Originally Posted by kronan

Ridiculously hard sell. Don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

What's ridiculous is the fear-mongering about the plan.
The, there's no way to achieve those modeled results without investing in stocks...duh.
The, you'd have to be an idiot to bargain away our A plan...duh, VB plan is just a different benefit calculation, still an A plan-just one with a different formula.
The, military guys are going be screwed when they take a leave of abscence. Well, No, Military guys are specifically protected and all retirement benefits accrue as if they worked full time.
The, that 25 year salary is BS....I've been here 25 years and I don't earn anywhere close to that. Hello, that's a salary prediction for 25 years in the future. (And one that I personally think was Low on what it's likely to be. IMO-inflations going to be running higher, which means Pay raises are going to be higher than we've seen recently when inflations been in the 2% ballpark)

The ONE true fear-mongering comment is, well, I don't trust the model because nothings been negotiated yet. Tough to argue with that, but it's hard for me to imagine NO ONE noticing that any Benefit Change wouldn't be commented on by everyone. Impossible for me to imagine myself, failing to notice that the Floor Benefit limit was somehow left out.
But yes, everything's still to be negotiated. Got me there.

Hard Sell. Man, it's been anything but. It wasn't a Trust us, here's a power point. It was a here's what we considered. Here's what we think is the best option, one with a earnings cap that never has to be negotiated again, here's what the results are using actual returns from 99-present (Returns that included the dot.com bust circa 2001 as well as that of 2009)
We're setting up limited sessions in the hub to run your personal data. Well, we listened to your feedback and have taken the Modeler Live, so everyone can run their own scenarios from the comfort of their home

Originally Posted by DR K

A hard sell is an understatement, more like unsubstantiated propaganda.

1 - Not one company that utilizes a stabilized/variable plan that cannot reduce retiree benefits based on the fund's investment returns has been identified in order to help us review their plan literature and protections. Major League baseball is a lie, although front and center in most people's minds as an example still. The lack of evidence and dismissal of the request for examples only drives a wider chasm between you and those of us who are wary of the risk. Is it fair to say we will be the first one of these plans in history? If so, why don't you understand the risk assessment we'd like to make? Keep mocking our caution and you will see more divergence.

2 - The company indeed wants out of the pension business! Right now they cannot wiggle out our current plan, but set up a new plan concept that no company in our nation's history has used and they will figure out a way. Provide some literature from other companies that use a stabilized fund that can never reduce pension payouts and you will go a long way in removing that concern. Otherwise, you are just squawking "don't you want more money" all day long and providing nothing towards our vetting of this miracle plan.

3 - See the attached picture - obviously MLB is a straight lie, but which one of these other "high wage earners" do we want to emulate? They make literally hundreds of dollars PER MONTH on their variable plans and their benefits are not guaranteed. Sign me up!

4 - Please, again, please explain how the stabilized plan is required to be 100% funded per ERISA/PBGC/PPA 2006 requirements like our current plan, yet somehow that amount is not as restrictive as we have now and allows us to receive more of the cashflow from the underlying investments! It is nowhere in any of the propaganda I read, so maybe someone heard something at a hub turn meeting that can answer why there are different laws governing each of the plans.

5 - Do the notional shares invest in mostly stocks in order to improve the returns required for increased retiree payouts? That is a fair question and duh is not an answer! If this fund is equity-heavy and we have to burn through the stabilization fund in the first 5 years, then what? THE COMPANY CAN GET OUT THIS THING IN A HEARTBEAT. But yes, thank you for the "duh" response it helps me understand the risk quite a bit.

If you just respond by mockery to those who want evidence and examples, the results of these "discussions" will be more caution by those of us who act based on risk and a knowledge of our company's intentions and historical behavior. You are your own worst enemies. Dr K.