Talk:Pension

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Too much UK info

It appears that most or all of the "Peculiar pension systems in the United Kingdom" sections is taken wholesale from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. It should be footnoted that way, if this is the case. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

How many countries in the world don't have pensions?


Having created several articles to help round out the retirement plan genre, I've moved significant (and very good quality) content from the following articles around:

Although I tried to integrate everything logically, there is still considerable smoothing to be done with respect to standardization of terminology, voice, and style. Please consider these pages as a whole when making edits and modifications and let's try to get all the content arranged in the logical spots. Thanks! Chris 02:52, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is really about American superannuation. It should either be renamed or heavily editted to include international content.Dankru 22:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - I've trimmed some of the US specific stuff out, as it was much better covered in other articles, such as Retirement plans in the United States. In fact, as far as I can see there's not much at all in this article that isn't better covered elsewhere; for example, most of it is duplicating the Retirement plan article. Perhaps there needs to be another rethink of what this article needs to cover. Enchanter 21:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Separate state, occupational and individual/private articles

I think there is a good case for separating out state pension provision form the defined benefit/contribution division. There are many ways of dividing up types of pension including:

  • defined benefit/contribution
  • funded/unfunded
  • state/occupational/private
  • contributory/non-contributory
  • self-invested (directed)/ prescribed etc.

I feel it would be better to have a separate 'state pension' article; an 'occupational pension' article and a 'private pension' article. The 'pension' article should give an overview and include more obscure pension related articles (eg. political pensions).

Simon West 01:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Would state pensions best be covered as part of a new-and-improved social security article? Gary 13:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)



Throw in a section on the recent ( a few years ago ) Supreme Court case about the pension being a company asset. Airlines, ENRON, etc would be good pegs about a story on how your pension really works - this article looks loke it was written by a salesman.

[edit] Globalise request

A request has just been put to globalise this article which means massive editting. But the US stuff is good as many people don't have as good a resource as this article so I set up Pension law (US) as a stub for the US stuff to be placed. John wesley 13:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There is an existing article called Pension (United States) that redirects here that might be a better choice. -- Barrylb 21:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, how do I now delete the stub I introduced? John wesley 22:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
You just need to edit the article and put in this tag anywhere: {{db-author}} and an admin will delete it soon after. -- Barrylb 22:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

the views expressed in [1] should be included. he claims that "pension funds have $2.5 trillion in assets, are enormous industrial lenders, and own 40 percent of American common stock--enough for a controlling interest in most companies." notable, if true.-- ExpImptalkcon 04:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political pensions

The encyclopedic list of Indian political pensions didn't really seem to fit in - I've re-removed to its own political pension page. Gary 14:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that outsourcing in principle. However when I realized the solo Political Pensions wasunsourced and went looking, besides the website I got the princely states from, I discovered the 1911 Enc. Brit. covered a domestic variant, and a serious of other specific British pension systems in sectors of public life, such as military and established church. So I put them in pension as a new section, including the referal for political pensions (now two senses). As most of these still are relevant, the experts on pensions may want to give these a work-over, they probably need some updating. Õne might perhaps also consider another structuring, possibly outsource some of those under a common heading. Any thoughts? Fastifex 08:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I suppose if we could disentangle the various Pension, 401k, 403b, Retirement Plans in the US, Pension Law, Social Security, etc., articles (a worthy project but more than I have time for) that the Pension overview would want to include "pensions" of all sorts. I'll stop messing until I can offer a better structure. Gary 13:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paying benefits from future earnings

Have there ever been defined benefit plans whose payments are to come from the company's future earnings? If so, this needs to be clarified in the section on defined benefit plans. From what I've read, GM's pensions were designed this way, but that doesn't seem right. Anyone know? MrVoluntarist 16:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be an unfunded pension, as described in the funded status section of this article. GM's pension plan was not designed this way - it was designed to be funded by market investments both in and outside the company. I suppose you could have, in theory, at least, and prior to ERISA, a "funded" plan that invested solely in the debt & equity of the plan sponsor. This would be, in effect, a DB plan whose payments come from the company's future earnings (as the sponsor's debt & equity represent primary & residual claims on those earnings). This is not substantially different from an unfunded plan. For a particularly vivid example, see Social Security (United States).
One other thought: in the United States, most retiree health plans - where there is no tax advantage for funding - are promises where the payments come from future earnings. As a result, the net liabilities on these plans are huge. But that's also because the benefit isn't defined in financial terms as a rule - so they have exploded with increasing life expectancies and higher medical costs. But that makes them not pensions, so out of scope here. --Gary 17:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand the funded/unfunded distinction. What I meant was, in the article, it only describes plans that are both unfunded AND defined benefit as being the province of government's and the public sector, rather than private corporations. If there are private corporations that do this, I want to edit the article to make that clear(er). Sorry I wasn't precise in the above question.
Now, since part of the reason I'm asking this is to improve the General Motors article, I'm trying to clarify the nature of their problem (no one's answering my quesitons on the talk page.) Now, if GM was funding their plan with investments made at the time of wage payments, then the only reason this would be a burden to GM (and thus cause problems for their creditworthiness) would be if they had an open-ended promise to cover anything their investments didn't cover, from those future earnings. So it would still be offering payment (potentially) from future earnings. (Okay, earnings or liquidation of assets.) Also, if they're having newcomers "pay" retirees, that would too be an unfunded, defined benefit plan like the US's SS.
About the retiree health plans you mention: are you saying that those benefits are not paid from an insurance plan bought coincident with wage payments, but from an open-ended promise to claims on the company's future earnings? That too would be relevant to include. (not necessarily in this article) MrVoluntarist 17:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see the original question. The other major unfunded pension liability is executive pensions - see today's (23 June 2006) Wall Street Journal article. These typically are unfunded since there are tax implications for funding nonqualified plans.
Re: retiree health - yes, that's precisely what I am saying. These are uninsured and (largely) unfunded promises. In GM's case, that net obligation is far bigger than the pension net obligation. Take a look at their 10-K, you'll see -- look for "FAS 106" or "other postemployment/postretirement benefit" liability on the balance sheet. --Gary 16:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
So, unions demanded, and GM agreed to, essentially an unbounded committment to care for their health? And they agreed to pay the difference between the investments they made for their pensions, and whatever they promised to pay? And all of this was to come out of future sales?
The reason I have a hard time believing this explanation is that, it essentially means that for GM to be capable of honoring all of these promises, its profits (here, difference between revenues and wages + costs at a given time) would have to continue to increase. But since other firms entering could expect similar revenues and wages + costs, yet not have to pay for these past promises, GM would be at a competitive disadvantage to all those other entrants. So, the workers are betting their entire health care, and some fraction of their pension, on GM's being able to achieve ever-increasing profits, while it is at an ever-increasing disadvantage to competitors.
People actually made that bet? That's not only putting your eggs in one basket, it's putting your eggs in a basket that will get weaker over time. If that's true, I want to spell it out on the GM article (and any other article to which this would apply), but I've been hesitant to tell this story (which I have heard elsewhere) since it's so hard to believe and I want to be careful not to perpetuate a misconception, especially on Wikipedia. MrVoluntarist 17:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Re Post-retirement Health Benefits - The unions' demands and GM's agreement were made long ago. At the time, there were no accounting rules in place to measure the value of these benefits other than on a pay-as-you-go (or acount-as-you-go) basis, so the looked cheap at the time. Later when SFAS 106 was introduced, the size of the past giveaway became clear. Even though not properly measuerd or even fully considred at the time, the members in effect were trusting thst this would come from future profits. They are facing the downside now b/c if (should I say when?) GM goes bankrupt, they will lose these promised benefits.
This has happened at many copanies, but GM is an extreme example. The same also has happened at governmental employers where they are just having to account for these benefits now under GASB45, and at union welfare funds where benefts are promised to active and retired members, but typical funding falls well short of the benefits who have already retired members, so by definiton no pre-funding is in place for the active members. acm_acm 06:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
MrVoluntarist- yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Retiree medical plans are a big bond issued to employees. The liability has exotic optionality and coupon characteristics (indexed to medical inflation, high call premium in a collective bargaining context, mortality risk). Your description of this legacy liability and the competitive disadvantage it puts GM under in is correct. On the other hand, companies issue bonds (though not medical-inflation-indexed ones!) all the time ... the question is what they use the funds for. Did GM in this case get productivity gains, labor peace, workforce managementetc., that gave the investment a positive value? At the time, probably so - but medical inflation trends and labor market changes have made the promise (liability) more expensive and its value (return on investment) lower than intended long ago. Companies have tried to control this (capping company contributions to retiree plans, notably) but for a company like GM, that incurs the call premium (see the costs of the GM and Delphi buyouts, e.g.) --Gary 12:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Pension Stub

There is a new stub page for Public Employee Pension Plans (United States). Take a look. Help if you want to. Mvialt 07:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1911 Pensions

I can't see why we have a big section on pensions lifted from the 1911 Britannica. Surely we can get rid of this?

Also - nothing on State Pensions (eg Social Security in the USA)

Exile 17:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Too US Centric

I hope this article can be improved so that a wider view of the definition of a pension can be included Pigeonshouse 18:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Pension fund

I am removing the redirect from Pension funds to this article as that subject is quite vast and specialised.Anwar 17:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is f12oo?

From "Civil List Pensions": A sum of f12oo is allotted each year from the civil list, in addition to the pensions already in force. From a Return issued in 1908, the total of civil list pensions payable in that year amounted to 24,665. What is f12oo? I've searched the past revisions and it doesn't appear to be vandalism - the section was originally added with that text. 216.36.188.184 (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's from the 1911 Britannica; it should be £1200 (1200 UK pounds). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)