Economics and Pensions

Status
Not open for further replies.

MolaKule

Staff member
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
24,029
Location
Iowegia - USA
quote:

Crisis looms in funding for U.S. corporate pension plans
The Detroit News 08/26/04
author: Rachel Beck
(Copyright 2004)


NEW YORK--The corporate pension crisis seems to be going from bad to worse. First, companies struggled to come up with the money to cover their benefit obligations, and now they want to ditch their plans altogether.

The latest twist in this mess comes from UAL Corp.'s United Airlines. It wants to terminate its employee pension funds to secure loans it needs to get out of bankruptcy -- a drastic move that would represent the largest pension default ever by a U.S. company.

Should that happen, competing airlines may try to do the same, and it could easily extend to other industries, too. And who would be left with the cleanup? Taxpayers, of course.

"I'm deeply concerned that more and more employers may decide that the rational thing to do ... is to follow others to the exit and get out of sponsoring a pension plan before it becomes an impossible burden," said James A. Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, a Washington-based trade group representing the employee benefits system.

A pension plan is considered underfunded when its obligations -- what it owes to retirees -- exceed its assets by at least 10 percent. At that point, companies must cover the difference.

Pension plans of the 362 companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 index offering defined benefit plans went from being overfunded by $280 billion in 1999 to being underfunded by $165 billion last year, according to S&P. And that was a $54 billion improvement from 2002, thanks to rebounding stock prices.

The government has tried to help ease the pension burden. Airlines and steel companies have been granted a two-year reprieve that allows them to only pay 20 percent of what is currently required.

But it still isn't enough for some companies.

United announced last month that it would skip payments to its four pension funds while it restructures under bankruptcy protection, and later disclosed in a regulatory filing that it would "likely" have to terminate those plans.

Should United successfully convince a bankruptcy court that it needs to terminate its massive plans, which would wipe a huge liability off of its books, there is no telling what kind of ripple effect it could set off in the airline business -- and beyond.

US Airways could be next. The troubled carrier wants government permission to stretch out about $68 million in contributions it owes to the pensions of its mechanics and flight attendants over the next five years, rather than the next 18 months.

If more companies move to dump their pension plans, it would put increasing pressure on the already-strapped Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., the government agency that insures pensions earned by 44 million workers and retirees participating in 31,000 plans.

The agency, which is funded through premiums charged to employers and investment returns, saw its deficit balloon to a record $11.2 billion in 2003. And in just the last three years, the PBGC has accumulated $15.9 billion in claims, more than twice as much as the $6.1 billion it assumed between 1980 through 1999, according to a new report by the Washington-based Cato Institute.

With the PBGC facing such huge burdens, the government may have no choice but to go forth with a multibillion-dollar taxpayer bailout. That would thrust the pension crisis out of corporate America and into everyone's wallet.



 
I guess now its a case of we promised but too bad, so sad, you worke for us 30 years and we screwed you.

One job I had the manager asked where was my loyality to the company, I asked back what about the company's loyality to me? I was told to shut up.

If I have to fund my own pension, I need a 30% raise!

Dan
 
I think we are missing something here. The pension crisis is going to be in the taxpayer's wallet in any event. Either in the employees who work for the company that is going broke or all the taxpayers via an insurance arrangement or a "taxpayer bailout". It is simply a question of who is going to pay.

The company is going broke, they can not pay the money. That is a given. Would we all wish that were not the case, I think so. But sadly companies go broke all the time.

If the PBGC raised the rates charged for the "insurance" then we all pay in the form of higher prices from all the remaining companies who are paying the higher premiums.

No matter how you cut it, if we are going to protect the folks from losing pension benefits we are all going to pay for it one way or another.
 
The question is where the pensioners stand in the line of creditors should the company go bankrupt. Make no mistake, the employees are creditors, not owners.

Unless the employees share in direct profit sharing when things are good, there is no reason per se for the employees to give up their pensions to fund the continued operation of the airline when things are bad.

Employees, basicly speaking, do not, and should not have their pensions tied to the same risk/reward scenario as stockholders. If the airline can't cover it's debts AND continue to operate, the debts should be paid out of stockholder equity, period. They signed up for that risk/reward equation, not the employees.

In other words, stockholders and the courts should not have the right to retroactively put the employees into a "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" situation.

In the overall scheme of things though, the last poster is correct. The taxpayer is always stuck with the depts after the business executive has absconded with the profits. Heads I Win, Tails You Lose.

[ August 26, 2004, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: TooManyWheels ]
 
If savings weren't so heavily taxed at the Federal, State and Local level maybe people would be able to save for their own retirement. Rather than having to rely on companies and the Government. Two unreliable sources in my opinion. It's coming down to that all levels of government are taxing everything way too much because they can't control their spending and need an ever increasing amount of drugs, oops, I mean money!

Whimsey
 
quote:

Originally posted by Dan4510:
If I have to fund my own pension, I need a 30% raise!

Dan


Dan,
down here, we were to recieve a tax cut as an election promise about a decade ago.

When they got in, they didn't give us the money, but required that the employer invest it in a superannuation fund on behalf of the employee.

turns out some companies were holding onto the funds, and not investing it.

When they company goes broke, guess who the LAST on the list of creditors to be paid out. Invariably, the employees lose their entitlements, while the executives and the banks win.

Recently the government stepped in and paid out the employees of a particular company using taxpayers funds. Once and only time to date.

The fact that the owner of the company was the Prime Minister's brother had nothing to do with it apparently.

I agree, give me the money, and let me fend for myself
 
Pension funds used to be "tax shelters" for companies. They were over funded to the extreme. Then in the 80's ...they were redefined as assets and the trend was naturally reversed. Defined benefit programs do not have to be fully funded. They only have to have enough revenue generated from the assets to cover the current obligations. That is, as the number of people join as beneficiaries ..the company contributes more money into the "trust". The problem is (A little Gary reminder of the true ..and apparently yet unrealized, IMPACT of demographics) that SO many people are coming due at ONE TIME.


Why do you think that so many companies are "bailing out" to go offshore? The true costs are coming due. Isn't it kinda conincidental that all the really big employers (excluding our last domestic industry-the auto industry) are "cashing in"?
 
I believe that if the plan is "terminated" it means that the pension benefits are "frozen". That is no new benefits will be accrued no forward looking adjustments (COLAs) will be made.

The corporation should have had no right to hijack the assets of the pension plan as it is ordinarily held in a trust with an administrator, trustee and board.

If the airline were to fold the plan and have unfunded liabilities, bankruptcy would be the only way out from under funding the liabilities. This is where the PBGC and Joe Taxpayer get involved. The corporation would be required to turn the pensiona assets over to the government and the government would be responsible for the pension benefits.

Just a note, in one of the last years of the '90s, GE made more in profits on its pension plans than it did from NBC. This is done by an accounting entry of showing your overfunded pension plan as a "deferred asset". If the markets turn ugly, this gets ugly quickly in actuarial terms.
dunno.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by Gary Allan:
Pension funds used to be "tax shelters" for companies. They were over funded to the extreme. Then in the 80's ...they were redefined as assets and the trend was naturally reversed. Defined benefit programs do not have to be fully funded. They only have to have enough revenue generated from the assets to cover the current obligations. That is, as the number of people join as beneficiaries ..the company contributes more money into the "trust". The problem is (A little Gary reminder of the true ..and apparently yet unrealized, IMPACT of demographics) that SO many people are coming due at ONE TIME.


Why do you think that so many companies are "bailing out" to go offshore? The true costs are coming due. Isn't it kinda conincidental that all the really big employers (excluding our last domestic industry-the auto industry) are "cashing in"?


Exactly My old company (GPU-Gary Probably knows of) was the most overfunded pension in the U.S. but in the late 80's and early 90's it was "taken back" to a great degree (drawn down).

Pension plans are Federally Guaranteed-.ie the company defaults/pension plan goes broke.
However there is a catch it could take a while to get your money.

On a related subject-did you know that if a FDIC account defaults-The Feds have 100 years to replace your money
grin.gif
grin.gif
A banker friend of mine (who is pretty sharp pointed it out to me.
frown.gif
 
quote:

did you know that if a FDIC account defaults-The Feds have 100 years to replace your money

Interesting. So far all practical purposes, there is no such thing as government insured accounts. I wonder what other government assurances that applies to.
 
quote:

Pension plans are Federally Guaranteed-

This isn't just that simple. Bethlem Steel employees lost many $100,000 EACH. The terms of the pension make a big difference in the amount that is "assured". My old company "Crompton & Knowles" ..the union defined benefit plan was backed in CASH ..the managment or non-union pension was backed mostly by company stock (which is in the tank-btw). Theirs was NOT a defined benefit plan ..theirs was a defined contribution plan.

I don't truly know enough to speak intelligently on it ..but somehow ..I'm sure that some of us are going to get the shaft.
 
quote:

I'm sniffing similarities to the S&L bailout. Why be careful if the govt will pick up the slack?

I realize I may be skating close to or over the politics ban with this statement, but the logical continuation of the above statement is that in this situation the supposed American capitalistic system where each person is responsible for his own actions is really a welfare system for businessmen. It boils down to a government administered process of transferring wealth from those who don't own stock to those who do. It can also be viewed as Communistic in the sense that the community is the entity that eventually picks up the tab for the government connected elites.
 
"Pension plans are Federally Guaranteed"

No they are not! Your bank account may be but no pension funds! Pensions are a gift, there is NO law that requires or regulates company pensions...
 
It looks like the PBGC is funded through contributions from pension funds, not the taxpayer. The problem is that the insurance will only cover $44,000 max per worker, not much really, the rest is dumped on the worker.

"But according to a statement by the PBGC, United Airlines' four pension plans - which serve 119,000 workers - are underfunded by $8.3 billion. Because of legal limits, the PBGC can pay only $6.4 billion. Employees would lose the rest".

This article goes back to 2003!
Detroit News, October/2003

http://www.detnews.com/2003/editorial/0310/10/a11-291693.htm

The Airlines got a bailout after 911 on lawsuits, are they going to continue to expect more bailouts by the taxpayer? Who is really paying for the costs of deregulation? I think Gary is right, the good life of the American Worker is over, it's time to pay the bills.
 
quote:

Pensions are a gift, there is NO law that requires or regulates company pensions...

There may be no law EXPLICITLY directed at pensions, but why would basic contract law not apply? Pensions may be voluntary, but they are certainly not gifts, they are compensation, albeit deferred, so altering the compensation retroactively would be seen as a voiding of the employment contract.

[ August 27, 2004, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: TooManyWheels ]
 
Toomanywheels,

Regardless how you look at it, it's a gift. NOTHING requires the company to give you a pension. That is why companies dip and draw from those accounts regularly. NO contract, law, etc. can keep a company from taking from it, or even not giving it. I work for an extremely large telephone company, they dip from it all the time. It's a "gift" from the company.....
 
Doug, I somewhat disagree. No company is obligated to offer a pension ..but those who do ..are quite regulated. The "amount" of regulation has failed many tests as of lately. That is, many plans have fallen short of and have been "flim-flammed" into losses that effectively rob the workers while the execs get their golden parachutes.
A good short read.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Gary Allan:
Doug, I somewhat disagree. No company is obligated to offer a pension ..but those who do ..are quite regulated. The "amount" of regulation has failed many tests as of lately. That is, many plans have fallen short of and have been "flim-flammed" into losses that effectively rob the workers while the execs get their golden parachutes.
A good short read.


Gary I agree, there are rules and if the company goes belly up the government takes over. Now if you are a big exec and have a pension of say $100K per year your going to get screwed. But if you are middle mgt. and have a $40K pension you will not have a problem. JMHO
 
Doug - Maybe we are not defining terms. Nothing obligates a company to offer me a pension when I go to work for them. But if the pension plan is in effect when I sign on, and I qualify for it and fullfill the terms of my obligation, then the company is (or should be, under just plain contract law) similarly obligated to fullfill theirs.

Is that the basis of our disagreement, or do you know of something that would trump contract law?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top