![]() |
Inconvenient MBCBP Truths
No conspiracy theories, half truths or lies. Just the FACTS.
FACT: “The historical annual return on our U.S. Pension Plan assets, calculated on a compound geometric basis, was 5.70%, net of all fees and expenses, for the 15-year period ended May 31, 2023.” FACT: “2023: Net of all fees and expenses, the actual rate of return on our U.S. Pension Plan assets was -2.70%, which was lower than our expected rate of return of 6.50%.” FACT: “2022: Net of all fees and expenses, the actual rate of return on our U.S. Pension Plan assets was -10.8%, which was lower than our expected rate of return of 6.50%.” Source; FedEx 2023 10-K report pages 100 & 102. https://s21.q4cdn.com/665674268/file...-FY23-10-K.pdf The modeler uses 6.5%. We were told the company thinks they can achieve 7%. But they’ve not been able to do that over at least the past 15 years. Do you want FedEx to be the fiduciary of your retirement investment? Are 11% contributions enough given this news? MBCBP = Defined Funding with Variable Results. |
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
(Post 3677098)
No conspiracy theories, half truths or lies. Just the FACTS.
FACT: “The historical annual return on our U.S. Pension Plan assets, calculated on a compound geometric basis, was 5.70%, net of all fees and expenses, for the 15-year period ended May 31, 2023.” FACT: “2023: Net of all fees and expenses, the actual rate of return on our U.S. Pension Plan assets was -2.70%, which was lower than our expected rate of return of 6.50%.” FACT: “2022: Net of all fees and expenses, the actual rate of return on our U.S. Pension Plan assets was -10.8%, which was lower than our expected rate of return of 6.50%.” Source; FedEx 2023 10-K report pages 100 & 102. https://s21.q4cdn.com/665674268/file...-FY23-10-K.pdf The modeler uses 6.5%. We were told the company thinks they can achieve 7%. But they’ve not been able to do that over at least the past 15 years. Do you want FedEx to be the fiduciary of your retirement investment? Are 11% contributions enough given this news? MBCBP = Defined Funding with Variable Results. last I checked. We never asked for this bridge to nowhere. So glad TA1 never passed. |
Originally Posted by LuckyvsGood
(Post 3677542)
last I checked. We never asked for this bridge to nowhere. So glad TA1 never passed.
|
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
(Post 3677098)
No conspiracy theories, half truths or lies. Just the FACTS.
FACT: “The historical annual return on our U.S. Pension Plan assets, calculated on a compound geometric basis, was 5.70%, net of all fees and expenses, for the 15-year period ended May 31, 2023.” FACT: “2023: Net of all fees and expenses, the actual rate of return on our U.S. Pension Plan assets was -2.70%, which was lower than our expected rate of return of 6.50%.” FACT: “2022: Net of all fees and expenses, the actual rate of return on our U.S. Pension Plan assets was -10.8%, which was lower than our expected rate of return of 6.50%.” Source; FedEx 2023 10-K report pages 100 & 102. https://s21.q4cdn.com/665674268/file...-FY23-10-K.pdf The modeler uses 6.5%. We were told the company thinks they can achieve 7%. But they’ve not been able to do that over at least the past 15 years. Do you want FedEx to be the fiduciary of your retirement investment? Are 11% contributions enough given this news? MBCBP = Defined Funding with Variable Results. |
Originally Posted by TomAce
(Post 3677969)
Thank you for sharing this. The MBCBP is garbage. Far too much of our money would have gone into it with low returns. If they insist on creating a similar setup, we have to demand that the company is not the fiduciary.
However, even the 6.5% goal is above current, forward looking, market forecasts by major investment firms we utilize (Vanguard, Fidelity & Schwab). If the MBCBP is the way forward,then the solution is to use a lower estimated return (perhaps 5.5%) and require the company to give a larger annual percentage contribution. 11% is insufficient. Fix it NOW! Not in the “next contract”. In Transparency, Integrity & Unity (for Everyone), DLax ps. I’d prefer Everyone had a choice - even future new hires. |
The only retirement I’m interested in is our current plan. Fix the hem once and for all in a way which keeps up with inflation. The company can afford it, no question about that.
|
Originally Posted by DLax85
(Post 3678032)
The MBCBP must make payments to those in retirement, thus the asset mix of 55% equities /45% bonds is not unreasonable. Rather it’s prudent.
However, even the 6.5% goal is above current, forward looking, market forecasts by major investment firms we utilize (Vanguard, Fidelity & Schwab). If the MBCBP is the way forward,then the solution is to use a lower estimated return (perhaps 5.5%) and require the company to give a larger annual percentage contribution. 11% is insufficient. Fix it NOW! Not in the “next contract”. In Transparency, Integrity & Unity (for Everyone), DLax ps. I’d prefer Everyone had a choice - even future new hires. Also, what do you think about their goal of 8% target ROI? |
Originally Posted by NotMrNiceGuy
(Post 3678066)
Curious what you think about Delta’s set up as MBCBP as a spillover as opposed to 11%?
Also, what do you think about their goal of 8% target ROI? |
Originally Posted by NotMrNiceGuy
(Post 3678066)
Curious what you think about Delta’s set up as MBCBP as a spillover as opposed to 11%?
Also, what do you think about their goal of 8% target ROI? If we stick with our garbage MBCBP design then we must ensure the company is not the fiduciary. |
MBCBP inevitable?
If we do have the MBCBP, it would be better for many to increase the B fund first, then have the rest going into MBCBP. This gives more agency to the pilot first, with roth, ability to control investments, and more control over distributions in retirement depending on what the market is doing, more ownership. 15 % B fund first, or why not 20%? I understand that the highest paid pilots will max out pretty fast. It sounds like the MBCBP was designed as a spillover for those without a legacy pension who earn a lot. The May TA is making it into the whole kit and caboodle. It doesn't look like there is a way out of the A plan which would be fair to everyone. Maybe a graduated buyout based on age and longevity, over the course of the contract if the company cannot "afford" this. Our earnings are being eaten by inflation from the bottom, and overtaxed by the government from the top. This is not the company's or union's fault, but given that the company remains profitable, I think we must negotiate better compensation!
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:06 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands