11 ms·
The money is supposed to be invested in part by the employee and the employer at the time of payroll. This money is then moved to a fund, impossible to be touch
by hamstercat 7y ago
The money is supposed to be invested in part by the employee and the employer at the time of payroll. This money is then moved to a fund, impossible to be touched by the company forever and ever. The fund invests the money, it grows, and then you can get an income in retirement after many years. The same could be done by the employee itself by just saving part of his paycheck and investing in a mutual fund, but most people don't have the discipline to do that so a defined-benefit pension protect the employee from itself.
That's how it works in other countries like Canada. It's relatively easy and failsafe if well implemented, I really don't understand how it can be legal for a company to access the fund like in the story.
It's a shame so many of them are so badly managed/corrupted though. As usual, most stories about pension failing are about gross mismanagement (not paying into the plan as required) or corruption (drawing into the plan innapropriatly).
- bregma 7y agoSo, what happened at Nortel?
- hamstercat 7y agoUnfortunately I don't know enough about it to offer an opinion on this specific case. I only know it will pay only part of the promised benefits. But from other pension plans I've seen, this happens because the plan is undercapitalized. This usually happens because of: a) missing employer contribution to the fund on every paycheck b) mismanagement of the fund The second point can be very varied and only limited by imagination, from embezzlement to government action. I've seen laws passed in the past passed about being able to take a loan on certain public pension funds without interest, which shows the complete lack of understanding about how these pensions are supposed to work and the actuarial math behind it.