-2009)? The fix is easy if we do it soon, before the fund starts loosing capital.
I believe it is in the "Red Zone" meaning at least 20% underfunded. Meaning there will not be enough funds to pay the expected benefits.
 
Again I don't want to get in over my head. But I'll give you my simple opinion on that. Before our 2008 contract was renegotiated I received a questionnaire from the IBT asking me to choose from the list, in the order of importance, the issues that were up for negotiation. At that time my pension fund was in great shape. But with 39 years in the union I chose pension funding as the most important issue. As it turned out the new contract took $1 an hour from the negotiated raise and added it to the company's funding of our pension and welfare. So apparently the Teamsters listened to the members and negotiated accordingly. Who even suspected what was going to happen to the economy just 6 months later?

The pension "bubble" burst, for the approx.150 of the 2000 MEPFs, 6 years ago due to the great recession. The Teamsters were already in the first year of a 5 year contract and no one in my little world expected this could have happen.

Retirees can't vote or don't have any input into the contract negotiations. Many actively working needed that raise in their pockets to feed their families. I think that the Teamsters negotiating committee did what they felt was best for all of it's members. It's easy for you to sit there and tell me what we should have done. Like they say hindsight is 20-20

One of the pitfalls of collective bargaining. Someone else is going to negotiate on your behalf and they may not always have similar goals. Perhaps you had your priorities in order but your brothers and sisters didn't share the same vision. Perhaps the IBT didn't really care what the group wanted. Even if all the brothers and sisters currently working wanted the pension contributions to cease; if they wanted those monies to be made available in the form of 401(k) matching contributions, something the employee could control, something the employee could leave to their heirs in perpetuity, the IBT wouldn't have allowed it. Doing so would have ensured that the fund collapsed while many retirees were counting on it. The IBT may have asked, but they likely didn't care. They just hoped that what they had to do and what the members wanted was reasonably similar. Prevent a mutiny. Look like the good guy.
 
I believe it is in the "Red Zone" meaning at least 20% underfunded. Meaning there will not be enough funds to pay the expected benefits.

Puff Driver that is true but not accurate. Let me see if I can put this in a context most people can understand. Most people (me included) operate our family finances in the “red zone.” What that means is if you add all your bills, house, car, credit cards, home equity loans, students loans, loans to the leg breakers, etc, you would not have enough money in checking and savings or your wallet to pay the debt if it was all called due immediately. Now, does that mean you are going broke? No, because you financed your debt over time. You, hopefully, will continue to work and earn a paycheck that will allow you to payoff the debt over time. Remember the song, “Time is on my side” by the rolling stone? It is true, most of us who have debt have time on our side. The pension fund is no different. And consider this, the pension fund's capital, the amount the fund has in savings, checking and its wallet, increased by $790 million dollars according to the funds quarterly statement. How do you claim you are going broke when your debt is reduced and you cash has increased??? Try explaining that to a bankruptcy judge. “Hay judge I have more cash now and less debt now than I did, but I'm in the red zone so I need to default on this debt to get me out of the red zone.”
 
One of the pitfalls of collective bargaining. Someone else is going to negotiate on your behalf and they may not always have similar goals. Perhaps you had your priorities in order but your brothers and sisters didn't share the same vision. Perhaps the IBT didn't really care what the group wanted. Even if all the brothers and sisters currently working wanted the pension contributions to cease; if they wanted those monies to be made available in the form of 401(k) matching contributions, something the employee could control, something the employee could leave to their heirs in perpetuity, the IBT wouldn't have allowed it. Doing so would have ensured that the fund collapsed while many retirees were counting on it. The IBT may have asked, but they likely didn't care. They just hoped that what they had to do and what the members wanted was reasonably similar. Prevent a mutiny. Look like the good guy.

I totally disagree with you. Simply put the IBT did a much better job of negotiating a nationwide contract than I or my brothers and sisters could ever have done negotiating for ourselves. Just ask the nonunion drivers at companies like Conway, R&L etc. Just how much success have they had in negotiations with their employers? Does FedEx, OD or Estes actually negotiate with their employees?

The IBT did listen to us and the companies that's why $1 an hour of our raise was put into the pension and welfare funds. Besides shoring up the funds we actually were helping the companies pay down their underfunded liability.

As for your suggestion that we change to a 401 k, even if we wanted it, do you really think the companies would agree to that? I don't think they would be willing to make matching contributions so long as they were still legally obligated for the withdrawal liabilities.

If the IBT didn't care then why did they waste the time and expense of printing, mailing and tallying the questionnaires?
 
I totally disagree with you. Simply put the IBT did a much better job of negotiating a nationwide contract than I or my brothers and sisters could ever have done negotiating for ourselves.

I didn't say that you would have done a better job negotiating. I said someone else is going to negotiate on your behalf and they may not share similar goals.

Crystal said:
The IBT did listen to us and the companies that's why $1 an hour of our raise was put into the pension and welfare funds. Besides shoring up the funds we actually were helping the companies pay down their underfunded liability.

Lipstick on a pig.

Crystal said:
As for your suggestion that we change to a 401 k, even if we wanted it, do you really think the companies would agree to that? I don't think they would be willing to make matching contributions so long as they were still legally obligated for the withdrawal liabilities.

If they were still obligated....no. If they met criteria that excluded them under the MPPAA....yes.

Crystal said:
If the IBT didn't care then why did they waste the time and expense of printing, mailing and tallying the questionnaires?

Goodwill to its' membership. Increasing their odds of a negotiated contract being ratified.
 
Top