Thread regarding Chevron Corp. layoffs

@8slr, I brought everything I needed to the conversation and you know it. Your words and expression reflect just the person I and everyone knows you are. Move along now and let the grown ups have some time for serious talk.

@8dve, was your outing so hurtful that you had to come back to correct your spelling? I think not, loser. Take your trolling elsewhere, @sshole.

I posted this, and I am sorry about the spelling error, I never could spell perfectly. ;

"-6ggg, I agree with you 100% my butthurt brother. I have less than 15 years with CVX and also a paid off house and I drive a PORSCHE. I feel your pain my brother......."

However, there are some of you who are obsessed with being losers, trailer parks, playing banjos, getting laid off and the like , namely; @JGIEQOC-7swy and @JGIEQOC-7xmp.

Calling someone else who is miles more successful than you names does not lift you up from your low position, sweethearts. Work harder, save more, get a better job, do something different with your life. You don't gain any ground in life by spewing hatred and vitriol like cowards from the safety of your PC's. You will always be immersed in banjos and front porches and trailers your entire life, which evidently must fill your mind. Either way, feel free to shoot me the bird if your see a Silver 911 Carrera S fly by your trailer park!!!!

I'm going with the annuity. It's enough for me to live on by itself. Low interest rates and low market returns in the US will be the new normal for the next 12 or more years. I already have a substantial balance in my 401k to manage and expect low returns. I suspect Chevron will be tweaking its pension formula pretty soon once they realize their annuity assumptions are too high.

Yeah 6pzm, looks like 7xmp exposed you for who you are, a loser. LOL.

6pzm

You have a paid off trailer and a swing on your porch. If you had a racy sports car you would probably know how to spell it. Porsche is a nice car. Porch is where you sit, depressed at losing your job and playing a banjo.

I don't believe you, -6pzm. I'm pretty sure everyone else doesn't either. But that's not here nor there. I know my situation and accept it as such.

-6kxa, I am pretty sure that more than half of all Chevron employees with less than 15 years, have a lump sum pension below $275,000. And I'm not talking about the 401k. Everyone likes nice cars for sure, but those things depreciate in value with each year. Having a nice home that you can pay off is a better investment. Unfortunately, many people live for today and fail to plan for tomorrow. I sense you, like many others, fall into that grouping. I paid off my home with what I had left after taxes from the paltry $122,400 pension Chevron gave me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining either.

-6hrk, It is what it is. The lump sum might be chump change to you, but I didn't work that long for CVX and my pay grade was only PSG 19. I'll do my best to spend my money wisely and not piss it away on depreciable automobiles like you. Snob.

I'll be taking the lump sum. It's only a paltry $122,400 and the annuity amount is too low to be of any benefit to me.

Go for it, 5jtn and 5aak. I may take you up on your advise with my 401k invested funds. But, I'll keep my pension choice as the joint and survivor annuity. That will be my main source of income in retirement along with social security. If the market gives me good returns, I will take some of it from my 401 and not withdraw anything during years of low returns. That's how I plan to make my money last. Diversification has always been the best advise in the investment world. The annuity is one form of that. It's a steady and constant cash stream that's guaranteed for life.

@5aak - I would also add the Vanguard Total International Bond Index Fund (ETF or Admiral shares) as well. You might also want to keep some cash aside so that you can weather a down market without having to sell low. I think 8% is a bit optimistic with this mix, but 7% is certainly in the ballpark.

I can tell you from personal experience, after having worked at Chevron for 27 years, that you will take on a very different view of managing and risking your money in retirement. I built a 401k balance just over $1.5MM during my working years by socking away 6% of my salary and actively managing my portfolio. When I retired, all of a sudden I became more fearful of risk and losing my hard earned money. I'm no longer working and cannot replace short term losses. So, instead of taking my pension in a lump Doetook the guaranteed joint & survivor annuity. I'm doing fine financially, but my tolerance for risk is very low now. I only wanted those who haven't retired yet t know that when the reality of retirement suddenly hits you in the face, financial security is both a need and a fear to recon with.

Your selection of lump sum is smart. Don't let the ninnies here scare you about investing it. You can buy three Vanguard index funds, set it and forget it: total US stock, total intl stock,and total bond. Worst you can do long term is 8%/yr, which handily crushes the CVX assumption of less than 4%. You will beat 90% of active investors and mutual funds as well. Just rebalance once a year, otherwise don't even look at the statements or worry what the market does. And if you ever get in a situation where you want a heap of cash for anything, it's all there in your account.

4bwk: actually if Cvx drops any method it will be the annuity. People are living too long these days.

I for one encourage all of you to take the annuity. It is a better deal for Chevron due to the insanely low current interest rates and keeps the company strong. The lump sum the company must pay at these rates is simply outrageous and over generous. Wouldn't surprise me if that option went away entirely,

Everyone... The thread subject is about Going with the Lump Sum (vs the Annuity). There's no need to chastise anyone for their pension decision. It's their own choice. What one poster says may not be your choice for your personal situation, but leave it at that. Chime in with your opinion and state why it's your preference. Be happy that Chevron still provides a choice, because of the fewer and fewer employers still offering a pension, many don't offer a choice between lump sum and annuity. I think we are intelligent enough to read and discern what comments resonate with our point of view or our circumstance and make our own decisions. That kind of exchange is helpful. Insults are not.

"I ... have no problem at all with English grammar and all of it's (sic) nuances." That's the funniest thing I've read on this site in a while. He then goes on to rail against poorly educated people who make grammar mistakes and then tries to tie them to Democrats and Hillary. Great piece of satire (I hope).

It is nuances?? Might want to reread the Handbook regarding use of its versus it's, Sherlock, or just admit that language is not your thang.

If you prefer numbers, calculate the net present value of the annuity vs the lump Doethink you will get your answer regarding which one is the superior financial choice.

@JGIEQOC-3tqo, You are funny. You do not give yourself enough credit. I have 3 degrees, all technical and have no problem at all with English grammar and all of it's nuances. In fact, I embrace it, ever since I had to use the Harbrace College Handbook back in 1976. No, my English is not perfect but I welcome criticism and always try to improve. I don't know many college graduates, STEM or other, who use poor grammar, such as "your" instead of "you're", STEM or other. That is a true sign of a Hillary supporter, since the more poorly educated socioeconomic groups are most likely to vote democrat. That makes sense, because they are generally poor and depend on government assistance. It's interesting though, that some of their constituency tries adamantly to deny this simple fact. One will chime in shortly, they are so predictably pathetic - LOL!

@3ohb, @3fpw, @3hkt, @3hkt, "PhD in English" ... - I know exactly what it means, that's why I bristle when I read or hear it misused. It's pretty pathetic when someone tries to pretend that that actually knew what it meant, but used it "perfectly appropriate for the reading audience at hand". That's like saying that you spelled "you're" as "your" intentionally to save keystrokes. Why didn't you just use a correct phrase? You should fess up and admit you didn't know, cause no one believes you did. It's nothing to be ashamed of as plenty of people don't know the correct usage. In any case, I only brought it up because you were being so condescending to the previous poster. I only point out vocabulary or grammar mistakes when people are being jerks and think they know a lot more than they really do.

What does all this gibberish have to do with the lump sum or annuity? Will the grammar police with nothing to add please exit the forum. Thanks.

I think that there are quite a few opinionated views on this topic but there is also much to be learned if one just researches this topic on this site, and other places online. A relative consensus has been reached that if the choices have been proven to be "actuarially equivalent"(Sp?) then it is a very personal choice that varies from recipient to recipient, depending on health, heirs, family longevity history, needs, savings, etc. In other words, either choice may be good for you but it strongly depends upon you circumstance. It is false to state that one choice is "Better than the Other" in all cases for all recipients. It is also the same case for deciding to delay SS until 70, FRA, or anytime in between. It is unique for each recipient. If you have terminal cancer, you know what I mean. If you have an 82 year old father in good health eating fried food and wine every day, and your grandparents both lived past 100 (like some of mine) Then you also know what I mean. I think that in this day and age, any pension is a blessing, Most of us in the private sector (me, as a contractor) do not have the choice of either option.

You wordsmith jousters are funny. Obviously not engineers who often struggle in this area.

-3rzs, It's obvious that YOU do not know what that means.

Yes Indeed, I know what "Begs the Question" means and also am in full acknowledgement of it's common misuses and I was using it perfectly appropriate for the reading audience at hand, particularly morons such as @JGIEQOC-3rzs. (wannabe online Grammar specialist, you know, those dorks that everyone hates, who add nothing to the conversation or topic since they lack creativity and everyone wishes that they should quit posting?). I used that phrase EXACTLY like I intended.

To be precise:

"Begs the question is a term that comes from formal logic. It's a translation of the Latin phrase petitio principii, and it's used to mean that someone has made a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support. "

Yes Indeed, I know what "Begs the Question" means and also am in full acknowledgement of it's common misuses and I was using it perfectly appropriate for the reading audience at hand, particularly morons such as @JGIEQOC-3rzs. (wannabe online Grammar specialist, you know, those dorks that everyone hates, who add nothing to the conversation or topic since they lack creativity and everyone wishes that they should quit posting?) . I used that phrase EXACTLY like I intended to.

To be precise:

"Begs the question is a term that comes from formal logic. It's a translation of the Latin phrase petitio principii, and it's used to mean that someone has made a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support. "

@3wkg - I don't think you know what "begs the question" actually means. It doesn't mean what you think it does. You should look it up before you misuse it again.

There are a number of fallacies in your assertions. 1) Yes, the average return in the market over the last 30 years was about 8%, but that is an average, not 8% each year. Therefore, if you take equal distributions from your retirement account every month during periods of low market returns, it will take a greater rate of return to bring your principal balance to even keel. You can try to slow the erosion of your principal by cutting back on your withdrawal rate, but sometimes is not as easy as that. If you fall into a scenario like this, you can find yourself depleted of cash reserve in your latter years. 2) People keep pointing out that the CVX annuity is better than what you can obtain on the open market because it's a fact. Chevron offers a generous return on their annuity because they will invest it directly, whereas a third party will be taking a cut of your hard earned money while the insurance company that underwrites the annuity invests it very conservatively. I'll concede to you the annuity payout would be somewhat higher if we didn't have the present day low interest environment, but I'll add that you'd be trading a vast pile of investirle money (at risk) for a trickle of (guaranteed) cash. 3) The longer you live, the more inevitable you will outlive your money. It's impossible to have the time to earn it back in the market if your balance has already been wiped out because you lived past the old age of a river oak.

if you invested the lump sum the day before the stock market crash of 1929, you would still average 8% annual return over the next three decades. The annuity lump sum calc is closer to 4% so you have a massive safety margin to exceed the conservative Chevron assumtion in addition to access to the lump sum at all times.

And why do people keep pointing out the CVX annuity is better than any on the open market? It is true but nobody is buying annuities on the open market because they are terrible financial instruments in this low interest environment. You are trading a vast pile of investible money for a tiny trickle of cash.

Regarding longevity, the longer you live the more time you have to overcome any stock market irregularity with the lump sum. The annuity, on the other hands, shrivels under the crush of inflation. If you imagine living more than ten years, don't get the annuity!

Most people are smart enough to realize that in today's market environment, the Annuity is better in most cases, with a few exceptions, those being; you expect a short lifespan, and maybe don't have a spouse for the 100% joint survivor option and/or you have heirs that you desperately need to leave a lump sum to. There is nothing equivalent that you can purchase on the market, that is PBGC guaranteed. If I had heirs, unless they were in dire need, helpless and could not earn a living by no fault of their own, I would not leave them a windfall. I want my children to be able to stand on their own two feet, not be spoiled trust-fund babies. In most cases windfall inheritances are blown in the first few years and wasted anyhow.

The stock market does not scare me. It's market uncertainty and Wall Street manipulation that scares me. If having stability and peace of mind in retirement after 40 years as a working stiff matters to you, use your wits and gauge your own tolerance for risk before throwing your money into the market with only your fingers crossed. The annuity is a sure thing. It's guaranteed and provides stability and peace of mind. That said, you can always go into the casino and spin the roulette wheel for the rest of your life if you think you're lucky. I've already worked and taken risks all my working life. Retirement for me is to relax and enjoy what life I have left.

If the stock market scares you (those of you shaking at the idea of losing your lump sum), the annuity will be your best alternative. Same goes if you are the sort to blow the lump sum on a bass boat or a seven star holiday to Pensacola.

Let's not lose sight that Chevron's Retirement Plan (pension) is based entirely upon the Single Life Annuity. That is the Chevron default pension. If the retiree wants something different, such as the Lump Sum or a variation of the annuity (100% Joint and Survivor), there is a value conversion that takes place. The conversion methods are explained in the Chevron Retirement Plan's SPD document. All conversions are "actuarially equivalent", meaning the value is preserved, based primarily on your mortality age.

So the premise that some have of the Lump Sum being worth more is a false one. The pension is calculated as a single life annuity by default. If the lump sum pension is supposedly a more valuable payout, then Chevron would be cheating themselves in paying out more money. The fact is, a method of payment for the Chevron pension is required, and most other corporate pensions are based on the single life annuity. Just give thanks to Chevron that they allow for various forms of the annuity, plus a lump sum option. All methods of pension payouts only provides every retiree a choice of what best suits their particular circumstance, but none are intended to be worth more than another. The common denominator between all methods is your supposed mortality age. If you think you'd outline that age, then the annuity gives you a statistical advantage. If you think will could die earlier than that age, then the lump sum is likely to benefit you.

@1tqe, It's apparent you don't understand what "actuarially equivalent" means, when you also state in the same sentence, "that has a 95% chance of doing better than the rates in the calculation". Both pension payouts are acturarially equivalent based on your statistical mortality age (when you are likely to kick the bucket). It's up to each of us to decide which one is best for us. If your lump sum value is small, then take it as such, because the monthly annuity would be too small to be if any real use. If you are sickly or your family health history is poor, that may be a reason to choose the lump sum over the annuity. But, if your lump sum value is large, you are in good health, you have little or no debt and you already have an even larger 401k balance, why also risk your lump sum in the market? Since both pension payouts are acturarially equivalent based on mortality, your best common sense approach is to choose the Chevron annuity. Why do you think Chevron provides these two choices? It's certainly not to cheat some it if their pension. It's to offer some retirees another form of equal value that's based on their needs.

Most people are smart enough to realize the lump sum is way better. It is only the annuitants who cry and scream every time this topic comes up. They seem to want to defend their choice as being the best one or at least the best one for them. There just isn't any math to back that up. It is a lifetime guarantee of less money which shrinks with inflation vs a one time guarantee of a lump sum actuarially equivalent that has a 95% chance of doing better than the rates in the calculation while staying ahead of inflation.

The lump sum is a poor choice based on the current market conditions, due to Years of QE (Quantitative Easing), artificially inflated markets and record low interest rates. It is much more likely that the future for any prospective investments will be much more bleak than the ~6% distribution that the annuity offers which is backed by the PGBC. There is no current secure investment that can offer that. There is no way that you can purchase an annuity on the open market with as high of an effective rate of return as the Chevron annuity. There's a reason for that. You cannot achieve that with your investments either, at the same risk level. You MAY. You may NOT. For your sake, I hope that you do well. I also have stake in the game. However, if I wanted/needed an annuity for a secure, worry free income stream in retirement, the CVX annuity is one of the best available and I would jump at the opportunity. The Financial Advisors and brokerages have everything to gain and nothing to lose by you investing your lump sum in the market. Just remember that.

-1xxp, we've heard your asesiné remarks too many tines already. If you believe your own words, enlighten and save us all. What exactly are you doing to save yourself from the coming collapse? Nothing, I guess since you have nothing saved.

Won't help anyway, will be ZERO in a couple of years. Everything will collapse. Don't argue, just remember my words.

@vps, apart from my agreement about the tax withholding advantages with the IRA, I won't go as far as your blanket statement of living well with the lump sum in 20 years while annuitants will be pinching pennies. Maybe you're speaking for yourself, but you seem to be saying that for everyone. Choosing to go with the lump sum or annuity is not as simple as you make it out to be. There are several things each retiree must consider to make the best informed decision. You alluded to inflation as being the threat to annuitants. I submit to you that any inflation affects everyone, including retirees living off their lump sum investments. Allow me to throw in longevity. Outliving your mortality age is the retiree's biggest risk and if you also throw in inflation, worse yet. The annuitant will be constrained by inflation, but outliving his or her mortality age is no concern whatsoever as the annuity will keep coming every month. I personally, because of my excellent financial and health circumstances, I chose the annuity over the lump sum. The annuity provides me a steady cash stream that compliments my social security income. I have no choice but to conservatively risk my $1.24 million in the 401k, but at least I'm not having to manage the lump sum pension in the market as well.

Great advice on managing the withdrawals for minimum withholding. The lump sum is tricky but well worth it for the financial advantages in the current market. You will be living well in 20 years while some of the annuity holders may be squeezing their pennies.