Originally Posted by
UnskilledFXer
Examples set forth by proponents of these plans demonstrates significant fluctuations in retirement income due to plan performance. A link to soa.org in a previous post shows a difference of 48% in retirement payout volatility , for the same estimated value, due to timing. To paraphrase, an 2003 retiree with an estimated $1000 monthly benefit received the following, 2008 $1358, 2009 $966 and 2012 $1121. Conversely, a person retiring in 2008 with the same $1000 monthly benefit received the following, 2009 $711 and in 2012. $825. So if you base your retirement on $10000 a month, can you accept $7100 in the hopes that you might make $13580? Also notice an individual who retired 5 years earlier than you, with the same estimated benefit is making 27% more than you in 2012. One must very aware that many groups under these plans have no regulated retirement age and can elect to work through market turmoil. For us, the merry go round stops at 65, good or bad economy.
Really good points, and something for people to think about. Your monthly benefit for the rest of your life to be based upon what the market is doing at the time of your retirement?
You retire a year too soon, because nobody knows what the market will do, and you see your retirement check far below someone who waited. Or you wait too long and the market crashes. Or you have to retire at age 65 and get stuck with whatever it is at the time. This is crazy, and will encourage people to push for later (or no) mandatory retirement age so they can wait out the market. Get your walkers ready.
No wonder we aren't getting the specifics on this plan yet. If this is all incorrect information people are passing on, get it out there. Until then, it's going to be speculation based upon what we have received so far. Let's see the presentation the company received. Let's see what our reps have witnessed.