Another example of Central States mismanagement

[area43]

Re: Plan Liabilities: Current vs. Future

The way you have it figured, is that the fund has money to pay for the current retirees, but no money for future retirees. Is this why they won't let us retire? You paint a rosy picture of the CS pension fund, but it is just the opposite. Even if I were to agree with you (and I don't), the assets dropped over 3 billion dollars (Schedule H, lines friend,k,i) from the beginning of the year to the end of the year.

Eng 79, dont you know not to listen to the Bull jonfrum puts out. The man has no en Balls. Hes an idiot. Why waste your time............ Step up to the plate Jonnny, be a driver, and do what we do. 130 to 140 degree heat in the trucks. Jon you have no creditability with me buddy!!! Go cry to ma ma . 33 years, yeah right.............

 

[705red]

Re: Plan Liabilities: Current vs. Future

Eng 79, dont you know not to listen to the Bull jonfrum puts out. The man has no en Balls. Hes an idiot. Why waste your time............ Step up to the plate Jonnny, be a driver, and do what we do. 130 to 140 degree heat in the trucks. Jon you have no creditability with me buddy!!! Go cry to ma ma . 33 years, yeah right.............

Jon puts out the facts, now how much you look into it is up to. Not everyone must drive in order to be classified a upser! We are made up of a lot of positions and yes driver might be an important one, but every job at ups is important in one way or another. You have been in a slamming mood all day, better put down the bottle and log off the computer!

 

[badpas]

Re: What benefits would *you* have cut to rebalance the Fund?

Dear Trustee Sawdust,
(A/K/A Sawdust The Cruel, Sawdust The Unmerciful, Sawdust The Unkind, Sawdust The Heartless, Sawdust The Destroyer Of Dreams, etc.)

We both would need an accountant and an actuary to "run the numbers" to see if your cuts got the job done or not.

By exempting the 25-year-and-over people, you are making the cuts all the more brutal for everyone else. A disgruntled group called the Association of Parcel Workers of America Who Despise Trustee Sawdust will spring up and make your life a living Hell.

You may also have made joining the fund so unappealing for young people that you killed the Fund.

It will take years for your cuts to gradually produce results.

It may also be illegal to accept the same hourly contribution rate from a range of people, but credit them with different dollar accrual amounts depending on their seniority. I just don't know. In any event, the more specifics you give, the more people will hate you.

I'm also not so sure the Trustees and Investment Advisors mismanaged the investments. In retrospect, we know they blew it, but how many would have said they were poor investment choices at the time? Lots of funds and individuals lost money in 2000-2002, just as Central States did.

Now Jon, you might not like his proposal but at least he answered your question. But I do think its interesting that you, coming from another fund, would shoot down his idea so cruelly. It almost sounded more like the opinion of an IBT official more than someone who seems to have some education but for some reason is wasting his talents on a combo job instead of doing something more important than this. However, we do appreciate at least for the most part, all the info you post the only difference is most of us don't have as much time as you do to research everything under the moon. But I guess 8 hrs a day will do that for you. Don't take that personally I wish I had more time too.

But more to the point, I do understand what you are saying about funds taking a hit, we all do, but the problem with cutting everyones pensions the way they did maybe necessary but instead of gradual growth the fund would have to tripple over a number of years for this ship to make it back into calm seas simply because the number of retirees that, if their smart, didn't retire but waited to see if their numbers come back to what they would see as not losing anything even if they didn't gain anything. The problem with this, and this is why I say tripple, is the number of retirees potentially dropped a bunch only to find out the company will restore their amounts so in return the retiree numbers then sky rocket forcing the rollercoaster ride of a pension fund to actually speed up the process of bankrupting itself. Sorry for such a long runon sentence. So as I said before you may think there is still time to fix cs but if that were the case then why does the teamsters seem to be leaning away from cs. Now that may change but if the numbers don't change and go up and I mean way then none of us are getting what we've truely earned. As do the mechanics. Now I'm not saying I should be getting what someone as a mechanic would with the same number of years but 2 to 3000 range is a slap in all our faces especially since the amounts of pension dollars are no different between packages and the mechanics. I know you being from the financial community would have to agree with the amount of pension money calculated by a number of years and getting the same return that central states has reported over the past 20 yrs should be getting all of us alot more than 3000 a month.

 

[Bill]

Re: Plan Liabilities: Current vs. Future

What I say makes no sense to you, but it makes perfect sense to the entire financial community. The Assets-Minus-Liabilities-Equals-Net Assets information is taken directly from Form 5500, Schedule H, Part One, Asset and Liability Statement, lines friend, k, and i.

Obviously Net Assets are accumulated for the purpose of paying future retirement benefits. If there is not enough Net Assets on hand, there is a Funding Deficiency. I realize future retirements are a liability of the Fund, but the financial community doesn't include them as a current liability. Instead they report Funding Levels as a seperate matter.

Central States has a major Funding Deficiency, but not as big as you enjoy claiming.

By the way, according to your method, a fully funded plan would be considered flat broke, because its entire Net Assets are earmarked to pay its entire future retirement obligations, without a penny left over.

You forgot to mention one important factor. You paint a pretty picture that the CS pension is turning itself around slowly. The Teamsters and CS have imposed restrictions on us by forcing us to work more years before collecting less. You are not counting future liabilities as the fund does when measuring funding percentage. The pension fund is currently improving slowly, and one of the reasons is that more of us can't retire after working 30 years because of age restrictions. All this does is delay the funding problems about ten years, and then, when all these employees reach that magical age of 65, the fund will be strained beyond the point it is now. The retirees will outnumber the active participants far greater than they do now. It doesn't take a scientist or an accountant to see this. The real question is: Why should UPS keep pouring money into a fund that can't be fixed? Wouldn't it be better, especially for the younger employees, to start anew, and have UPS just deposit money into UPS employees accounts only? This would insure that we get a decent pension and not have insecurities wondering when CS will go bankrupt. I do the same job as someone in New York, Chicago or California, but my pension is far inferior. Where is the equity in this? It is time to right the sinking ship(CS), and start another fund that invests for UPS people only. This is the only solution.

 

[JonFrum]

Re: Plan Liabilities: Current vs. Future

The way you have it figured, is that the fund has money to pay for the current retirees, but no money for future retirees. Is this why they won't let us retire? You paint a rosy picture of the CS pension fund, but it is just the opposite. Even if I were to agree with you (and I don't), the assets dropped over 3 billion dollars (Schedule H, lines friend,k,i) from the beginning of the year to the end of the year.

Engineer 79,
I give up! You seem determined to misunderstand every single thing I say.

 

[JonFrum]

Re: What benefits would *you* have cut to rebalance the Fund?

Now Jon, you might not like his proposal but at least he answered your question. But I do think its interesting that you, coming from another fund, would shoot down his idea so cruelly..

Badpas,

It Was A Joke.

I was impressed that Sawdust actually answered the question. But my point was that whoever orders the cuts will be hated throughtout the Land. A Trustee of a Plan that lost money is in a no-win situation, no matter how he makes the cuts.

 

[sawdusttv]

Re: What benefits would *you* have cut to rebalance the Fund?

Dear Trustee Sawdust,
(A/K/A Sawdust The Cruel, Sawdust The Unmerciful, Sawdust The Unkind, Sawdust The Heartless, Sawdust The Destroyer Of Dreams, etc.)

We both would need an accountant and an actuary to "run the numbers" to see if your cuts got the job done or not.

By exempting the 25-year-and-over people, you are making the cuts all the more brutal for everyone else. A disgruntled group called the Association of Parcel Workers of America Who Despise Trustee Sawdust will spring up and make your life a living Hell.

You may also have made joining the fund so unappealing for young people that you killed the Fund.

It will take years for your cuts to gradually produce results.

It may also be illegal to accept the same hourly contribution rate from a range of people, but credit them with different dollar accrual amounts depending on their seniority. I just don't know. In any event, the more specifics you give, the more people will hate you.

I'm also not so sure the Trustees and Investment Advisors mismanaged the investments. In retrospect, we know they blew it, but how many would have said they were poor investment choices at the time? Lots of funds and individuals lost money in 2000-2002, just as Central States did.

Jon,
We can go on all day with maybe's and might be's, but you're right we don't actually know how it would work. You asked how I would do it, I told you.
At least my way would protect the retirement of those who do not have enough time left to recover from the cuts. The rest of the people have the luxury of time on there side, as do the trustees in my senario. It buys time, while still giving the older employees the retirement that they were promised, and gives the fund and the trustees the time to recover and find a way to straighten things out for the rest of the members.

As far as the investment choices made. Others did lose also and some funds made gains, but some of the investments that CS made look more like money laundering operations rather than investments.

 

[badpas]

Re: What benefits would *you* have cut to rebalance the Fund?

Badpas,

It Was A Joke.

I was impressed that Sawdust actually answered the question. But my point was that whoever orders the cuts will be hated throughtout the Land. A Trustee of a Plan that lost money is in a no-win situation, no matter how he makes the cuts.

You wan't specific, maybe you should have been more specific....

 

[tieguy]

Re: Does anyone want Engineer79 to run their benefit plans?

Engineer 79,
The Form 5500 calls for a certain level of detail. If you want more detail, you'll have to contact the Fund directly, (or snoop around the Fund's parking lot.) It's not my responsibility to provide you with the details.

Jon is very proud of his work and often directs us to review some of his past masterpieces. So I have started to do so out of curiousity.

I must say I missed this little jewel. Here's jon who tells us CS is good. When asked for further detail he now claims its not his responsibility to provide that information this from our self appointed pension guru here to educate the masses on pensions.

Jon in fairness to you. What is your responsibility here? You have apparently provided us with quite a few long winded posts with the intent of providing us specific information yet you balk when someone asks you for further detail? Your response seems to indicate you are sticking to a specific script?

 

[JonFrum]

Re: Does anyone want Engineer79 to run their benefit plans?

Jon is very proud of his work and often directs us to review some of his past masterpieces. So I have started to do so out of curiousity.

I must say I missed this little jewel. Here's jon who tells us CS is good. When asked for further detail he now claims its not his responsibility to provide that information this from our self appointed pension guru here to educate the masses on pensions.

Jon in fairness to you. What is your responsibility here? You have apparently provided us with quite a few long winded posts with the intent of providing us specific information yet you balk when someone asks you for further detail? Your response seems to indicate you are sticking to a specific script?

Anyone following the original exchange between myself and Engineer79 knows that I provided him with plenty of detail by pointing him to the Form 5500. But he was so intent on claiming that the Administration Expenses were stolen or squandered or embezzled or whatever, that I had to tell him in exasperation, that the form speaks for itself. It's a government form and it was filled out as instructed. If he wants still more detail, well, that's like reading the UPS Annual Report and still wanting more detail. I don't have access to that information. It's not my responsibility to provide it. Engineer79 should not conclude that the money was stolen, just because I can't provide even further details.

Nevertheless, I was able to find a Form 990 which had still more detail and I pointed him to it. He still was not satisfied. I would have to work for the Central States Fund itself to have access to the level of detail he wants. And of course I do not. If he read both forms that I linked to, he is in possession of more details than just about anybody outside the fund itself. How you can attempt to turn this around on me is unbelievable.

Also, please stop putting words in my mouth and attributing motives to me. You're doing it a lot lately. You don't know me, so you're just making things up to discredit me. It actually reflects poorly on you.

 

[area43]

Re: Central States: 63% Funded, And Rising; Not 47% And Falling Toward Zero

Engineer 79,
Just like a supertanker, it initially takes a while to turn around a huge pension fund,

(violens playing,titanic) Dude!!!!!! I sure dont want to be on that ship. Dont you know that there s less and less working guys and gals shoveling the coal to make the mighty ship go. While on the other hand there's more and more passengers on deck. Yes, we are slowly turning but one strong wave could knock us off course again. Then what, we hit an Iceberg. Good God, who's at the wheel ? Look folks, theres no one at the wheel and wait, look over there in the life boat, its the teamsters(waving,blowing kisses and the life boat filled with empty beer cans). lmao

Well, Folks after last weeks stock market performance a huge tidal wave hit the CS titanic ship. How much more can it take? Look up ahead! Whats that? An iceberg. Yikes! Abandon ship!

 

[tieguy]

Re: Does anyone want Engineer79 to run their benefit plans?

.

Also, please stop putting words in my mouth and attributing motives to me. You're doing it a lot lately. You don't know me, so you're just making things up to discredit me. It actually reflects poorly on you.

Now jon, not putting any words in your mouth. What I am doing is now questioning the words you actually use. I then ask you to justify those words. You have much misinformation in your posts as I highlighted yesterday. There is a clear spin to your posts as I highlighted yesterday. Your misinformation is either out of ignorance or deliberate. In either case I don't feel I can any longer let you post this stuff anonymously unchecked.

 

[tieguy]

Re: Does anyone want Engineer79 to run their benefit plans?

Anyone following the original exchange between myself and Engineer79 knows that I provided him with plenty of detail by pointing him to the Form 5500. But he was so intent on claiming that the Administration Expenses were stolen or squandered or embezzled or whatever, that I had to tell him in exasperation,

exasperation because he was just too dumb to understand your wisdom?

that the form speaks for itself. It's a government form and it was filled out as instructed. If he wants still more detail, well, that's like reading the UPS Annual Report and still wanting more detail. I don't have access to that information. It's not my responsibility to provide it. Engineer79 should not conclude that the money was stolen, just because I can't provide even further details.

I can read that annual report but that does not make me a competent financial analist. And it does not make you an expert on pensions.


Also, please stop putting words in my mouth and attributing motives to me. You're doing it a lot lately. You don't know me, so you're just making things up to discredit me. It actually reflects poorly on you.

 

[tieguy]

Re: Does anyone want Engineer79 to run their benefit plans?

Jon,

You've been throwing so many half baked truths out there that I can hang you just fine without having to worry about how it makes me look. I see you were reluctant to defend your half baked truths where I highlighted how you misrepresent the facts. Again I challenge you to take your bias out of the conversation and to just stick to the facts. All the facts not just the ones that suit your argument.

 

[area43]

Thanks Red for the compliment. I agree with you red on the fact we should not just b*tch about a problem but try and find real solutions to the problem. First off, "Multiple Employer fund", Oh Bannas, I just cringe when I hear those 3 little words. I believe the phrase should be band from the human dictionary and thrown into the firery pit of hell. Also, Who ever came up with that idea should be thrown in there tooo. M.E.friend. is a failed way of doing retirements. Red, havent you read in the papers of all those failed plans. I m surprised that you would even consider attempting another one(I say this with all do respect). We first have to get that bad idea(M.E.friend.) out of our head and then we can move on.


Again, this sums it up on the MEP. The big push, should be for the employee to take over his or her on economic future. Why give it to the Teamsters, UPS or the APWA. Lets cut out the middle man all together. Don't you see folks. That is where the real problem LIES. We should take our money and do what we please with it. Hey, if we lose it all in the investment choice's we make, than it was ours to lose. PERIOD. Can"t blame no one now. Oh, but were to STUPID to run our own retirement. Again, dont you see the light folks. Teamsters, UPS and APWA really does think that were to stupid. Its also a power play. Now, if your giddy, non-independent, and like putting your life into someones else's hands that might not give a rip than go right ahead. Take the plunge into the MEP abyss. All those facts and figures are one big Joke. If the monies, were allocated to us personally again we would not have this mess.

The MEP is based on a communist, socialist type of system. I am totally surprised that Red blooded americans would indulge themselves in something of this nature. We should fight to put the pensions back in our hands. CUT OUT THE MIDDLE MAN. ps I know this is still a pipe dream. I hope the tenative agreement(CS and UPS) gets hammered out and it becomes reality.

 

[wildgoose]

Thanks Red for the compliment. I agree with you red on the fact we should not just b*tch about a problem but try and find real solutions to the problem. First off, "Multiple Employer fund", Oh Bannas, I just cringe when I hear those 3 little words. I believe the phrase should be band from the human dictionary and thrown into the firery pit of hell. Also, Who ever came up with that idea should be thrown in there tooo. M.E.friend. is a failed way of doing retirements. Red, havent you read in the papers of all those failed plans. I m surprised that you would even consider attempting another one(I say this with all do respect). We first have to get that bad idea(M.E.friend.) out of our head and then we can move on.


Again, this sums it up on the MEP. The big push, should be for the employee to take over his or her on economic future. Why give it to the Teamsters, UPS or the APWA. Lets cut out the middle man all together. Don't you see folks. That is where the real problem LIES. We should take our money and do what we please with it. Hey, if we lose it all in the investment choice's we make, than it was ours to lose. PERIOD. Can"t blame no one now. Oh, but were to STUPID to run our own retirement. Again, dont you see the light folks. Teamsters, UPS and APWA really does think that were to stupid. Its also a power play. Now, if your giddy, non-independent, and like putting your life into someones else's hands that might not give a rip than go right ahead. Take the plunge into the MEP abyss. All those facts and figures are one big Joke. If the monies, were allocated to us personally again we would not have this mess.

The MEP is based on a communist, socialist type of system. I am totally surprised that Red blooded americans would indulge themselves in something of this nature. We should fight to put the pensions back in our hands. CUT OUT THE MIDDLE MAN. ps I know this is still a pipe dream. I hope the tenative agreement(CS and UPS) gets hammered out and it becomes reality.

Jon is everything is so rosy why are we getting reductions in are accruals in Central States every year ? Why is the company having to bail us out - because the fund is gaining by leaps and bounds ? Not ! This thread has been beat to death - yikes.
Central States has conceded the ups account to try to save others ?

 

[JonFrum]

Re: Plan Liabilities: Current vs. Future

The way you have it figured, is that the fund has money to pay for the current retirees, but no money for future retirees.

Not True. I Never Said There Was No Money For Future Retirees. There's Actually About $21 Billion In The Fund For Current And Future Retirees.

You paint a rosy picture of the CS pension fund

Not True. I've Never Said Anything Even Close To That. (Tieguy Also Likes To Put Words Like That In My Mouth.)

the assets dropped over 3 billion dollars (Schedule H, lines friend,k,i) from the beginning of the year to the end of the year.

Not True.

Central States Pension Fund Net Assets (in Billions):
2007: $21 (estimate)
2006: $20.7
2005: $19.3
2004: $18.7
2003: $17.7
2002: $15.4

 

[JonFrum]

First off, "Multiple Employer fund", Oh Bannas, I just cringe when I hear those 3 little words. I believe the phrase should be band from the human dictionary and thrown into the firery pit of hell. Also, Who ever came up with that idea should be thrown in there tooo. M.E.friend. is a failed way of doing retirements. Red, havent you read in the papers of all those failed plans. . . .

All Those Failed Plans In The Papers Were SINGLE-Employer Plans. Single-Employer Plans Fail 100% More Often Than Multi-Employer Plans.

 

[tieguy]

All Those Failed Plans In The Papers Were SINGLE-Employer Plans. Single-Employer Plans Fail 100% More Often Than Multi-Employer Plans.

Ah our friend Jon has come out of hiding . Please explain your campaign against single employer fans. Please tell us what message the union has asked you to sell here anonymously.

 

[705red]

Ah our friend Jon has come out of hiding . Please explain your campaign against single employer fans. Please tell us what message the union has asked you to sell here anonymously.

Tie why dont you tell us what is the benefit of going into a single employer fund? You know like enron!