No one left behind!
12-31-2023 | 07:02 PM
#181
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,357
Likes: 133
In viper 25 assement it is very risky to be fully invested in the market your last five years. Can you tolerate a large correction close to your retirement? Need to go more conservative which will decrease the 7% viper 25 calculated.
12-31-2023 | 09:14 PM
#182
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2023
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
You guys are idiots that can’t do the math to figure out TA1. A $39k pension increase is worth $500k lump sum value. Depending on your YOS, the pay rates were worth roughly $150k increase over 4.5 years. That gets $650k value increase per pilot. The MBCBP would have added even more value than that if you went over 25 YOS.
It’s really not hard to stop the outrage part of your brain and try to get the rational part to do some basic math.
01-01-2024 | 05:47 AM
#183
Banned
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 1,244
Likes: 0
[QUOTE=Bill80;3744282]Who said that?
You guys are idiots that can’t do the math to figure out TA1. A $39k pension increase is worth $500k lump sum value. Based on what, what interest rates, what length of time? You can't compare a lump sum to a 39K increase when you don't know how long someone will live to get the 39K. Seems like understaning time value of money isn't your strong point.
You guys are idiots that can’t do the math to figure out TA1. A $39k pension increase is worth $500k lump sum value. Based on what, what interest rates, what length of time? You can't compare a lump sum to a 39K increase when you don't know how long someone will live to get the 39K. Seems like understaning time value of money isn't your strong point.
01-01-2024 | 06:12 AM
#184
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2023
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
[QUOTE=Stan446;3744318]
Okay what’s your valuation of it then Stan? Since TVM isn’t my strong point?
Use the 4% rule at a minimum. That’s a common rule of thumb in retirement. That values it at $975k. Like someone else mentioned, that’s highly conservative and values it like a perpetuity.
The life expectancy of a man at age 65 is 82. For a woman it’s 85, according to Social Security. You can use those ages to calculate an annuity. Being conservative and using a woman’s life expectancy of 20 years after retirement and a 4% interest rate, that’s $524k lump sum equivalent for a $39k annuity.
And then you need to adjust for inflation based on your current age to figure out what it’s worth today to you.
Who said that?
You guys are idiots that can’t do the math to figure out TA1. A $39k pension increase is worth $500k lump sum value. Based on what, what interest rates, what length of time? You can't compare a lump sum to a 39K increase when you don't know how long someone will live to get the 39K. Seems like understaning time value of money isn't your strong point.
You guys are idiots that can’t do the math to figure out TA1. A $39k pension increase is worth $500k lump sum value. Based on what, what interest rates, what length of time? You can't compare a lump sum to a 39K increase when you don't know how long someone will live to get the 39K. Seems like understaning time value of money isn't your strong point.
Use the 4% rule at a minimum. That’s a common rule of thumb in retirement. That values it at $975k. Like someone else mentioned, that’s highly conservative and values it like a perpetuity.
The life expectancy of a man at age 65 is 82. For a woman it’s 85, according to Social Security. You can use those ages to calculate an annuity. Being conservative and using a woman’s life expectancy of 20 years after retirement and a 4% interest rate, that’s $524k lump sum equivalent for a $39k annuity.
And then you need to adjust for inflation based on your current age to figure out what it’s worth today to you.
Last edited by Bill80; 01-01-2024 at 06:27 AM.
01-01-2024 | 06:16 AM
#185
Banned
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 1,244
Likes: 0
[QUOTE=Bill80;3744324]
Okay what’s your valuation of it then Stan? Since TVM isn’t my strong point?
Use the 4% rule at a minimum. That’s a common rule of thumb in retirement. That values it at $975k. Like someone else mentioned, that’s highly conservative and values it like a perpetuity.
The life expectancy of a man at age 65 is 82. For a woman it’s 85, according to IRS. You can use those ages to calculate an annuity. Being conservative and using a woman’s life expectancy of 20 years after retirement and a 4% interest rate, that’s $524k lump sum equivalent for a $39k annuity.
Nice try. FedEx pilots don't live to 82 on average.
Okay what’s your valuation of it then Stan? Since TVM isn’t my strong point?
Use the 4% rule at a minimum. That’s a common rule of thumb in retirement. That values it at $975k. Like someone else mentioned, that’s highly conservative and values it like a perpetuity.
The life expectancy of a man at age 65 is 82. For a woman it’s 85, according to IRS. You can use those ages to calculate an annuity. Being conservative and using a woman’s life expectancy of 20 years after retirement and a 4% interest rate, that’s $524k lump sum equivalent for a $39k annuity.
01-01-2024 | 06:20 AM
#186
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2023
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
[QUOTE=Stan446;3744327]What do they live to then? That age 82 is the life expectancy of someone at age 65. It’s a way to value retirement for someone that is alive at retirement age.
The general life expectancy of a man is less than that, when taking in account deaths before age 65. The table below shows life expectancy based on your age.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
The general life expectancy of a man is less than that, when taking in account deaths before age 65. The table below shows life expectancy based on your age.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
Last edited by Bill80; 01-01-2024 at 06:32 AM.
01-02-2024 | 02:58 PM
#187
China Visa Applicant
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,964
Likes: 16
From: Midfield downwind
Our MEC said that.
During the 2016 ALPA meetings when the new Variable Benefit and Variable Contribution plans were briefly being bounced around, it was briefed that our Negotiating Committee was given NDA-restricted access to the company's books.
What was claimed to have been calculated was that, due to the Congressional legislation passed following the 2008 recession, the Company had different funding requirements for the A Plan. It meant that for every $1 increase to the FAE cap, it cost the company $4 in payment into the funding of the A plan.
It was because of that increase in company liability in current-day-funding, the Company wasn't ever going to buy off on increases to the FAE cap.
During the 2016 ALPA meetings when the new Variable Benefit and Variable Contribution plans were briefly being bounced around, it was briefed that our Negotiating Committee was given NDA-restricted access to the company's books.
What was claimed to have been calculated was that, due to the Congressional legislation passed following the 2008 recession, the Company had different funding requirements for the A Plan. It meant that for every $1 increase to the FAE cap, it cost the company $4 in payment into the funding of the A plan.
It was because of that increase in company liability in current-day-funding, the Company wasn't ever going to buy off on increases to the FAE cap.
01-02-2024 | 04:43 PM
#188
On Reserve
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 49
Likes: 2
Our MEC said that.
During the 2016 ALPA meetings when the new Variable Benefit and Variable Contribution plans were briefly being bounced around, it was briefed that our Negotiating Committee was given NDA-restricted access to the company's books.
What was claimed to have been calculated was that, due to the Congressional legislation passed following the 2008 recession, the Company had different funding requirements for the A Plan. It meant that for every $1 increase to the FAE cap, it cost the company $4 in payment into the funding of the A plan.
It was because of that increase in company liability in current-day-funding, the Company wasn't ever going to buy off on increases to the FAE cap.
During the 2016 ALPA meetings when the new Variable Benefit and Variable Contribution plans were briefly being bounced around, it was briefed that our Negotiating Committee was given NDA-restricted access to the company's books.
What was claimed to have been calculated was that, due to the Congressional legislation passed following the 2008 recession, the Company had different funding requirements for the A Plan. It meant that for every $1 increase to the FAE cap, it cost the company $4 in payment into the funding of the A plan.
It was because of that increase in company liability in current-day-funding, the Company wasn't ever going to buy off on increases to the FAE cap.
https://www.pionline.com/special-rep...plans-end-game
01-02-2024 | 06:07 PM
#189
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2023
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
good info why increases in benefits may not be as expensive currently.... good pension discussion in general.
https://www.pionline.com/special-report-corporate-balance-sheet/rising-interest-rates-put-corporate-pension-plans-end-game
https://www.pionline.com/special-report-corporate-balance-sheet/rising-interest-rates-put-corporate-pension-plans-end-game
You're not going to convince the company or NMB to sizably increase the pension without ending it for new hires. Because it's not just about cost, it's mostly about risk management.
You guys are headed down a path where older pilots will get a multiplier bump to the pension, and everyone gets a small % increase in the B plan, and everyone loses from what was offered in TA1's retirement.
Last edited by Bill80; 01-02-2024 at 06:24 PM.
01-02-2024 | 06:15 PM
#190
On Reserve
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 49
Likes: 2
"In May of 2018, they purchased a group annuity contract for $6 billion in liabilities for 41,000 retirees and beneficiaries, a contract that cost them $210 million more than the value of the liability they eliminated on an accounting basis. What’s more, the plan is 88% funded on a US GAAP basis (projected pay, corporate bond spot rates). This isn’t a matter of cutting costs – it’s about reducing risk, even at a cost." - Forbes, Nov 18, 2019
You're not going to convince the company or NMB to sizably increase the pension without ending it for new hires. Because it's not just about cost, it's mostly about risk management.
You guys are headed down a path where older pilots wiill get a multiplier bump to the pension, and everyone gets a small % increase in the B plan, and everyone loses from what was offered in TA1's retirement.
You're not going to convince the company or NMB to sizably increase the pension without ending it for new hires. Because it's not just about cost, it's mostly about risk management.
You guys are headed down a path where older pilots wiill get a multiplier bump to the pension, and everyone gets a small % increase in the B plan, and everyone loses from what was offered in TA1's retirement.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
