The plan summary which I posted the link to before is overfunded by almost $3 billion dollars.
Why are you posting misinformation?
As an I.A.M. member, you know that strength lies in numbers. The same holds true for the National Pension Plan. Our strength lies in these numbers:
Over 1,750 contributing employers
Over 71,000 retirees and beneficiaries
113,000 active participating members
Nearly $9 billion in assets
Plan Summary
Annual Report
700, kindly review your links, you spout off but I'm not even sure you read the links you provide.
The information I posted was from independent sources and info filed on form 550's. There is no lie and it is separate from my opinion.
I don't believe you actually read your link, or you don't know how to interpret it. Nonetheless, I will stick with your link and try to unpack it for you.
According to your link, the IAM sez it's overfunded based on its assets minus the amount its members are vested. This is equivalent to the rah rah speech and is not in any way an strong indicator of any pension's health. In this sense, you are correct. However, it would do serious harm to justice not to recognize the billions in liabilities. The most critical report is the Annual Funding notice, then the ERISA papers, then the IAM's own spin. Check your link, the current funding is actually worse than the 2005 one I posted. The AFN is now listed as now being only 89% funded. Yikes! The ERISA stipulations are now below 100% and are at 96%. 700 these are your own links and I agree they are accurate.
With pension funds, the key funding level that is used for pension health is the assets over liabilities. Do you follow this? Your IAM loyalist proudly proclaim the $9billion in assests against how much vesting obligations and leave out the critical Annual Funding notice report which is the true accurate measure of ANY pension. You can find the AFN 89% funding level on the link your provided. Please read your own links, and then know what they mean.
At any rate, to answer RobC, the IAM pension plan was a 48.2 million concession when we lost the 401k. It limited contributing payments from the company and the company was all to eager to get it.
More concerning is the amount of active participants who are flipping the bill for the IAM pension. According to the 2005, governmental form 550, only 36% of IAM Pension participants are contributing to the fund. This is like Social Security and a ticking time bomb. The information is objective and all info will be unpacked for the workers. It will be separate from 700's opinion and mine. The workers will decided once they see the truth of the matter.
As aside, the IBEW pension fund is over 700% funded and it's contributing members I believe represent over 70%. I'll have the numbers hopefully later this afternoon.
Going back to the IAM Pension. 700 sez strength lies in numbers. Go to the IAM National Pension Plan and see that there are no guarantees for the employees when you click 'employees'. It's subject to the same termination clauses as any other plan due to underfunding. However, click 'employers'. There you will see that employers are solicited to contribute and the IAM offers them full guarantees and releases them from obligations if the plan goes belly up like other Union pension plans have. At any rate, I'll try to have the flyer posted with the accompaning facts from independent sources and governmental sources.
Oh, one more. 700 mentions 113,000 as active participants. That's true but being in the IAM plan, i wanna know how many are 'active contributors'. Key word, contributors! The independent site which has the IAM 550 form info on it sez that ONLY 36% are active contributors. I got a problem with that guys! When only 1/3 of the participants who are entitled to some form of benefit are NOT contributing, it reminds me of social security. I believe Dog Wonder is one of those collecting if I remember his post correctly. IMO, Dog Wonder doesn't want to lose another 4% of those who are actually contributing to his own personal pension that I believe he is collecting already [if I heard him right].
Read what the Wall street journal sez about this stuff.
regards,
