Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
UPS subsidizing non ups pensions
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JonFrum" data-source="post: 148750"><p>A clarification: Moody's calculates an Underfunding Multiple for each major fund it analyzes. The Underfunding Multiple is the number of additional yearly employer contributions that would be necessary to achieve (so called) full funding of 100%. Thus the Local 804 fund, which recently announced benefit cuts, with an Underfunding Multiple of 5.0x means that employers needed to contribute five times the amount they actually contributed in a particular year. If UPS contributed say, $10,000 per participant during a particular year, then UPS would have to contribute an additional $50,000 over and above the $10,000 for each participant in that one year, in order to bring the fund up to 100% Funded Status. (Of course, they could always spread out the extra contributions over several years, but that would delay the arrival of Full Funding day.) It's as if UPS is five years behind in its payments, except that UPS isn't behind at all. The fund needs the extra contributions, but it isn't entitled to them.</p><p></p><p>By the way, Moody's assumes that the responsibility to cure all pension fund shortfalls will be split 50/50, with the employers paying higher contribution amounts, and the participants accepting benefits cuts. Thus an Underfunding Multiple of 5.0x represents only the employer's half of the funding shortfall, the participant's cuts in benefits have already been announced and are the other half of the equation. </p><p></p><p>Teamsters funds listed in Moody's analysis (using 2004 data):</p><p>Plan. . . . . . . . . Funded . . . . . .Underfunding</p><p>Name . . . . . . . .Status . . . . . . . Multiple</p><p></p><p>Alaska . . . . . . . 84%. . . . . . . . 3.0x</p><p>Central Pa. . . . . 69%. . . . . . . . 2.2x</p><p>Central States . .58%. . . . . . . . 5.7x</p><p>IAM . . . . . . . . .124% . . . . . . . - - -</p><p>Local 710 . . . . . 73% . . . . . . . .3.9x</p><p>Local 705 . . . . . 74% . . . . . . . 3.1x</p><p>Local 804 . . . . . 59% . . . . . . . 5.0x</p><p>New England . . . 57% . . . . . . . 5.2x</p><p>NY State . . . . . .68% . . . . . . . 5.3x</p><p>J C 83 of Va . . . .72% . . . . . . . 3.7x</p><p>Local 639 . . . . .110% . . . . . . . - - -</p><p>Pa & Vicinity . . . 66% . . . . . . . .4.2x</p><p>N. Jersey . . . . . .83% . . . . . . . .3.7x</p><p>West. Conf. . . . .93% . . . . . . . .1.0x</p><p>W. Pa. . . . . . . . 64% . . . . . . . .6.7x</p><p></p><p>The average transportation industry pension plan is only 77% funded, with an Underfunding Multiple of 3.1x, meaning they have only $77 in assets to pay for every $100 of future benefits, and getting to 100% funding would require every employer to contribute an additional 3.1 times their annual one year contribution, over and above their scheduled contribution for that year. </p><p></p><p>Alaska Teamster-employer Pension Plan</p><p>Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Defined Benefit Plan</p><p>Central States SE&SW Area Pension Plan</p><p>IAM [Int'l. Assoc. of Machinists] National Pension Plan</p><p>IB of T Union Local 710 Pension Fund</p><p>Local 705 IB of T Pension Trust Fund</p><p>Local 804 I.B.T. and Local 447 IAM UPS Multi-employer Retirement Plan</p><p>New England Teamsters&Trucking Industry Pension Fund</p><p>NYS Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund</p><p>Teamsters Joint Council No. 83 of Virginia Pension Fund</p><p>Teamsters Local 639 Employers Pension Trust</p><p>Teamsters Pension Trust Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity</p><p>Tucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare fund inc. - Pension Fund</p><p>Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Fund</p><p>Western Pennsylvania Teamsters and Employers Pension Plan</p><p></p><p>And a very, Merry Christmas to all.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JonFrum, post: 148750"] A clarification: Moody's calculates an Underfunding Multiple for each major fund it analyzes. The Underfunding Multiple is the number of additional yearly employer contributions that would be necessary to achieve (so called) full funding of 100%. Thus the Local 804 fund, which recently announced benefit cuts, with an Underfunding Multiple of 5.0x means that employers needed to contribute five times the amount they actually contributed in a particular year. If UPS contributed say, $10,000 per participant during a particular year, then UPS would have to contribute an additional $50,000 over and above the $10,000 for each participant in that one year, in order to bring the fund up to 100% Funded Status. (Of course, they could always spread out the extra contributions over several years, but that would delay the arrival of Full Funding day.) It's as if UPS is five years behind in its payments, except that UPS isn't behind at all. The fund needs the extra contributions, but it isn't entitled to them. By the way, Moody's assumes that the responsibility to cure all pension fund shortfalls will be split 50/50, with the employers paying higher contribution amounts, and the participants accepting benefits cuts. Thus an Underfunding Multiple of 5.0x represents only the employer's half of the funding shortfall, the participant's cuts in benefits have already been announced and are the other half of the equation. Teamsters funds listed in Moody's analysis (using 2004 data): Plan. . . . . . . . . Funded . . . . . .Underfunding Name . . . . . . . .Status . . . . . . . Multiple Alaska . . . . . . . 84%. . . . . . . . 3.0x Central Pa. . . . . 69%. . . . . . . . 2.2x Central States . .58%. . . . . . . . 5.7x IAM . . . . . . . . .124% . . . . . . . - - - Local 710 . . . . . 73% . . . . . . . .3.9x Local 705 . . . . . 74% . . . . . . . 3.1x Local 804 . . . . . 59% . . . . . . . 5.0x New England . . . 57% . . . . . . . 5.2x NY State . . . . . .68% . . . . . . . 5.3x J C 83 of Va . . . .72% . . . . . . . 3.7x Local 639 . . . . .110% . . . . . . . - - - Pa & Vicinity . . . 66% . . . . . . . .4.2x N. Jersey . . . . . .83% . . . . . . . .3.7x West. Conf. . . . .93% . . . . . . . .1.0x W. Pa. . . . . . . . 64% . . . . . . . .6.7x The average transportation industry pension plan is only 77% funded, with an Underfunding Multiple of 3.1x, meaning they have only $77 in assets to pay for every $100 of future benefits, and getting to 100% funding would require every employer to contribute an additional 3.1 times their annual one year contribution, over and above their scheduled contribution for that year. Alaska Teamster-employer Pension Plan Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Defined Benefit Plan Central States SE&SW Area Pension Plan IAM [Int'l. Assoc. of Machinists] National Pension Plan IB of T Union Local 710 Pension Fund Local 705 IB of T Pension Trust Fund Local 804 I.B.T. and Local 447 IAM UPS Multi-employer Retirement Plan New England Teamsters&Trucking Industry Pension Fund NYS Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund Teamsters Joint Council No. 83 of Virginia Pension Fund Teamsters Local 639 Employers Pension Trust Teamsters Pension Trust Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity Tucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare fund inc. - Pension Fund Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Fund Western Pennsylvania Teamsters and Employers Pension Plan And a very, Merry Christmas to all. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
UPS subsidizing non ups pensions
Top