4 ms·

>You can buy target date funds to minimize how much you have to manually reallocate between equities and bonds, and you can buy an annuity from an insurance com

>You can buy target date funds to minimize how much you have to manually reallocate between equities and bonds, and you can buy an annuity from an insurance company to guarantee a certain income. So to minimize the risk of market crash, you have to give up probably 4 or 5 years of decent returns by sitting in bonds instead. And if you want security of annuity you have to pay for that too, plus pay for the insurance man's profits. I just did a quote to put specific numbers in, to get 80k on my 100k salary for a set period of 20 years, I'd need to pay 1.1 million. That's 11 years of salary needed after taxes. Possibly I could have it after 32 years. >I do not understand your distinctions between liability and cost of a DB pension. The pension fund is a big pot of money that's supposed to have enough in it to pay costs for the next 30 years, assuming that the pension closed to new hires today. So the actuary says the present value of those costs is 10 billion, maybe the fund has 9 billion, you have a 1 billion dollar liability. This can be gamed. But the actual costs for the next 30 years, based on actuarial assumptions and existing retirees, maybe are 18 billion in nominal dollars. Again, making assumptions about payroll, we can calculate this 18 billion as a percent of payroll over the same time. In my case, 16-18% is enough to cover. Unrelated to the fact that the fund has 9 billion or 11 billion or 1 billion.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
> And if you want security of annuity you have to pay for that too, plus pay for the insurance man's profits. I just did a quote to put specific numbers in, to get 80k on my 100k salary for a set period of 20 years, I'd need to pay 1.1 million. That's 11 years of salary needed after taxes. Possibly I could have it after 32 years. The insurance company selling annuities and defined benefit pension plan sponsor selling annuities are doing the same thing. Although, based on history, the insurance company is subject to better regulation. Insurance company profit margins are ~5% at most, and I am sure DB pension plan management gets paid just the same. And it is all getting invested into the same equities and bonds. The only difference is if you are a recipient of a taxpayer funded DB pension, then your DB plan sponsor has the power to increase taxes and will be more likely to stick around longer than a private company. The reason that non taxpayer funded employers moved away from defined benefit pensions is because proper accounting made them too expensive. The old days of counting on explosive inherent growth due to everyone have 3+ kids is over. The taxpayer funded DB pensions stick around because it remains politically possible to keep kicking the can to future taxpayers. The fact that the rules around taxpayer funded DB pensions are basically non existent and non taxpayer funded DB pensions are strict is all that needs to be said. Why would the same liabilities be allowed to be accounted for in different ways? > So the actuary says the present value of those costs is 10 billion, maybe the fund has 9 billion, you have a 1 billion dollar liability. This can be gamed. But the actual costs for the next 30 years, based on actuarial assumptions and existing retirees, maybe are 18 billion in nominal dollars. How can an actuary say present value of liabilities is $10B and also $18B?

lotsofpulp 4y ago

> And if you want security of annuity you have to pay for that too, plus pay for the insurance man's profits. I just did a quote to put specific numbers in, to get 80k on my 100k salary for a set period of 20 years, I'd need to pay 1.1 million. That's 11 years of salary needed after taxes. Possibly I could have it after 32 years. The insurance company selling annuities and defined benefit pension plan sponsor selling annuities are doing the same thing. Although, based on history, the insurance company is subject to better regulation. Insurance company profit margins are ~5% at most, and I am sure DB pension plan management gets paid just the same. And it is all getting invested into the same equities and bonds. The only difference is if you are a recipient of a taxpayer funded DB pension, then your DB plan sponsor has the power to increase taxes and will be more likely to stick around longer than a private company. The reason that non taxpayer funded employers moved away from defined benefit pensions is because proper accounting made them too expensive. The old days of counting on explosive inherent growth due to everyone have 3+ kids is over. The taxpayer funded DB pensions stick around because it remains politically possible to keep kicking the can to future taxpayers. The fact that the rules around taxpayer funded DB pensions are basically non existent and non taxpayer funded DB pensions are strict is all that needs to be said. Why would the same liabilities be allowed to be accounted for in different ways? > So the actuary says the present value of those costs is 10 billion, maybe the fund has 9 billion, you have a 1 billion dollar liability. This can be gamed. But the actual costs for the next 30 years, based on actuarial assumptions and existing retirees, maybe are 18 billion in nominal dollars. How can an actuary say present value of liabilities is $10B and also $18B?