Thread regarding General Electric Co. layoffs

I work at the PBGC and can tell you with certainty that the guarantees are good as long as congress cooperates.

Did you clowns have any education at all. It's obvious that if this company goes under then the pension will be worthless. All this talk about guarantees is just plain bull.

When a guy says that the pension is underfunded by 30-40% (it's an exact number and was reported in the last quarter) and says he's in finance.... it's fake news. When "Mr. "I'm in finance" doesn't know about the PBGC and "any shock to the system will double that at least", it's fake news. People who want to blow smoke and claim an authority they obviously don't have get "fake news".

Do you really expect that they will have an argument made against their BS? Go for it if you want. I'll just say "fake news" and you can figure it out.

FACT: If it goes to PBGC yes we lose some of our pension, but not all.

This is not Fake News. Who are you folks that love to say "Fake News"? Russian trolls?

...any shock to the system will double that at least.

Fake news.

I'm in finance......

Real News. Stop calling things Fake News when it is the Truth.

I'm in finance......

Fake news.

Fear mongering

I assumed everyone knew that, in essence, our pensions are "safe", but yes if it enters default it will take a big hit. Here they estimate 33% cut. But pensions are insured to hold at least "most" value, but not all.

OP is 100% correct. I'm in finance and can tell you with certainty that pensions are vastly underfunded. Heaven help us if we get a stock market downturn or worse. As it stands now, your pension is already around 30-40% underfunded, and any shock to the system will double that at least.

If people only knew what was REALLY going on at the top, they'd be shocked. Good thing most are blissfully living in their own land of delusion.

http://www.ibmemployee.com/RetirementHeist.shtml

Start at the paragraphs here in link above and keep reading. Corporate genius!

IBM also underestimated the über-nerds on its staff, though it’s not hard to understand why the company was so complacent: It had cut pensions several times in the 1990s, and no one had noticed. Traditionally, it provided 1.5 percent of pay for each year of service, which resulted in a pension that replaced roughly one-third to almost one-half of a person’s salary in retirement. The calculation was simple: years of service times average pay in the final few years times .015. For example: If someone worked thirty years, and his average pay in the final years was $50,000, the pension would be worth $22,500 a year in retirement ($50,000 x 30 x .015).

Reducing any of these factors would produce a smaller pension. In the early 1990s, IBM reduced all three. In 1991, it capped the number of years of service that got taken into account when calculating pensions, limiting it to thirty years. This meant that if people worked longer than that, their pensions wouldn’t grow. Next, it lowered the multiplier from 1.5 percent to 1.35 percent, again reducing the pensions. Finally, it reduced the salary component; instead of basing the pension on the average salary an employee earned in the final five years of service, it began to use an average based on the entire time of service, including the early years when pay was low.

Pension Plan Risks in Mergers, Acquisitions and Spin-offs

https://www.nrln.org/flyin%20whtpprs/WP.%20Protecting%20Retirees%20in%20Mergers%20Acquisitions%20&%20Pension%20Spin-offs.pdf