Did the union comms address self inflicted 401k Excess? In other words, if we front load our retirement plan does MBCBP flow only based on company funds?

 

You bring up a good point. If participation requires participation, it would require MEMRAT. They need to move the whole Min Balance/MBCBP outside of Section 6 ala Global Scope. Imagine if the only obstacle to a TA are these items. My goodness, can you say Delta Pilot Civil War?

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

 

Are you saying you have a low/no risk method to make 20%? Snake oil must be in high demand. If we are trying to replicate something like a pension with relatively low risk and a guarantee of future income, then diversification and tapering over time is the only way to do it in a employee 401k. All this outside speculative investing is not part of the PWA retirement argument. Why are we not ok with adding a vehicle and sheltering more money? You know why there are lifecycle funds right? Bonds don't have to be a part of your portfolio but some income generating investments and tapering to more as you age is what a retirement account and employer funding is about. Not your roulette wheel du jour. Is your DPSP cash above $330K in earnings really going to retirement or even exist after using a roth rollover? I hope your scratch offs pay you well but I'd rather let my nest egg grow unencumbered and decide my income upon withdrawal. You talk a good game but there's no way you are getting 20% without significant risk.

 

That's what I'm worried about. It'll be included in the contract without optionality. If we agree to it, that's what we get. I could see it holding up the contract.

 

My concern is WHO is holding the money.

WHAT becomes of it if I pass away before withdrawing it.

And what happens if whoever is holding it, goes bankrupt. Like the brokerage, or Delta goes bankrupt again. While my money is in a brokerage, I do own shares that actually correspond to actual companies shares that I will retain if Fidelity goes POOF.

Why do I feel this is a "defined max amount" pension under a different name.

I don't trust that Delta will

1-Invest it wisely (Hello LATAM, AeroMexico, and whatever the next "partner" to go bankrupt is)
2-Not pull some shenanigans like the bank that holds it and them, filing for bankruptcy on the same day in the same court.

 

It's required to be third party managed and held. ALPA doesn't get it and doesn't want the liability and once the company funds it they are out of the picture. It's no less secure than your current 401k held by fidelity.

 

. If this is the case, I’m pretty confident the union will punt this to an LOA outside of section 6. I mean MBCBP with optionality may never happen and min balance is DOA. Let’s move along. Nothing to see here.

 

I agree, if they can’t get the IRS to permit the MBCBP to be optional, they need to move it or it will potentially cause the TA to fail. I’m with most of you, in that I don’t want to be forced to participate.

 

Nobody is saying we shouldn’t add another vehicle. Most seem to agree that the MBCBP has benefits for some people, if not most. The issue is that if the IRS doesn’t approve it as an optional plan, everyone will be forced into it regardless of their saving goals or other, better options.

 

except that my 401k is mine. I have an account, and that account has a balance of my money.

the MBCBP is a group fund, and all an individual pilot will get is a “notional balance.”

it’s not the same.