Originally Posted by
DLax85
Not exactly, the MEC has presented one specific example for you to theoretically increase your retirement based on numerous assumptions and one very specific data set of historical financial returns
- they assume a 2% “floor benefit” accrural rate
- they assume “No Cap Rate” on investment returns
- they assume (but haven’t fully disclosed) the historical investment returns that occurred over a specific 19 year period [1999-2017]
- they assume a specific upgrade timeline
The 3% increase could be better - and it could certainly be less!
Install an investment CAP
Encounter lower actual investment returns
Upgrade more slowly
Any of these will lead to a lower retirement benefit than presented by the MEC
In UNITY,
DLax
Totally agree DLax. As you said in your response, lots of assumptions made by the union. 3% was based on those assumptions...may be more but may also be less.
I guess that's the main issue with this whole thing. We just don't know because our retirement payout will be based on the performance of the market.
There are plenty of us here who, given the choice, would rather stick with what we have. It is a known quantity. It is the "bird in the hand". It is not perfect but we know what we have and it requires us to assume very little risk. Based on that, we can tailor our other investments, both within FedEx (B Plan) and outside accordingly with a level of risk that we are comfortable with.
Why we would voluntarily freeze that is beyond me.