This thing shouldn’t go to vote, period. There should be no if this thing passes. These guys need to be held liable if they forces this POS down crew force throat. And no I don’t trust the voting system either.

 

If I KNEW I wanted to work until 65, my numbers show a plus of 63k, up to 193k. That kind of leap might make me a huge fan of trying to improve the plan.

Leaving at 60 or 62 are much more modest gains. About 5-12k (maybe 20k if it goes really well) a year at 62. Less than 10k if I leave at 60...

I'm a solid "show me". Protect me from the downside, and find a way to make sure I cannot go backwards--in good years or bad--and I'll consider it. Barring going all the way to 65....the risk verses reward needs to be carefully scrutinized. I'll take some risks for some potential major upside gains. Waiting until 65 to reap most of those gains, however, may not be worth it. If there is a chance of making less than I do now if I bail at 58, 60, or 62...I'll have to slide over to the "no" side.

I'm not an investing genius, and I don't know how hard it will be for the fund to average 5%. I just want the ability to be able to bail at 55 and onwards without being "stuck". Don't let me slide backwards and close doors behind me...if it takes away options it will have to be a "no".

 

For me, putting in 25 years and retiring at 60, the gain was $1K up to $7K. Not worth the risk. But that included a floor benefit which has to be negotiated as well as a 5% hurdle rate which is lower than the rate that FedEx uses now to fund our retirement. FedEx drew a line in the sand that it was to expensive to raise our retirement, yet those two items alone will cost the company more. That is unless somehow we pay for it by capping the returns for a stabilization fund. Notice that the modeler left that out. There is a question on the union Q&A page about including the stabilization fund in the modeler. The answer was that they left it out to make it easier for us to understand. I guess we aren't smart enough for them to be transparent.

 

Wonder why our nums are so different. I do have a high 5 complete, so I max whatever they freeze with old plan. Until last couple of years was not a quality of life bidder, and chased dollars. Starting to ease off now with one kid out of college and just enjoying life.

Interested in seeing those with and without high 5 done to get a glimpse of how the results are scattered.

My hope had been enough bump at 60 or 62 to bail early. I prolly still will go then, but it wont be huge gains in the plan that allow it, but rather my own investing and work.

Another question...and maybe I should review materials more....what IF we have a great couple years in market. How much more of the upside could we expect to capture if we had a run of good luck?

 

There are a ton of "5 millionaire" guys hired since 2015 who are "middle" guys with essentially the same demographic as you.

If we continue to hire 400-ish per year until it is time for contract negotiations, that demographic is going to continue to balloon.

Might not be as much of a minority as you think.

 

I'm a middle guy, but only have 2 of my high five years. I also bid quality of life. Doing exactly what I've done over the last 15 years gets me a gain of 1%, but I get all the risk, using the most conservative #'s in the modeler. If I throw in a few 4a2b years it is worse. I've always planned to go out at 60 with 25 years. I get a 9% increase if I stay until 65 with the VB plan.

Retire at 60 under A plan $130K/year x 5 years = $650.0K
Retire at 60 under new plan $131.3K/year (maybe)
Retire at 65 under new plan $141.7K/year = dif. $ 11.7K

It takes me 55.5 years to break even on the 5 years I gave up collecting, but once I reach 121 years old, I'm cleaning up!

If the market beats the 5% floor every year over year the plan is an improvement. Also if you are a guy that busts his hump every year and gives up quality of life, it looks like it could, (could), be better.

Just some middle of the pack numbers.

 

They are already capturing ALL of the upside, without including the Earnings Cap they touted to build the Stabilization Fund.

The fund won’t magically make more (or less) because we agree to take the risk.

Ask for version 2.0 with their notional 10% Earnings Cap included

Making more by working harder and working longer. Yes, that’s how uncapped YOS, defined contribution plans should work. But with those, it would be the pilots money to control.

Stay diversified, stay transparent - make modest improvements to our A fund thru indexing, an increase to YOS credits, and modest increases to the B fund.

 

The smart analyst (consumer) focuses on a models assumptions & inputs

While the salesman would rather you focus on the output

 

Exactly.. Reminds me about all the statistics sayings..

“Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure.”

 

Sounds great. The company will not. Other suggestions?