ABF | Congress, Hoffa Butcher Teamster Pensions!

[Homesick]

Thanks ABFer but I'm stuck in Jackson Ms. Only rain here.

 

[EX396]

EX396, Are the numbers your quoting accurate?

I mean, is the AVERAGE retiree collecting 36K, is the average payee paying 15k, and is the average payer to payee ratio 1:3.26?

I went and looked up the exact numbers. The numbers I quoted were maximum:maximum, and off the top of my head.

The latest verifiable ratio I found of $benefits:$contribution is 4.01:1
The latest verifiable ratio I found of retires:contributors is 3.387

I would like to point out something you forgot; the ROI (return on investment). Let's assume you are correct and the pension fund has a valuation of $500,000 for every retiree (I have no idea what the valuation is, I made this up for example only). And lets assume that $500,000 per retiree is earning 5% long term (again I don't know but 5% should be sustainable over the long term). That would give you $25,000 per year for every retiree before you even had to touch the principal. If you then take 36k -25k=11k reduction in principal. If you lower that 36k by 10% ($3,600) a year you have $32,400 (paying to retiree)-$25,000 (ROI)=$7,400 reduction in principal. Just my thoughts on matter.

Yes, I decided not to factor in the ROI because it is so insignificant given the assets and number of folks in the plan, It doesn't even enter the equation, so to speak. I agree that 5% would be quite a reasonable and conservative estimate.

As of Y13Q3 the plan had $18.188B in assets and 210,067 current retires with another 62,024 on the horizon. That's less than $67,000 per plan participant.

The big deal is $4.01 going out for every $1 coming in. Less than $67K per plan participant in total assets.

https://tdu.org/sites/default/files/CentralStatesFinancialThirdQtr2013.pdf

 

[Homesick]

Thanks EX396.

The way I read this financial statement the fund is loosing money on income vs. expense NOT including investment income (pension fund pg2 (3)). But when investment income is included (pension fund pg2 (1)) the fund increased by $422,850,000.00. It also shows that more and more money is having to be taken from investment income (1,616,635,000 for 2013 up from 1,597,352,000 in 2012). And I know the stock market gave some great returns over that same period so the fund is in downward spiral which will get worse through diminishing returns.

 

[Getoverit]

1. 
   
2. Well,........ that's nice that you can regularly pull in 15% profit from the stock market, year in and year out. You're doing better than the four professional investment firms that our pension fund has on retainer to handle our stocks and bonds. Would you like a job?

 

[Crystal]

EX396, Are the numbers your quoting accurate? I mean, is the AVERAGE retiree collecting 36K, is the average payee paying 15k and is the average payer to payee ratio 1:3.26? I am asking because I don't know.
I would like to point out something you forgot; the ROI (return on investment). Let's assume you are correct and the pension fund has a valuation of $500,000 for every retiree (I have no idea what the valuation is, I made this up for example only). And lets assume that $500,000 per retiree is earning 5% long term (again I don't know but 5% should be sustainable over the long term). That would give you $25,000 per year for every retiree before you even had to touch the principal. If you then take 36k -25k=11k reduction in principal. If you lower that 36k by 10% ($3,600) a year you have $32,400 (paying to retiree)-$25,000 (ROI)=$7,400 reduction in principal. Just my thoughts on matter.

Homesick, I like your logic. I'm not going to try and pretend that I understand it, but I like it...... I remember from a union meeting 7 or 8 years ago something about the PPA requiring a minimum of 7.5% return on the funds investments. I only bring that up because the PPA of 2006 was passed as a stand alone bill to improve pension funds. The Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 was passed as a stand alone bill after Congress had debated 3 different versions. H.R. 6382 H.R. 7327 and S. 1974.

It took 2 years and 3 versions of the bill for Congress just to make corrections to the PPA. But yet Kline-Miller Pension Reform was passed without any debate or even being read by the House and Senate members. Hopefully after the new Congress has actually read and researched the bill we will find out before it's too late if it really is the "best damn amendment ever written or the biggest mistake we ever made"

I took this comment from an article written on 12/12/14 before the Senate agreed to Kline-Miller, as written without debate, and was attached as an amendment to the Omnibus Funding bill. The article was written about employers getting underfunding and withdrawal liability relief from Congress

So, what’s next? Well, laws do not become laws simply because the House passed them. There is has already been heavy anti-reform commentary coming from organized labor and Democrats in the Senate. Plus, the Senate might have ideas about how to improve things that are different than what the House proposes. And who knows what the President would do if presented with a final versionone side of Congress. Just don’t start celebrating until the final buzzer.

http://employeebenefits.foxrothschi...rm-dont-count-your-chickens-before-they-pass/.

But it is nice to see that there is some discussion about relief, and even better that it actually made it through the house

 

[Homesick]

Crystal, I understand why you disagree (or are upset) because the bill did not get enough debate time. I believe you have a valid point; it is just that with money problems, the sooner you make a change the better off you are. Remember, any changes to our pension has to be voted on. I don't understand politics but I do understand money. I really do have an MBA degree and my undergrad studies had limited political science classes. I hate politics!!!!! To “bottom line” the link EX396 posted, the report is 15 months old and the “pension fund” did not loose money. But the Rate of Return had to be so high as to be unsustainable. The report also pointed out (by reading between the lines) that a small change to the retirees pension amount could save the pension. The ratio of payers to payees is so high that a small change to the denominator (payee) could easily make the fund solvent.

 

[canaryinthemine]

Crystal, I understand why you disagree (or are upset) because the bill did not get enough debate time. I believe you have a valid point; it is just that with money problems, the sooner you make a change the better off you are. Remember, any changes to our pension has to be voted on. I don't understand politics but I do understand money. I really do have an MBA degree and my undergrad studies had limited political science classes. I hate politics!!!!! To “bottom line” the link EX396 posted, the report is 15 months old and the “pension fund” did not loose money. But the Rate of Return had to be so high as to be unsustainable. The report also pointed out (by reading between the lines) that a small change to the retirees pension amount could save the pension. The ratio of payers to payees is so high that a small change to the denominator (payee) could easily make the fund solvent.

I think what a lot of us are concerned about is that the idea about a "small change" to retirees' pensions.......once certain factions in Congress get their baby toes in the door,.....will eventually make the "small change" into something drastic and unliveable. I think for many of us, the first clue was,......the lack of debate,......and the artificial sense of urgency.....We're all older,.....And when somebody tells you something must be done in a hurry to avert disaster,....I think the first instinct is suspicion......

 

[bigtruk_us]

Maybe these pension funds wouldn't have been in danger of failing.Had our government not sold the American people and the workers out.Selling and moving great paying jobs to other countries is not conducive of a great economy.More people are out of work and/or retired.Than there is working.A deficit like that.Surely will effect many people's retirement plans.

 

[EX396]

I think what a lot of us are concerned about is that the idea about a "small change" to retirees' pensions.......once certain factions in Congress get their baby toes in the door,.....will eventually make the "small change" into something drastic and unliveable. I think for many of us, the first clue was,......the lack of debate,......and the artificial sense of urgency.....We're all older,.....And when somebody tells you something must be done in a hurry to avert disaster,....I think the first instinct is suspicion......

For one in the worst shape, such as "CSPF" a 1st order approximation, back of the napkin-type guesstimation says 20% cut in all retirees benefits makes that plan solvent.

That's a much better outcome than collecting the maximum insured value. Would everybody be willing to take a 20% reduction, or would they say "screw it, let it fail for my brothers and sisters after I am dead. We'll just blame it on government or wall street."

Maybe these pension funds wouldn't have been in danger of failing.Had our government not sold the American people and the workers out.Selling and moving great paying jobs to other countries is not conducive of a great economy.More people are out of work and/or retired.Than there is working.A deficit like that.Surely will effect many people's retirement plans.

What's not conducive to a great economy is a country that neither exports or imports enough goods to satisfy the needs of their populace.

If you want to make a difference, work to make it more attractive to companies to keep their jobs here. Don't over-regulate them. Don't make it too expensive to do business here and they won't leave.

 

[bigtruk_us]

For one in the worst shape, such as "CSPF" a 1st order approximation, back of the napkin-type guesstimation says 20% cut in all retirees benefits makes that plan solvent.

That's a much better outcome than collecting the maximum insured value. Would everybody be willing to take a 20% reduction, or would they say "screw it, let it fail for my brothers and sisters after I am dead. We'll just blame it on government or wall street."



What's not conducive to a great economy is a country that neither exports or imports enough goods to satisfy the needs of their populace.

If you want to make a difference, work to make it more attractive to companies to keep jobs their here. Don't over-regulate them. Don't make it too expensive to do business here and they won't leave.

Exactly my point.Self inflicted shot to the foot.Do these things on purpose to get the American on the government hind teat.Then bad mouth the unions as if we are the problem.

 

[Getoverit]

For one in the worst shape, such as "CSPF" a 1st order approximation, back of the napkin-type guesstimation says 20% cut in all retirees benefits makes that plan solvent.

That's a much better outcome than collecting the maximum insured value. Would everybody be willing to take a 20% reduction, or would they say "screw it, let it fail for my brothers and sisters after I am dead. We'll just blame it on government or wall street."



What's not conducive to a great economy is a country that neither exports or imports enough goods to satisfy the needs of their populace.

If you want to make a difference, work to make it more attractive to companies to keep their jobs here. Don't over-regulate them. Don't make it too expensive to do business here and they won't leave.

I knew that crap was coming, never fails!!! He always fails to tell us how from the CEO'S on down are ****** company's for millions a year!! You have these common Theives terminating there employment to get their severance package and redoing there new CONTRACT while never leaving their freaking offices! Yes lets not price em out of the market !I would hate to see one of the crooks have to take a cut in pay, wouldn't it be terrible if he would have to move out of his 5 million dollar house to a 3 million dollar house!!! Wouldn't that be a shame !! Damn, don't worry if your family is struggling! Just keep them wages low so the upper boys can keep pilfering all the profits. Dumbest :: I have ever heard!

 

[Crystal]

Crystal, I understand why you disagree (or are upset) because the bill did not get enough debate time.

I'm upset not because the bill didn't get enough debate time. I'm upset because the bill didn't get any debate time. The only on record discussion I could even find was from the House Rules Committee hearing that I posted last week. It looks more like it's about Miller caving to Kline in order to get his name on the bill before he retired. Or maybe he didn't trust the Committee, House, Senate and the process of enacting legislation to carry on without him.

Miller, D-Martinez, had worked with Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., on a bill to partially save these workers' modest pensions. But they couldn't get the controversial legislation to the House floor for a stand-alone vote. Then, the proposal was incorporated into the spending bill. This was Miller's last chance.


Unfortunately, it doesn't require a path toward full funding to prepare for the next economic downturn, says Jean-Pierre Aubry, an economist at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College who has studied the act. "You hate to see all these cuts happening and it doesn't even save the plan."

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/...ring-rep-george-miller-breaks?source=infinite

 

[Crystal]

This link was posted by Darryl on the YRC forum

And the government and financial industry have tried to pin the trouble on the poor. “The whole idea,” Hudson says, is that “a few years ago there were, like, four workers for every retiree, so it was easy for the workers to pay into the funds and organize it … there was enough to pay. But now that the economy’s been de-industrialized, there are more retirees for every worker. So the Obama administration is saying, well, the problem is that there are just not enough workers to pay. Sorry, they lose.

“But the Congressional Budget Office has found that that’s really not much of the problem at all. A lot of the problem is that” the Wall Street people who were entrusted with the pensions “are just as crooked as the mafia”—which often managed pensions before Wall Street. The financial firms pocket the profits and shove the losses onto their clients. “That’s pretty much what Wall Street’s been doing with the pension funds,” Hudson says.

http://www.truthdig.com/eartothegro...105?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Wall Street people entrusted with the pensions. Isn't that what happened to the CSPF thanks to the Federal Government's consent decree? Haven't we been reading where James R. Hoffa's pension loans to the mob got better returns than those from the Wall St brokers?

 

[Deleted member 5115]

It sounds like time for a revolution is growing closer all the time. How much more are we going to give up before it finally happens?