Is Central States pension fund ready to go under?

[area43]

Jon, thats what the problem is with the internet you can choose to ignore the tuff questions. Cut the middle man out. Dissolve the plan and than the problems will stop..

Folks can't you see what Jon is doing. Jon from reading your posts it is very apparent that you are on a power and ego trip. Jon you keep defending the MEP because you now your supporters will keep following you into the deep pit of darkness. Jon you like the extreme feeling of importance and its skewing your judgement. Jon I also detect a arrogant, pridefull and selfish, centered man. Where is your true compassion for helping these people in the CS plan. Yes, there might be hanky panky going on on both sides, but what are you really doing to correct the problem. It seems you just want to complain and keep things as they are. Not good. Folks, Jon knows that if the MEP would dissolve he would lose his power over you(supporters). Jon do what's in the best interest of the common laborer and Cut Out The Middle Man. Jon, dont do what's in your self serving best interest. Remember, its all about helping people. Jon I want to help you out. Its easy for an ego to get out of hand. Go unchecked folks. Jon, you need to self analyze. Stop and ask yourself. Are I'm really looking out for my self gradafication of empowerment or do I really want to help others.

By not answering my question on cutting out the middle man. I am only lead to believe that you think the common laborer is ignorant. Folks, Iam truly frustrated with Jon. I will not let tempatation get the best of me and stoop to a lower level of insults and name calling. Jon, you are a fact finding genius and I will give you that, but I feel you are headed in the wrong direction on this matter. Why must you always bite the hand that feeds you? Do you ever have anything positive to say about the Company? 33 years. Anything? Jon, again do what is right. These active working UPSers are in a world of hurt. Is the kitchen starting to get a little hot and yes Jon I will be posting more about your possible unethical practices of gathering info. Ignorance is no excuse. I feel you are oblivious to what you are actualy doing. Folks, Im trying to curtail a man that has 33 years with the company into getting into trouble......

 

[705red]

Re: 60% . . . Where's your PROOF?

yes in 97. 97 was the time to buy them out. It woud have been much cheaper in 97 to do so. Changes in the laws since have made it much more expensive. At this point I don't know how 2007 is going to workout.

Tie how would you have that info if it was never given out about ups assuming our pension in 97? Isnt it true that you dont know this to be factual and you are just trying to add fuel to the fire against the teamsters and painting a pretty picture that ups cares about us the employees! Honestly if ups really cared about us why then are there so many upsers on here (brown cafe) unhappy working for ups or unhappy with ups for their mismanaging of the compnay. Do you really expect us to believe that the eskew era of ups wont mismanage our single employer fund similiar to the everyday operations they somehow find a way to screw up? You are right that it probably would have been cheaper to but it out in 97 then compared to todays conditions of the fund and law changes. But honestly i noticed you stated that you have 25 years in now, how many more before you can retiree without any penalties? Medical insurance costs, etc, and how old are you now? When you retiree will social security be deducted right away or will you have several years of a full pension from ups? Under my mep my pension does not get reduced when/if social security kicks in.

Tie instead of bashing our union and mep why not show us how good your ups single employer plan is so we can start for-seeing the future of our pension realities.

 

[705red]

Jon, thats what the problem is with the internet you can choose to ignore the tuff questions. Cut the middle man out. Dissolve the plan and than the problems will stop..

Folks can't you see what Jon is doing. Jon from reading your posts it is very apparent that you are on a power and ego trip. Jon you keep defending the MEP because you now your supporters will keep following you into the deep pit of darkness. Jon you like the extreme feeling of importance and its skewing your judgement. Jon I also detect a arrogant, pridefull and selfish, centered man. Where is your true compassion for helping these people in the CS plan. Yes, there might be hanky panky going on on both sides, but what are you really doing to correct the problem. It seems you just want to complain and keep things as they are. Not good. Folks, Jon knows that if the MEP would dissolve he would lose his power over you(supporters). Jon do what's in the best interest of the common laborer and Cut Out The Middle Man. Jon, dont do what's in your self serving best interest. Remember, its all about helping people. Jon I want to help you out. Its easy for an ego to get out of hand. Go unchecked folks. Jon, you need to self analyze. Stop and ask yourself. Are I'm really looking out for my self gradafication of empowerment or do I really want to help others.

By not answering my question on cutting out the middle man. I am only lead to believe that you think the common laborer is ignorant. Folks, Iam truly frustrated with Jon. I will not let tempatation get the best of me and stoop to a lower level of insults and name calling. Jon, you are a fact finding genius and I will give you that, but I feel you are headed in the wrong direction on this matter. Why must you always bite the hand that feeds you? Do you ever have anything positive to say about the Company? 33 years. Anything? Jon, again do what is right. These active working UPSers are in a world of hurt. Is the kitchen starting to get a little hot and yes Jon I will be posting more about your possible unethical practices of gathering info. Ignorance is no excuse. I feel you are oblivious to what you are actualy doing. Folks, Im trying to curtail a man that has 33 years with the company into getting into trouble......

Area jon has posted the links for us to research. If you feel hes not answering your question go ahead and take a little time to research it for yourself. To be honest if i was jon i would be ignoring you at all costs, you still are on a witch hunt here for no good reason other than you are fed up with the cs pension and you want out at any cost even the cost at selling out a 33 year upser who has done nothing wrong but provide you with his opinion and links to do some research, but you would rather use slanderous statements and belittle him instead of doing any investagating on your part! Your next post better have some specific illegal acts like you have alleged against jon or an apology for being an ignorant, selfish, self centered, hypocrite! And i mean that with all my heart! Or just plain ignore him and go on with your postings and debate the issues, but i believe if this continues the moderators should step in and put a stop to your wreckless crusade!

 

[tieguy]

As a result of market losses in 2000-2002, the fund's Net Assets were reduced to $15.4 Billion. It has grown every year since, and is now probably about $21 billion. The Second Quarter Financial Report (thru June 30th, 2007) should be posted soon on the Central States website to make it official. How can anyone look at these figures and say they are going down, down, down, when, in fact, they are clearly going up, up, up? I've never claimed the fund is in great shape, despite what Tieguy keeps saying.

I believe one of the other posters here made the point that CS was 49 percent funded using the 20 billion dollar figure for 2006. Something you seem reluctant to dispute. If the fund went from 45 to 49 percent then getting better is nothing to crow about.


- - - - - - - - -
Consolidated Freightways went bankrupt a while ago and owed the Central States Pension Fund $318.7 million in Withdrawal Liability. They also owed $27 million in unpaid hourly contributions. Since this is a big company, its bankruptcy should hurt the Central States Fund and stick UPS with the burden of having 60% of its contributions redirected away from the UPSers for whom it was intended, and into the retirement checks of Consolidated Freightways retirees. Right?
Well, not so fast. The $27 million represents unpaid contributions. I don't know if Central States will succeed in collecting the $27 million in Bankruptcy Court, but if they do CFers will be credited with those contributions and will thus earn a few more months of pension credit. Then they will earn no more credits, unless they go out and get a job with another employer who also contributes to Central States. If the $27 million is not collected, the CFers will not receive any credit for that money. Period. In other words, the potential loss of this money is a CF employees' problem, not a Central States Pension Fund problem.
As to the $318.7 million, Central States has already recovered $45 million and says substantial additional recovery is anticipated. Tieguy may not think recovering money from bankrupt companies amounts to much, but I say, $45 million here, $45 million there, pretty soon you're talkin' real money.

45 million on a plan that has 21 billion in assets and is theoretically 49 percent funded would be a pittance my friend.

Bear in mind that CF has been contributing money into the fund for many years on behalf of its employees who thus earn pension credits, just like UPS contributes on behalf of UPSers. The lion's share of CF retirees' benefits will be paid out of the billions and billions CF has contributed for just that purpose, over all those years. Those billions are part of the $21 billion in assets in the trust fund. It's only the ultimately unpaid portion of the Withdrawal Liability payments that is a worry. Normally, all unpaid portions of Withdrawal Liability of all bankrupt employers are distributed fairly amongst all surviving employers in the fund. This is how Multi-employer plans self-insure. This is the basis of all insurance arangements throught our economy. Contributions are pooled, and risk is spread amongst all participants. (They also have supplemental insurance thru the PBGC.)

To keep things simple, let's assume UPS must pay the entire unpaid portion of CF's Withdrawal Liability singlehandedly. Well, we have seen that number has already been reduced $45 million to $273.7 million. And that further reductions are anticipated. So how can CF retirees, no matter how greedy they are, possibly be consuming 60% of all the contributions UPS makes, year after year? Like I've been saying for about a year now, I don't want yet another poster to tell me yet again that "60% of UPS contributions go to fund the retirement of other bankrupt employers," I want someone to PROVE it to me. SHOW me. EXPLAIN it to me. I just don't believe it. The numbers don't add up. UPS' contributions are so huge, and the unpaid Withdrawal Liability of CF, whatever it ultimately is determined to be, is so (relatively) small. It's nowhere near 60%.

The problem Jon is you keep making this argument and deny the application of common sense. We know ups's contributions are huge. We know ups contributes for employees that only work for us three or four years and then leave to never collect on those funds. We know therefore that the payout to upsers if the fund is partitioned as you claim should be significant. But its not upsers are having their beni's cut despite all the good news you give us. Despite all the logic you supply against the sixty percent number. Despite all the logic you try to supply to tell us the plan is not sticking it to upsers we see the end result is that ups pays in tons of money and upsers get reduced benifits. therefore your argument is seriously flawed. Common sense tells you that the retirees of other plans are drawing ups money and thus shortchanging upsers. Big money going in , little money coming out. Its real simple jon.

 

[tieguy]

Re: 60% . . . Where's your PROOF?

Tie how would you have that info if it was never given out about ups assuming our pension in 97? Isnt it true that you dont know this to be factual and you are just trying to add fuel to the fire against the teamsters and painting a pretty picture that ups cares about us the employees! Honestly if ups really cared about us why then are there so many upsers on here (brown cafe) unhappy working for ups or unhappy with ups for their mismanaging of the compnay. Do you really expect us to believe that the eskew era of ups wont mismanage our single employer fund similiar to the everyday operations they somehow find a way to screw up? You are right that it probably would have been cheaper to but it out in 97 then compared to todays conditions of the fund and law changes. But honestly i noticed you stated that you have 25 years in now, how many more before you can retiree without any penalties? Medical insurance costs, etc, and how old are you now? When you retiree will social security be deducted right away or will you have several years of a full pension from ups? Under my mep my pension does not get reduced when/if social security kicks in.

Tie instead of bashing our union and mep why not show us how good your ups single employer plan is so we can start for-seeing the future of our pension realities.

Red running to jons defense again. Red if you really care about CS'ers pensions then let the debate go on and stop trying to muddy the waters.

 

[JonFrum]

I believe one of the other posters here made the point that CS was 49 percent funded using the 20 billion dollar figure for 2006. Something you seem reluctant to dispute. If the fund went from 45 to 49 percent then getting better is nothing to crow about. .

Actually, I've disputed the 49% funding level several times. The actual funding level was up to 63% in 2006 and is probably higher now. We'll just have to wait until some official source posts the latest figure. Some people just won't believe it if it comes from me.

45 million on a plan that has 21 billion in assets and is theoretically 49 percent funded would be a pittance my friend.

It's not $45 million out of $21 billion, it's $45 million (plus whatever additional recovery is made as the cases continue) out of only $318.7 million. Not a bad day's work at Bankruptcy Court. And nowhere near 60% of UPS' total contributions.

 

[tieguy]

Re: 60% . . . Where's your PROOF?

Cole,

By the way, when I said that moving to another fund would have the problem of still working under the same retirement-hostile policies of UPS, I should have added you will also be stuck with the same cast of disruptive characters (posters) as well. The ones that cause so much trouble here on Browncafe and aparently have the run of the place. It's very odd that the moderators don't police this site, and even stranger that Van and Danny don't police their online supporters. Apparently, anyone can say anything. Truth doesn't matter.

I'm happy to see you're finally admitting to your faults. You have definitely had your run of the place and definitely spread a lot of misinformation.

 

[tieguy]

Actually, I've disputed the 49% funding level several times. The actual funding level was up to 63% in 2006 and is probably higher now. We'll just have to wait until some official source posts the latest figure. Some people just won't believe it if it comes from me.

And thats fine if thats your number. the point then still is the fund is seriously underfunded and tommorrows money is going out to pay todays bills?

It's not $45 million out of $21 billion, it's $45 million (plus whatever additional recovery is made as the cases continue) out of only $318.7 million. Not a bad day's work at Bankruptcy Court. And nowhere near 60% of UPS' total contributions.

ahhh I think not. CS by your numbers is 63 percent funded. that puts it at approximately 33 billion to be 100 percent. 43 million out of 33 billion is a pittance. Good to have it but not going to help the cause much.

Now think about this if your fund is 63 percent funded per your numbers. then how can upsers be getting anymore then 63 cents on the dollar. The number you dispute is the number you gave me.

I paid a dollar into your savings account. When you went to withdraw it there was only 63 cents in the account. what happened to the rest of my dollar?

 

[JonFrum]

ahhh I think not. CS by your numbers is 63 percent funded. that puts it at approximately 33 billion to be 100 percent. 43 million out of 33 billion is a pittance. Good to have it but not going to help the cause much.

Now think about this if your fund is 63 percent funded per your numbers. then how can upsers be getting anymore then 63 cents on the dollar. The number you dispute is the number you gave me.

I paid a dollar into your savings account. When you went to withdraw it there was only 63 cents in the account. what happened to the rest of my dollar?

I'm not sure I can unravel these confusions you just created but I'll try.

UPS is not obligated to pay for 100% of the Plan's obligations, ($33 billion, to use your number,) as if it were the only contributing employer. It only must pay the *unpaid* portion of Consolidated Freightway's Withdrawal Liability. The total liability is only $318.7 million and it is being reduced every time a recovery is made in Bankruptcy Court. $45 million so far, more to follow.

The fund has a pool of assets of about $21 billion. That pool pays all current retirees and will pay all future retirees for some years to come. However, actuaries determine that at some *future* date a theoretical funding deficiency will occur if nothing is done, and so steps must be taken now to avoid that future deficiency.

No one is contributing a dollar but only withdrawing 63 cents, because the fund is only 63% funded. This just isn't how a pension plan works. This one of yours is too confusing to untangle. Sorry.

Incidently, as the plan recovers, benefit cuts may be gradually restored. Don't assume the cuts are permanent. Time will tell. Maybe the 2nd Quarter Report will give us a hint. Otherwise we will have to wait until the end of the year.

 

[tieguy]

The fund has a pool of assets of about $21 billion. That pool pays all current retirees and will pay all future retirees for some years to come. However, actuaries determine that at some *future* date a theoretical funding deficiency will occur if nothing is done, and so steps must be taken now to avoid that future deficiency.

No one is contributing a dollar but only withdrawing 63 cents, because the fund is only 63% funded. This just isn't how a pension plan works. This one of yours is too confusing to untangle. Sorry.

Incidently, as the plan recovers, benefit cuts may be gradually restored. Don't assume the cuts are permanent. Time will tell. Maybe the 2nd Quarter Report will give us a hint. Otherwise we will have to wait until the end of the year.

I think I see the problem now you just don't understand simple finance. Let me splain it to you lucy. Fund per your number is 63 percent funded. Per others 49 but I'll use yours so we don't get sidetracked into more gobldy gook. K. fund should be 100 percent funded. its 63 per your number. Now UPS didn't shortchange the plan. They put in everything they are supposed to put in. Thus the example of putting in a dollar and checking the account to find 63 cents. Now try to focus on that for a minute instead of running off into another direction of misinformation. Who took the 37 cents we are missing per your number.

Point two . The fund is 37 percent short per your number. That 37 percent would have paid for someones retirement money in the future. Instead its paying someones retirement today. Or someone today is short 37 percent in which case ups's money is paying for them. Anyway you add it up.

UPS is paying 100 percent of what they are obligated to pay today into the fund thus the dollar.

But when they look at their bank statement they only had 63 percent in the account per your number.

Therefore either some retiree from some other company took the 37 cents or we are paying todays bills with tommorrows money.

If you're going to try to promote yourself as a pension expert then you must learn to progress past simple math.

Now when you answer this post try to focus on that point only. I don't need any assets or actuaries in the discussion. Keep it simple is it other retirees taking my 37 cents or are we paying todays bills with tommorrows money.

 

[JonFrum]

I think I see the problem now you just don't understand simple finance. Let me splain it to you lucy. Fund per your number is 63 percent funded. Per others 49 but I'll use yours so we don't get sidetracked into more gobldy gook. K.
Actually I accept both numbers. The 49% funding level is from the 2005 Form 5500, based on the Fund's status on January 1, 2004. As such it is an old number. Even the 63% figure is getting old, but it is the most recent official number. My quess is the Fund is even better funded than 63% but that is just based on the rise in the stock market since the 63% figure was calculated. Ideally, we should use the most up-to-date number available.

fund should be 100 percent funded. its 63 per your number.
Actually, I believe the Fund should be 120 - 140% funded. As I've explained in the past, if 100% funding is the goal, you need to overfund so you are prepared for the inevitable rainy days and stock market crashes.

Now UPS didn't shortchange the plan. They put in everything they are supposed to put in. Thus the example of putting in a dollar and checking the account to find 63 cents. Now try to focus on that for a minute instead of running off into another direction of misinformation. Who took the 37 cents we are missing per your number.
No one "took the 37 cents." UPS contributes what it is contractually obligated to contribute. You are deluded if you think that somehow equates to 100%. It doesn't. It's like buying a house with only 63% down, and the rest you'll pay later. You can't decide the following day to look into the seller's wallet and expect to see that your check for 63% of the cost of the house, has magically increased to 100% of the cost. What UPS contributes DOES NOT equal full funding. You're assuming it does, and you are wrong. The trustees set a benefit schedule, and, as a seperate matter, they set a contribution schedule. They usually set the benefit schedule higher than the contribution schedule. It's as if UPS is buying the full house, but puting less than the full purchase price down as a downpayment. The full funding level is the sum of UPS contributions *PLUS* UPS' Withdrawal Liability, not UPS' contributions alone. [ Note: the funding level varies daily as the market value of the Fund's assets ebb and flow, and as the fund's acturarial characteristics change. It wouldn't be a constant 63%, but I'll use 63% to keep things simple.]

Point two . The fund is 37 percent short per your number.
No. UPS just hasn't paid the remaining 37 cents that they owe yet. If they withdraw, the Law will compel them to. If they don't withdraw, they may pay it through higher contributions, or perhaps the stock market will soar and make up the shortfall for them. Or (prior to the passage of the pension reform act,) maybe the trustees would have just allowed the fund to remain less than 100% funded.


That 37 percent would have paid for someones retirement money in the future. Instead its paying someones retirement today. Or someone today is short 37 percent in which case ups's money is paying for them. Anyway you add it up.
A dollar contributed today by UPS would have to wait its place in line behind the 21,000,000,000 other dollars that are already in line, waiting in the asset pool, to be paid out to current retirees and future retirees for some years to come. No one is shortchanged by 37 cents. No one is retireing from another company and receiving the 37 cents. At the risk of sounding like Morpheus, there is no 37 cents. It's all in your mind. The Matrix isn't real.

UPS is paying 100 percent of what they are obligated to pay today into the fund thus the dollar.
Yes, but that 100% is 100% of what the Contract says UPS must contribute. It may be only 63% of what Full Funding would demand. Hence the $6 billion *also* owed by UPS as Withdrawal Liability!!!!

But when they look at their bank statement they only had 63 percent in the account per your number.
Because that's all they "put down." If UPS (and every other Contributing Employer) wanted to contribute enough to bring Central States to Full Funding, they all should have made their usual contribution, and also paid their Withdrawal Liability in full ( with or without withdrawing.) Just like if you buy a house with 63% down and then toss in the other 37% as well. Now THAT'S 100% funding!!!

Therefore either some retiree from some other company took the 37 cents or we are paying todays bills with tommorrows money.
Neither.

If you're going to try to promote yourself as a pension expert then you must learn to progress past simple math.
Never said I was a pension expert. This is just the latest instance of you putting words in my mouth and attributing attitudes and opinions to me.

Now when you answer this post try to focus on that point only. I don't need any assets or actuaries in the discussion. Keep it simple is it other retirees taking my 37 cents or are we paying todays bills with tommorrows money.
Neither. I'm afraid you're not ready. You're thinking is stuck in the Matrix. Try to understand; there is no 37 cents. Free your mind, CopperTop. Think outside the Parcel.

 

[JonFrum]

When a plan is 100% FULLY FUNDED, like the Western Conference of Teamsters Fund, that means that it has enough money on hand, right now, to pay off all its pension benefit obligations. In other words, if every Contributing Employer stopped contributing simultaneously, and permanently, right now, the fund could still pay every benefit it is obligated to, just from its pool of Assets. Every current retiree would continue to receive their full benefit check every month until they die, and every vested participant would get his full series of checks when he eventually retires. Where selected, surviving spouses would get their full series of checks as well. Notice I'm not including any Withdrawal Liability payments, since there wouldn't be any, because the fund was fully funded.

If a plan is less than fully funded, the plan would not be able to pay every last benefit check. At some point years down the road, the fund's asset pool would run out. If a fund actually got to that point, it is declared INSOLVENT. Normally it doesn't get that far. Plan Actuaries calculate the fund's ability to pay benefits, not only in the current year, but in all future years. If a shortfall is predicted in a future year, this is called a FUNDING DEFICIENCY. By law the fund must cure the future funding deficiency right now, so it never becomes an actual Insolvency. Either benefit accruals are cut, or contributions are increased, or both.

If a multi-employer plan in the future actually got to the point of not being able to pay all its (then) current retirees, the PBGC would LEND it the money to get it past its temporary crisis. The PBGC wouldn't take over the fund unless it actually collapsed!
_ _ _ _ _

I wonder how many of you who thought Central States was in crisis, didn't know that almost every Contributing Employer, all 3000 or so, guarantee to pay their Withdrawal Liability to the fund should they withdraw from the Fund for any reason? It's a kind of built-in insurance plan. I wonder how many had no idea UPS alone owed (guaranteed) a $4 billion payment to the fund. I wonder how many who knew of the $4 billion, are suprised to learn the amount is now said to be $6 billion. If $6 billion proves to be the correct figure, that must be like "found money" to those of you who had no idea. Well, now you know that Central States is owed many billions from almost all of its Contributing Employers, even the bankrupt ones, like Consolidated Freightways. (Although, bankrupt employers, of course, won't pay their Withdrawal Liability in full. Maybe they will only pay 25% or so. But every little bit counts.)

On the other hand, Engineer79 wants you to know:
"The Teamsters and CS controlling the pension is doomed for bankruptcy in approximately 7-8 years."
Mark your calendar.

 

[tieguy]

Neither. I'm afraid you're not ready. You're thinking is stuck in the Matrix. Try to understand; there is no 37 cents. Free your mind, CopperTop. Think outside the Parcel.

I can't my 37 cents is stuck inside your matrix. You can't tell me what happened to it.

You also can't tell me how the bills are getting paid without full funding.

 

[tieguy]

When a plan is 100% FULLY FUNDED, like the Western Conference of Teamsters Fund, that means that it has enough money on hand, right now, to pay off all its pension benefit obligations. In other words, if every Contributing Employer stopped contributing simultaneously, and permanently, right now, the fund could still pay every benefit it is obligated to, just from its pool of Assets.

If it was 100 percent.

I wonder how many of you who thought Central States was in crisis, didn't know that almost every Contributing Employer, all 3000 or so, guarantee to pay their Withdrawal Liability to the fund should they withdraw from the Fund for any reason? It's a kind of built-in insurance plan. I wonder how many had no idea UPS alone owed (guaranteed) a $4 billion payment to the fund. I wonder how many who knew of the $4 billion, are suprised to learn the amount is now said to be $6 billion. If $6 billion proves to be the correct figure, that must be like "found money" to those of you who had no idea. Well, now you know that Central States is owed many billions from almost all of its Contributing Employers, even the bankrupt ones, like Consolidated Freightways. (Although, bankrupt employers, of course, won't pay their Withdrawal Liability in full. Maybe they will only pay 25% or so. But every little bit counts.)

This would appear to highlight the point we have always made that ups is the biggest contributer to the plan. If net assets end up at 21 billion by the end of this year as predicted then we are approximately 12 billion shy of 100 percent. Why then would ups be obligated for half of that amount if as you say there are so many other companies feeding the fund.

So what is your final answer. stay with CS?

 

[satellitedriver]

On the other hand, Engineer79 wants you to know:
"The Teamsters and CS controlling the pension is doomed for bankruptcy in approximately 7-8 years."
Mark your calendar.

I marked my calendar in 1997.
The year that blatantly proved where the teamsters loyalty lies.
(I think that last sentence might be a pun.)
PAX

 

[JonFrum]

UPDATE: 2nd quarter report now available

The Independent Special Counsel's quarterly report for the second quarter of 2007 is now available here:
http://www.centralstatesfunds.org/cs/Spcl_Councel_Report.asp
It states:
Net Assets as of June 30, 2007: $21,364,797,000.
Net Assets as of Dec. 31, 2006: $20,672,748,000.
That's a half year increase of: $692,049,000.

 

[JonFrum]

I can't my 37 cents is stuck inside your matrix. You can't tell me what happened to it.
Actually, your 37 cents is stuck in UPS' coffers. When they pay their Withdrawal Liability, it will be in the Fund and you can then visit it for the cost of a plane trip to Fund headquarters in Illinois.

You also can't tell me how the bills are getting paid without full funding.
The bills are paid out of the $21 billion in Net Assets. The Plan's bills will come due this year, and every year, for years to come. They aren't all due today. $21 billion is a lot of money. It will last a long time. Only today's bills have to be paid today.

 

[Cole]

$21 billion is a lot of money. It will last a long time. Only today's bills have to be paid today.

Jon, $ 6 billion was lost pretty quick, and that's no small change.

The Fund lost $6 billion. It is gone. Permanently. The Fund has increased by $6 billion in recent years, but this does not offset the original $6 billion loss. The Fund is still $6 billion behind, more or less.

 

[tieguy]

Re: UPDATE: 2nd quarter report now available

The Independent Special Counsel's quarterly report for the second quarter of 2007 is now available here:
http://www.centralstatesfunds.org/cs/Spcl_Councel_Report.asp
It states:
Net Assets as of June 30, 2007: $21,364,797,000.
Net Assets as of Dec. 31, 2006: $20,672,748,000.
That's a half year increase of: $692,049,000.

Thats the beutifull thing about gambling with the pension money in vegas. Occasionally you have some slight wins before the next big loss.

 

[tieguy]

Actually, your 37 cents is stuck in UPS' coffers. When they pay their Withdrawal Liability,
How do you figure? the fund is at least 12 and by your figures of 120 percent funding about 18 billion short of being adequately funded. UPS is rumored to pay 6 billion to get out of the fund. Whose coughing up the other 12 billion buckaroos. You really need to take a remedial math course and try to educate yourself.

The bills are paid out of the $21 billion in Net Assets.

How do you figure. by your numbers the fund is 63 percent funded. Which means its 37 percent short of paying all the bills. If 120 percent funding is required then you need about 39 billion before the fund is adequately funded. That means by your numbers that there are approximately 18 billion dollars worth of liabilities not covered. The 21 billion in that fund is already committed to current liabilities. Are you planning on paying two bills with the same money? This is good the more I get you talking the weaker your explanation. Your master needs to feed you some better BS to sell here.