FedEx Freight | The Union Debate Thread

[SwampRatt]

What Swamp doesn't tell the class, while he continues his attempt to mislead the masses with the -5 billion pension number from the company's financial statement, is that that number is a consolidation of pension plan numbers, including all of the international pension plans, unfunded, non-qualified, etc. For anyone to use that number in an attempt to suggest that our plan is 5 billion underfunded is not only incorrect, but is also a flat out lie.

Our pension plan, FXFE, is a separate plan, not separately disclosed in that number but disclosed in the Annual Funding Notice that most of us has already received. Now Swamp accuses me of using "the most favorable, optimistic, and adjusted figures possible", but what he doesn't tell the class is that as of 2012, Federal Laws changed how pension plans calculate their liabilities. Prior to 2012, pension plans used a two year average of interest rates which is conducive to Swamp since it supports his claim of our pension fund being underfunded but as most of the class realizes, this is 2016 and not only does the law require pension plans to take into account a 25 year average of interest rates under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act and the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014, but under this requirement our pension plan is in fact funded at 108.19% according to the law, and it's also WHY I chose to use this number!!

I would also like to point out before someone attempts to start another rumor is that while our pension plan is currently over funded, it is against the law for the assets of a qualified pension plan to be used to pay benefits for any other plan for any other purpose.

I'll ask again, why does the IBT and its supporters continue to mislead, misrepresent, and in some cases flat out lie in an attempt to gain support??? Is it because the facts just don't backup their claims??

Notice, Red could not make it through one complete sentence without misleading the entire class. Don't think I've ever commented on the horrors of our underfunded status. I've posted the numbers as part of a bigger picture, but never told you what to think about the numbers, or mentioned them specifically.

If it's not too much trouble Redracer, please show the class where I have ever specifically complained about the underfunded status. I don't think I ever have.

Meanwhile, we'll cover some education, while Red chases his tail, and gets acquainted with the search feature. We will try to keep it as simple and brief as possible, unless and untill questions are raised.

Map-21, the legislation Red mentioned, was signed by Obama, and LOWERED the minimum contribution. This is what made possible such claims of overfunded status.

"MAP-21 is primarily a transportation bill that also includes student-loan interest-rate relief. However, as a revenue-raiser, it includes pension plan provisions that:

• Reduce the adverse impact of historically low interest rates on the three “segment rates” (corporate-bond interest rates) used by many pension plans to calculate funding liabilities. The primary change is to smooth segment rate changes by calculating each rate based on the average of that segment rate over 25 years — a much longer period than the two-year period currently used to determine segment rates.
• Impose a minimum floor and maximum cap on the percentage of the 25-year average segment rate that can be used. The floor-and-cap corridor expands in future years.
• Create additional disclosure requirements to participants about the impact of the new rates.
• Provide for additional opportunities to transfer excess assets to other retiree benefits.
• Increase PBGC premiums, starting in 2013."

https://www.mcguirewoods.com/Client...bilization-Finally-Here-under-MAP-21-Law.aspx

These changes help to offset the effect of unnaturally low interest rates on the projected liabilities due under company pensions plans. Companies that utilize this reduction to the maximum allowed may run into further troubles when/if rates continue to be low.

FedEx seems to be maintaining the previously planned contribution levels, thereby showing a surplus in funding. This is wise and gets no complaints from me.

Again, the changes in the requirements, and the lower mandates are at play here, allowing 108.19% (adjusted) to be shown, rather than 88.1%.

Now there is a good reason why I've not participated in the concern as to the level of the underfunded status. We will cover that in the next lesson.

In the meantime, while Redracer comes to terms with his inability to recall who said what, we will venture into the world of the "Freight Pension", and what is a realistic and worthy of debate.

Red, keep searching. The rest of the class, stay tuned.

 

[Crazy Trucker]

Crazy train said it right our portable peanuts plan.

 

[johndeere4020]

Crazy train said it right our portable peanuts plan.

You still haven't addressed the fact that it's not 5 billion in the hole and trust they can't just take it away like you claimed. The FACT is truth monster it is very well funded and solvent.

 

[johndeere4020]

Notice, Red could not make it through one complete sentence without misleading the entire class. Don't think I've ever commented on the horrors of our underfunded status. I've posted the numbers as part of a bigger picture, but never told you what to think about the numbers, or mentioned them specifically.

If it's not too much trouble Redracer, please show the class where I have ever specifically complained about the underfunded status. I don't think I ever have.

Meanwhile, we'll cover some education, while Red chases his tail, and gets acquainted with the search feature. We will try to keep it as simple and brief as possible, unless and untill questions are raised.

Map-21, the legislation Red mentioned, was signed by Obama, and LOWERED the minimum contribution. This is what made possible such claims of overfunded status.

"MAP-21 is primarily a transportation bill that also includes student-loan interest-rate relief. However, as a revenue-raiser, it includes pension plan provisions that:

• Reduce the adverse impact of historically low interest rates on the three “segment rates” (corporate-bond interest rates) used by many pension plans to calculate funding liabilities. The primary change is to smooth segment rate changes by calculating each rate based on the average of that segment rate over 25 years — a much longer period than the two-year period currently used to determine segment rates.
• Impose a minimum floor and maximum cap on the percentage of the 25-year average segment rate that can be used. The floor-and-cap corridor expands in future years.
• Create additional disclosure requirements to participants about the impact of the new rates.
• Provide for additional opportunities to transfer excess assets to other retiree benefits.
• Increase PBGC premiums, starting in 2013."

https://www.mcguirewoods.com/Client...bilization-Finally-Here-under-MAP-21-Law.aspx

These changes help to offset the effect of unnaturally low interest rates on the projected liabilities due under company pensions plans. Companies that utilize this reduction to the maximum allowed may run into further troubles when/if rates continue to be low.

FedEx seems to be maintaining the previously planned contribution levels, thereby showing a surplus in funding. This is wise and gets no complaints from me.

Again, the changes in the requirements, and the lower mandates are at play here, allowing 108.19% (adjusted) to be shown, rather than 88.1%.

Now there is a good reason why I've not participated in the concern as to the level of the underfunded status. We will cover that in the next lesson.

In the meantime, while Redracer comes to terms with his inability to recall who said what, we will venture into the world of the "Freight Pension", and what is a realistic and worthy of debate.

Red, keep searching. The rest of the class, stay tuned.

I'm waiting with baited breath.

 

[SwampRatt]

While many want to go round and round about Central States Pension, and how it compares to FedEx Freight's pension plan, it seems to me to be a waste of energy and resources. The main factors that separate the two are funding and liabilities. Both factors are vastly different between the two, therefore parallels don't really exist in terms of corrections needed or bargaining required.

For those on bargaining committees, or if I was, I would not place excessive funding on the list of bargaining issues. In fact, I would not have it on the list at all. The risk of needing it to be 100% funded is so remote as to be of little benefit, unless FXFE went out of business before the members collected. Not impossible, but very unlikely.

Now, as a topic of concern, I've not considered the funding status of our pension to be worthy of any effort to improve it. The truth is, by design, pension funding is a long term proposition. Fully funding it, on day one, is unnecessary and cost prohibitive. A total waste of funding that could be better placed elsewhere.

A far more worthy position would be to increase the rate at which benefits are accrued. This is not only worthy of the effort, but realistic, reasonable, and achievable, IMHO.

If there is consensus, the case could be made (negotiated for those in such a position) that there is room for improvement.

Case in point... Credit issued, as a percentage, based on years of service. Freight vs Express:

Freight:

Express:

Express receives more 60% + higher compensation credits than Freight, in the early years (3% vs 5%). Big difference, considering the number of years at that rate.

2% more per year across the board would make a significant difference in the end result. It is also quite reasonable, as Express already enjoys that rate. Anyone disagree?

Redracer, keep searching. The rest of the class, we can discuss the challenges next. Stay tuned

 

[johndeere4020]

While many want to go round and round about Central States Pension, and how it compares to FedEx Freight's pension plan, it seems to me to be a waste of energy and resources. The main factors that separate the two are funding and liabilities. Both factors are vastly different between the two, therefore parallels don't really exist in terms of corrections needed or bargaining required.

For those on bargaining committees, or if I was, I would not place excessive funding on the list of bargaining issues. In fact, I would not have it on the list at all. The risk of needing it to be 100% funded is so remote as to be of little benefit, unless FXFE went out of business before the members collected. Not impossible, but very unlikely.

Now, as a topic of concern, I've not considered the funding status of our pension to be worthy of any effort to improve it. The truth is, by design, pension funding is a long term proposition. Fully funding it, on day one, is unnecessary and cost prohibitive. A total waste of funding that could be better placed elsewhere.

A far more worthy position would be to increase the rate at which benefits are accrued. This is not only worthy of the effort, but realistic, reasonable, and achievable, IMHO.

If there is consensus, the case could be made (negotiated for those in such a position) that there is room for improvement.

Case in point... Credit issued, as a percentage, based on years of service. Freight vs Express:

Freight:

Express:

Express receives more 60% + higher compensation credits than Freight, in the early years (3% vs 5%). Big difference, considering the number of years at that rate.

2% more per year across the board would make a significant difference in the end result. It is also quite reasonable, as Express already enjoys that rate. Anyone disagree?

Redracer, keep searching. The rest of the class, we can discuss the challenges next. Stay tuned

I agree with you totally and I also think they could and should do better. My place in this argument and if I'm correct you agree is that comparing Fedex's pension to Central States (or any other MEPF for that matter) is apples and oranges. We know Central States is a mess and we see that even though is not a "great" plan Fedex's plan is in good shape. I've pointed out many times Fedex is responsible for this obligation and could use other resources to pay for it a third party pension doesn't have this option. Apparently they have already done so by making "voluntary" contributions to the fund. Maybe we can stop comparing the two, somehow I doubt it. I'm curious what a 30 year employee would be projected to draw from this fund.

 

[SwampRatt]

I agree with you totally and I also think they could and should do better. My place in this argument and if I'm correct you agree is that comparing Fedex's pension to Central States (or any other MEPF for that matter) is apples and oranges. We know Central States is a mess and we see that even though is not a "great" plan Fedex's plan is in good shape. I've pointed out many times Fedex is responsible for this obligation and could use other resources to pay for it a third party pension doesn't have this option. Apparently they have already done so by making "voluntary" contributions to the fund. Maybe we can stop comparing the two, somehow I doubt it. I'm curious what a 30 year employee would be projected to draw from this fund.

I agree. The FXFE plan is not solely reliant on circumstances beyond their control, like the CSPF is.

Not sure what 30 years in would return, but the last time I checked my numbers, after 19 yrs in the plan, it should pay $5603/yr ($466/mo.) in current dollars, which keeps the numbers in perspective. Of course road would do better.

 

[SwampRatt]

Now the challenging part. That consensus thing. The uncomfortable truth about seeking pension gains, IMHO.

Those who would benefit most (younger newest hires), are likely to be less interested in this than those who care the most, (those nearing retirement).

You see, this is where we are. A dilemma of sorts, when funding improvements. In order to benefit the most people, the only areas equally beneficial to all is either to place all gains into wages, and/or a benefit with an immediate return. This leaves the pension increase as unlikely to be a universally popular area to fund, unless gradual increases were weighted even more heavily to the later years earnings.

There is always a certain dollar amount available. The question is where to put it. Solid Union representation "could" increase the dollar amount available, but the dilemma of where to put it still remains.

IMHO, only after the prevailing wage has been achieved at all locations, AND top shelf insurance is offered, then retirement can become the priority. At that point (again IMHO) an improved 401k match would be a priority in front of the pension increase.

We could debate the order of importance and whether some mixture of the above would be in order. Things being different from one location to the next would certainly effect the weight given to each from a given perspective. I think the above is a solid list, in order of priority.

 

[johndeere4020]

Now the challenging part. That consensus thing. The uncomfortable truth about seeking pension gains, IMHO.

Those who would benefit most (younger newest hires), are likely to be less interested in this than those who care the most, (those nearing retirement).

You see, this is where we are. A dilemma of sorts, when funding improvements. In order to benefit the most people, the only areas equally beneficial to all is either to place all gains into wages, and/or a benefit with an immediate return. This leaves the pension increase as unlikely to be a universally popular area to fund, unless gradual increases were weighted even more heavily to the later years earnings.

There is always a certain dollar amount available. The question is where to put it. Solid Union representation "could" increase the dollar amount available, but the dilemma of where to put it still remains.

IMHO, only after the prevailing wage has been achieved at all locations, AND top shelf insurance is offered, then retirement can become the priority. At that point (again IMHO) an improved 401k match would be a priority in front of the pension increase.

We could debate the order of importance and whether some mixture of the above would be in order. Things being different from one location to the next would certainly effect the weight given to each from a given perspective. I think the above is a solid list, in order of priority.

I'm not sure you'll end up with a pension contribution AND a 401K match I don't know if any contracts that do that, they're may be some trade that does but I've never heard of it. If it were up to me I would take a 401K over the pension, the construction company I used to work for are Teamsters the company payed out of Central states (there was going to be a coup) the drivers now get $7 an hour in a 401K. I think that seems like a better deal than my pension, it gives me a lot to think about I can tell you that.

 

[SwampRatt]

I'm not sure you'll end up with a pension contribution AND a 401K match I don't know if any contracts that do that, they're may be some trade that does but I've never heard of it. If it were up to me I would take a 401K over the pension, the construction company I used to work for are Teamsters the company payed out of Central states (there was going to be a coup) the drivers now get $7 an hour in a 401K. I think that seems like a better deal than my pension, it gives me a lot to think about I can tell you that.

Well we have a 401k match (50% up to 6%) and the pension. Either or both "could" be enhanced.

I agree that the 401k is the preferred option, due to the higher return, and personal investment options available.

That $7/hour contribution is a pretty significant sum. What is that, 20-25% more or less? Wow!

My list of preference is solely based on what is the most benefit to all AND the biggest bang for the buck. Wages give the individual the option of where to put it. Insurance, 401k, both offer some tax advantages which can equate to a higher actual valued benefit for the same given dollar spent by the Company. The pension, while presumably offering a tax benefit to the Company, offers the lowest return to us, per dollar spent.

 

[toilet paper]

Neither UPS nor UPGF are in the Central States Plan why would you assume that FedEx would be? We all know what you get when you assume. Make an informed decision based on fact not conjecture or rumors. Act like adults and treat one another with respect.

 

[johndeere4020]

Neither UPS nor UPGF are in the Central States Plan why would you assume that FedEx would be? We all know what you get when you assume. Make an informed decision based on fact not conjecture or rumors. Act like adults and treat one another with respect.

Who said we thought they would be?

 

[Sex pistol]

I remember years ago when I was in the union all the talk I heard about my pension was that when I retired i would be getting the same amount of pay in retirement as if I would be working. But after 15 years of service I had to withdraw from the union. Unfortunately I could not take that hard earned retirement money with me because it's not a portable pension like Fedex. My money had to stay in you guessed it. The Central States. So now it looks like I will get 0 dollars at retirement. So unless you take hold of your own retirement plans you never know what will be waiting for you at retirement by the Union or Company. I really don't know to much about all the retirement talk. I actually pay someone I trust to take care of my retirement money for me.

 

[GO40]

I remember years ago when I was in the union all the talk I heard about my pension was that when I retired i would be getting the same amount of pay in retirement as if I would be working. But after 15 years of service I had to withdraw from the union. Unfortunately I could not take that hard earned retirement money with me because it's not a portable pension like Fedex. My money had to stay in you guessed it. The Central States. So now it looks like I will get 0 dollars at retirement. So unless you take hold of your own retirement plans you never know what will be waiting for you at retirement by the Union or Company. I really don't know to much about all the retirement talk. I actually pay someone I trust to take care of my retirement money for me.

Pull it & take the penalty, something is better then nothing....

 

[Redracer3136]

Notice, Red could not make it through one complete sentence without misleading the entire class. Don't think I've ever commented on the horrors of our underfunded status. I've posted the numbers as part of a bigger picture, but never told you what to think about the numbers, or mentioned them specifically.

If it's not too much trouble Redracer, please show the class where I have ever specifically complained about the underfunded status. I don't think I ever have.

Meanwhile, we'll cover some education, while Red chases his tail, and gets acquainted with the search feature. We will try to keep it as simple and brief as possible, unless and untill questions are raised.

Map-21, the legislation Red mentioned, was signed by Obama, and LOWERED the minimum contribution. This is what made possible such claims of overfunded status.

"MAP-21 is primarily a transportation bill that also includes student-loan interest-rate relief. However, as a revenue-raiser, it includes pension plan provisions that:

• Reduce the adverse impact of historically low interest rates on the three “segment rates” (corporate-bond interest rates) used by many pension plans to calculate funding liabilities. The primary change is to smooth segment rate changes by calculating each rate based on the average of that segment rate over 25 years — a much longer period than the two-year period currently used to determine segment rates.
• Impose a minimum floor and maximum cap on the percentage of the 25-year average segment rate that can be used. The floor-and-cap corridor expands in future years.
• Create additional disclosure requirements to participants about the impact of the new rates.
• Provide for additional opportunities to transfer excess assets to other retiree benefits.
• Increase PBGC premiums, starting in 2013."

https://www.mcguirewoods.com/Client...bilization-Finally-Here-under-MAP-21-Law.aspx

These changes help to offset the effect of unnaturally low interest rates on the projected liabilities due under company pensions plans. Companies that utilize this reduction to the maximum allowed may run into further troubles when/if rates continue to be low.

FedEx seems to be maintaining the previously planned contribution levels, thereby showing a surplus in funding. This is wise and gets no complaints from me.

Again, the changes in the requirements, and the lower mandates are at play here, allowing 108.19% (adjusted) to be shown, rather than 88.1%.

Now there is a good reason why I've not participated in the concern as to the level of the underfunded status. We will cover that in the next lesson.

In the meantime, while Redracer comes to terms with his inability to recall who said what, we will venture into the world of the "Freight Pension", and what is a realistic and worthy of debate.

Red, keep searching. The rest of the class, stay tuned.

Sorry for the delayed response, it took two days for me to recover from all of the spin that you provided for the class...you could've atleast warned us to get our Dramamine ready!!


But Mr Ratt of the Swamp, isn't that what mislead means...

• : to cause (someone) to believe something that is not true

• : to lead astray : give a wrong impression

...and isn't this what you did when you posted the -5 billion number on several different threads, several different times (one even included a cute little arrow)?? Clear examples of your "misleading" would be when two of your cronies made comments, one being a post that you "liked" (which suggest that you agreed with him) and the other actually claiming that our pension fund WAS 5 billion underfunded!!

Since you're obviously in the searching mood, could YOU please show the class where I allegedly claimed that Mr Ratt had "ever specifically complained about the underfunded status??" Good luck with that one, it should keep you busy for a while!!

Now class, while Mr Ratt is off on his wild goose chase looking for something that doesn't exsist, the rest of us will dive back into the spin cycle that he claimed was "education"....

NEWS FLASH Mr Ratt: it doesn't matter who wrote the bill, why they wrote the bill, who sponsored the bill, or who passed the bill into law, all that matters is how pension funds calculate their liabilities in 2016 and according to the laws in place in 2016, our pension fund is over funded at 108.19%...period!!

Perhaps had Mr Swamp actually read the entire Annual Funding Notice and not cherry picked what info needed for his argument, he would've known the law had changed in 2012 as it was clearly explained on page 4. He would also have known that the 88.1% funded number that he continued to boast means nothing...unless we went back to 2011 and again, the class knows this is 2016!! His effort to babble along about irrelevant information pertaining to map-21 is just that, irrellavent information, but Mr Ratt knew this and he used it as another attempt to mislead the class into thinking it actually meant something!! Maybe that's what he does when he paints himself into a corner, he spins really fast with useless information hoping the class will buy into his claims so he can walk away (attempting to mislead the class again)??

Keep spinning Mr Ratt and good luck on your wild goose chase, perhaps a return present of a new dictionary is in order....compliments from the class of course!!

 

[joes bar and grill]

Sorry for the delayed response, it took two days for me to recover from all of the spin that you provided for the class...you could've atleast warned us to get our Dramamine ready!!


But Mr Ratt of the Swamp, isn't that what mislead means...

• : to cause (someone) to believe something that is not true

• : to lead astray : give a wrong impression

...and isn't this what you did when you posted the -5 billion number on several different threads, several different times (one even included a cute little arrow)?? Clear examples of your "misleading" would be when two of your cronies made comments, one being a post that you "liked" (which suggest that you agreed with him) and the other actually claiming that our pension fund WAS 5 billion underfunded!!

Since you're obviously in the searching mood, could YOU please show the class where I allegedly claimed that Mr Ratt had "ever specifically complained about the underfunded status??" Good luck with that one, it should keep you busy for a while!!

Now class, while Mr Ratt is off on his wild goose chase looking for something that doesn't exsist, the rest of us will dive back into the spin cycle that he claimed was "education"....

NEWS FLASH Mr Ratt: it doesn't matter who wrote the bill, why they wrote the bill, who sponsored the bill, or who passed the bill into law, all that matters is how pension funds calculate their liabilities in 2016 and according to the laws in place in 2016, our pension fund is over funded at 108.19%...period!!

Perhaps had Mr Swamp actually read the entire Annual Funding Notice and not cherry picked what info needed for his argument, he would've known the law had changed in 2012 as it was clearly explained on page 4. He would also have known that the 88.1% funded number that he continued to boast means nothing...unless we went back to 2011 and again, the class knows this is 2016!! His effort to babble along about irrelevant information pertaining to map-21 is just that, irrellavent information, but Mr Ratt knew this and he used it as another attempt to mislead the class into thinking it actually meant something!! Maybe that's what he does when he paints himself into a corner, he spins really fast with useless information hoping the class will buy into his claims so he can walk away (attempting to mislead the class again)??

Keep spinning Mr Ratt and good luck on your wild goose chase, perhaps a return present of a new dictionary is in order....compliments from the class of course!!

So are you saying that by the legal definition the pension is over funded but in reality if a check had to be written for the full amount it would be 5 billion short?

 

[johndeere4020]

So are you saying that by the legal definition the pension is over funded but in reality if a check had to be written for the full amount it would be 5 billion short?

It's not 5 billion in the hole at all, I believe it doesn't even have a billion in assets. Without "adjusted interested rates" it's 88.10% funded.

 

[Redracer3136]

While many want to go round and round about Central States Pension, and how it compares to FedEx Freight's pension plan, it seems to me to be a waste of energy and resources. The main factors that separate the two are funding and liabilities. Both factors are vastly different between the two, therefore parallels don't really exist in terms of corrections needed or bargaining required.

For those on bargaining committees, or if I was, I would not place excessive funding on the list of bargaining issues. In fact, I would not have it on the list at all. The risk of needing it to be 100% funded is so remote as to be of little benefit, unless FXFE went out of business before the members collected. Not impossible, but very unlikely.

Now, as a topic of concern, I've not considered the funding status of our pension to be worthy of any effort to improve it. The truth is, by design, pension funding is a long term proposition. Fully funding it, on day one, is unnecessary and cost prohibitive. A total waste of funding that could be better placed elsewhere.

A far more worthy position would be to increase the rate at which benefits are accrued. This is not only worthy of the effort, but realistic, reasonable, and achievable, IMHO.

If there is consensus, the case could be made (negotiated for those in such a position) that there is room for improvement.

Case in point... Credit issued, as a percentage, based on years of service. Freight vs Express:

Freight:

Express:

Express receives more 60% + higher compensation credits than Freight, in the early years (3% vs 5%). Big difference, considering the number of years at that rate.

2% more per year across the board would make a significant difference in the end result. It is also quite reasonable, as Express already enjoys that rate. Anyone disagree?

Redracer, keep searching. The rest of the class, we can discuss the challenges next. Stay tuned

But Mr Ratt, while sounding like you think you're entitled to something just because someone else is getting it, aren't you overlooking one minor detail??

How about the FACT that Express continues to kick our butts in revenue (gross and net) as well as OR?? I don't have the numbers in front of me, nor do I have a degree in business management (obviously neither do the guys that attended the shareholder's meeting), but I do have uncommon sense and uncommon sense tells me that when you're more productive and you generate more revenue, then there's more pie to divide out to the masses for their efforts. Perhaps if guys didn't drag their feet while turning 1.5 stops per hour with 8.7 miles between stops, over a 10 hour work day, maybe then we too could possibly get a bigger piece of the pie!!

Hasn't history already taught us that a majority of the time, having the IBT demand/bargain for bigger pieces of the pie on behalf of the employees when those pieces of the pie don't exist leads to either concessions and/or closing of the doors??

I can't speak for the rest of the class but as for me, I'm happy with the current structure of our benefit accrual rate....could it be better, maybe, but to what extent are we willing to sacrifice the whole cow for just a few more glasses of milk??

BTW, how's that search coming??

 

[Redracer3136]

So are you saying that by the legal definition the pension is over funded but in reality if a check had to be written for the full amount it would be 5 billion short?

Not at all, reality is that's it's funded at 108.19%.

 

[Redracer3136]

It's not 5 billion in the hole at all, I believe it doesn't even have a billion in assets. Without "adjusted interested rates" it's 88.10% funded.

If I could give a 1/2 "like" I would...

No, by the old laws and calculating using a two year average of interest rates, its 88.1% funded....by using the new laws put into place back in 2012 and calculating using a 25 year average of interest rates, its 108.19% funded.

How could anyone possibly get a true average using only two years?