4 ms·

Fully funded pension plans are assets that a PE firm uses as collateral for the loan to do a hostile takeover of the firm.

ddingus 8y ago
Those should not be allowed as collateral.
lozenge 8y ago
Shouldn't the assets of the pension plan be owned by the individual employees? A PE can't acquire a stock broker and just sell the stocks in people's accounts for profit. Why is a pension different? FWIW this is exactly how it works in the UK. After employer and employee contributions are made my employer has nothing to do with what it's invested in etc.
- closeparen 8y ago
  With a 401k, you own the underlying assets, and a brokerage is just holding them for you. With a pension, you own a promise from the employer to pay you a fixed amount. How it does that is (theoretically) none of your concern. Some consider pensions to be more pro-worker because you're entitled to the same payout regardless of market performance. But it seems to be turning out that the 401k is more worker-friendly, as there's no promise to be reneged.
  - deogeo 8y ago
    > With a pension, you own a promise from the employer to pay you a fixed amount. How it does that is (theoretically) none of your concern. I'm mostly in the dark about the US pension system, so forgive me if the question is a silly one: How is this 'promise' not a legally binding debt, to be repaid as much as possible by the selling of assets during bankruptcy?
    - closeparen 8y ago
      They are. But in these cases, substantial repayment is not possible: a) The entity never had enough assets to begin with (public pensions). b) The assets have lost their value (business failure). c) The assets were directed elsewhere by management (private equity takeover).
  - tedmiston 8y ago
    Even better rolling over from a 401k to an IRA where the worker truly has full control over the expenses of their retirement as well.
- clort 8y ago
  it might be now (?) but I seem to recall a very similar story playing out at BHS only last year..

ddingus 8y ago

Those should not be allowed as collateral.

lozenge 8y ago

Shouldn't the assets of the pension plan be owned by the individual employees? A PE can't acquire a stock broker and just sell the stocks in people's accounts for profit. Why is a pension different? FWIW this is exactly how it works in the UK. After employer and employee contributions are made my employer has nothing to do with what it's invested in etc.

closeparen 8y ago
With a 401k, you own the underlying assets, and a brokerage is just holding them for you. With a pension, you own a promise from the employer to pay you a fixed amount. How it does that is (theoretically) none of your concern. Some consider pensions to be more pro-worker because you're entitled to the same payout regardless of market performance. But it seems to be turning out that the 401k is more worker-friendly, as there's no promise to be reneged.
- deogeo 8y ago
  > With a pension, you own a promise from the employer to pay you a fixed amount. How it does that is (theoretically) none of your concern. I'm mostly in the dark about the US pension system, so forgive me if the question is a silly one: How is this 'promise' not a legally binding debt, to be repaid as much as possible by the selling of assets during bankruptcy?
  - closeparen 8y ago
    They are. But in these cases, substantial repayment is not possible: a) The entity never had enough assets to begin with (public pensions). b) The assets have lost their value (business failure). c) The assets were directed elsewhere by management (private equity takeover).
- tedmiston 8y ago
  Even better rolling over from a 401k to an IRA where the worker truly has full control over the expenses of their retirement as well.
clort 8y ago
it might be now (?) but I seem to recall a very similar story playing out at BHS only last year..