Author Topic: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company  (Read 6899 times)

Waitone

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,133
The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« on: August 04, 2008, 02:20:18 PM »
I am without words.  How stupid do you have to be to pull a boner like this.  A freakin' traffic light has sufficient intelligence stop short.  Where do I go to get a job where I can be incomprehensively stupid and get well paid.  These people deserve everything coming their direction.

Quote
Companies Tap Pension Plans
To Fund Executive Benefits
Little-Known Move
Uses Tax Break Meant
For Rank and File
By ELLEN E. SCHULTZ and THEO FRANCIS
August 4, 2008; Page A1

At a time when scores of companies are freezing pensions for their workers, some are quietly converting their pension plans into resources to finance their executives' retirement benefits and pay.

In recent years, companies from Intel Corp. to CenturyTel Inc. collectively have moved hundreds of millions of dollars of obligations for executive benefits into rank-and-file pension plans. This lets companies capture tax breaks intended for pensions of regular workers and use them to pay for executives' supplemental benefits and compensation.
[Blended Plans]

The practice has drawn scant notice. A close examination by The Wall Street Journal shows how it works and reveals that the maneuver, besides being a dubious use of tax law, risks harming regular workers. It can drain assets from pension plans and make them more likely to fail. Now, with the current bear market in stocks weakening many pension plans, this practice could put more in jeopardy.

How many is impossible to tell. Neither the Internal Revenue Service nor other agencies track this maneuver. Employers generally reveal little about it. Some benefits consultants have warned them not to, in order to forestall a backlash by regulators and lower-level workers.

The background: Federal law encourages employers to offer pensions by giving companies a tax deduction when they contribute cash to a pension plan, and by letting the money in the plan grow tax free. Executives, like anyone else, can participate in these plans.

But their benefits can't be disproportionately large. IRS rules say pension plans must not "discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees." If a company wants to give its executives larger pensions -- as most do -- it must provide "supplemental" executive pensions, which don't carry any tax advantages.

The trick is to find a way to move some of the obligations for supplemental pensions into the plan that qualifies for tax breaks. Benefits consultants market sophisticated techniques to help companies do just that, without running afoul of IRS rules against favoring the highly paid.
GAUGING THE IMPACT
 
[portions]
Qserps can sap the health of a company's pension plan. Flatware maker Oneida Ltd.'s pension plan suffered after the company added a QSERP in 2002. See a chronology and chart showing the liabilities and funding of Oneida's pension plan.
 
SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS
 
Once a company knows how much "capacity" its pension plan has -- that is, how much bigger it can make executive pensions without having to raise benefits for the rank-and-file -- implementing a Qserp can be remarkably simple. On Nov. 17, 2005, CenturyTel Inc., a Monroe, La., telecommunications company, amended its regular pension plan to spell out additional pension benefits for 18 select individuals, including at least five top executives. Chairman and Chief Executive Glen F. Post III was promised $97,768 a year more than the pension would otherwise have provided. The company said he gave up an equal amount of other benefits, which were unsecured IOUs from the company, for the Qserp benefit, which is backed by pension-plan assets. (Read CenturyTel's filing.)
 
READING THE CLUES
 
Companies often disclose little or nothing about Qserps. A few, including chipmaker Intel Corp., provide passing mentions in corporate proxies or other SEC filings, though the references aren't always clear. Read an Intel filing from last spring in which the company's Qserp is discussed. The key section is highlighted, on page 53 of the 75-page document.

Intel's case shows how lucrative such a move can be. It involves Intel's obligation to pay deferred compensation to executives when they retire or leave. In 2005, the chip maker moved more than $200 million of its deferred-comp IOUs into its pension plan. Then it contributed at least $187 million of cash to the plan.

Now, when the executives get ready to collect their deferred salaries, Intel won't have to pay them out of cash; the pension plan will pay them.

Normally, companies can deduct the cost of deferred comp only when they actually pay it, often many years after the obligation is incurred. But Intel's contribution to the pension plan was deductible immediately. Its tax saving: $65 million in the first year. In other words, taxpayers helped finance Intel's executive compensation.

Meanwhile, the move is enabling Intel to book as much as an extra $136 million of profit over the 10 years that began in 2005. That reflects the investment return Intel assumes on the $187 million.

Fred Thiele, Intel's global retirement manager, said the benefit was probably somewhat lower, because if Intel hadn't contributed this $187 million to the pension plan, it would have invested the cash or used it in some other productive way.

The company said the move aided shareholders and didn't hurt lower-paid employees because most don't benefit from Intel's pension plan. Instead, they receive their retirement benefits mainly from a profit-sharing plan, with the pension plan serving as a backup in case profit-sharing falls short.

The result, though, is that a majority of the tax-advantaged assets in Intel's pension plan are dedicated not to providing pensions for the rank and file but to paying deferred compensation of the company's most highly paid employees, roughly 4% of the work force.

On the Hook

And taxpayers are on the hook in other ways. When deferred executive salaries and bonuses are part of a pension plan, they can be rolled over into an Individual Retirement Account -- another tax-advantaged vehicle.

Intel believes that its practices "feel consistent" with both the spirit and letter of the law that gives tax benefits for providing pensions.

Intel may be a model for what's to come. Many companies are phasing out their pension plans, typically by "freezing" them, i.e., ending workers' buildup of new benefits. This leaves more pension assets available to cover executives' compensation and supplemental benefits. A number of companies have shifted executive benefits into frozen pension plans.

Technically, a company makes this move by increasing an executive's benefit in the regular pension plan by X dollars and canceling X dollars of the executive's deferred comp or supplemental pension.

CenturyTel, for instance, in 2005 moved its IOU for the supplemental pensions of 18 top employees into its regular pension plan. Chief Executive Glen Post's benefits in the regular pension plan jumped to $110,000 a year from $12,000. A spokesman for the Monroe, La., company, which made more such transfers in 2006, was frank about its motive: to take advantage of tax breaks by paying executive benefits out of a tax-advantaged pension plan.

How They Do It

So how can companies boost regular pension benefits for select executives while still passing the IRS's nondiscrimination tests? Benefits consultants help them figure out how.

To prove they don't discriminate, companies are supposed to compare what low-paid and high-paid employees receive from the pension plan. They don't have to compare actual individuals; they can compare ratios of the benefits received by groups of highly paid vs. groups of lower-paid employees.

Such a measure creates the potential for gerrymandering -- carefully moving employees about, in various theoretical groupings, to achieve a desired outcome.
QUIRKY PERK
 
[Quirky Perk]
Much like other benefits-consulting firms, Watson Wyatt Worldwide Inc. markets the Qserp, or "qualified" supplemental executive retirement plan, as a way to give top officers bigger benefits from the regular pension plan "without [necessarily] increasing staff benefits at all." Read a page from Watson Wyatt's Web site on the "quirky executive perk."

Another technique: Count Social Security as part of the pension. This effectively raises low-paid employees' overall retirement benefits by a greater percentage than it raises those of the highly paid -- enabling companies to then increase the pensions of higher-paid people.

Indeed, "it is actually these discrimination tests that give rise to Qserp in the first place!" said materials from one consulting firm, Watson Wyatt Worldwide. "Qserp" means "qualified supplemental executive retirement plan" -- an industry term for a supplemental executive pension that "qualifies" for tax breaks.

Watson Wyatt senior consultant Alan Glickstein said the firm's calculations tell employers exactly how much disparity they can achieve between the pensions of highly paid people and others. "At the end, when the game is over, when the computer is cooling off, you know whether you passed [the IRS nondiscrimination tests] or not," he said. At that point, companies can retrofit the benefits of select executives, feeding some into the pension plan.

They can do this even if they freeze the pension plan, because executives' supplemental benefits and deferred comp aren't based on the frozen pension formula.

Keeping Quiet

Generally, only the executives are aware this is being done. Benefits consultants have advised companies to keep quiet to avoid an employee backlash. In material prepared for employers, Robert Schmidt, a consulting actuary with Milliman Inc., said that to "minimize this problem" of employee relations, companies should draw up a memo describing the transfer of supplemental executive benefits to the pension plan and give it "only to employees who are eligible."
[Pension Shift]

The IRS was also a concern for Mr. Schmidt. He advised employers that in "dealing with the IRS," they should ask it for an approval letter, because if the agency later cracks down, its restrictions probably won't be retroactive.

"At some point in the future, the IRS may well take the position" that supplemental executive pensions moved into a regular pension plan "violate the 'spirit' of the nondiscrimination rules," Mr. Schmidt wrote. In an interview, he confirmed his written comments.

Companies don't explicitly tell the IRS that an amendment is intended to shift supplements executive benefits obligations into the regular pension plan. "They hide it," a Treasury official said. "They include the amendment with other amendments, and don't make it obvious."

With too little staffing to check the dozens of pages of actuaries' calculations, the IRS generally accepts the companies' assurances that their pension plans pass the discrimination tests, the official said.

"Under existing rules, there's little we can do anyway. If Congress doesn't like it, it can change the rules." To halt the practice, Congress would have to end the flexibility that companies now have in meeting the IRS nondiscrimination tests.

A spokesman for the IRS said it has no idea how many such pension amendments it has approved or how much money is involved.

A Way to Pass

Sometimes, the only tipoff that a firm is moving executive benefits into the regular pension is that it provides small increases to some lower-paid groups in the plan, in order to pass the nondiscrimination tests.

Royal & SunAlliance, an insurer, sold a division and laid off its 228 employees in 1999. Just before doing so, it amended the division's pension plan to award larger benefits to eight departing officers and directors. One human-resources executive got an additional $5,270 a month for life.

But to do this and still pass the IRS's nondiscrimination tests, the company needed to give tiny pension increases to 100 lower-level workers, said the company's benefits consultant, PricewaterhouseCoopers. One got an increase of $1.92 a month.

Joseph Gromala, a middle manager who stood to get $8.87 more a month at age 65, wrote to the company seeking details about higher sums other people were receiving. A lawyer wrote back saying the company didn't have to show him the relevant pension-plan amendment.

Mr. Gromala then sued in federal court, claiming that administrators of the pension plan were breaching their duty to operate it in participants' best interests. The company replied that its move was a business decision, not a pension decision, so the fiduciary issue was moot. The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

PricewaterhouseCoopers declined to comment. A spokesman for Royal & SunAlliance's former U.S. operation, now called Arrowpoint Capital, said the pension plan "wasn't discriminatory." Royal & SunAlliance recently changed its name to RSA Insurance Group.

Pension-plan amendments like the documents Mr. Gromala sought must be filed with the IRS, but the agency normally won't disclose specifics such as who benefits. The IRS says it can't release details of the amendments because they reflect individuals' benefits.

Not So Safe

Employers sometimes tell executives that moving their supplemental pensions or deferred comp into the company pension plan will make them more secure. Normally, supplemental pensions or deferred comp are just unsecured promises; companies don't set aside cash for supplemental executive pensions and deferred comp because there's no tax break for doing so. But the promises will be backed by assets if the company can squeeze them into a tax-advantaged pension plan.

This supposed security can prove illusory, as executives at Consolidated Freightways found out.

The trucking firm moved most of its retirement IOUs for eight top officers into its pension plan in late 2001. It said this would protect most or all of their promised benefits, which ranged up to $139,000 a year.

This came as relief to Tom Paulsen, then chief operating officer, who says he knew the Vancouver, Wash., trucking company was on "thin ice."

But the pension plan was underfunded. And Consolidated didn't add more assets to it when the company gave the plan new obligations. Adding the executive IOUs thus made the plan weaker. It went from having about 96% of the assets needed to pay promised benefits to having just 79%.

Losing Benefits

Consolidated later filed for bankruptcy and handed its pension plan over to a government insurer, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. The PBGC commits to paying pensions only up to certain limits. Mr. Paulsen said he and other executives have been told they won't get their supplemental pensions.

Some lower-level people will lose benefits, too. Chester Madison, a middle manager who retired in 2002 after 33 years, saw his pension fall to $20,400 a year from $49,200. Mr. Madison, 62, has taken a job selling flooring in Sacramento, Calif.

He faults those who made the pension decisions. "I look at it as greed and taking care of the top echelons," he says.

It's impossible to know how much the addition of executive pensions to the pension plan contributed to the plan's failure. But in this as in similar companies where a plan saddled with executive benefits failed -- such as at kitchenware maker Oneida Ltd. in upstate New York -- it's clear the move weakened the plans by adding liabilities but no assets.

A trustee for Consolidated's bankruptcy liquidation declined to discuss details of the company's pension plan.

Mr. Madison and five other ex-employees sued Towers Perrin, a consulting firm that had advised Consolidated on structuring its benefits. The suit, alleging professional negligence over this and other issues, was dismissed in late 2006 by a federal court in the Northern District of California. Towers Perrin declined to comment.

Some companies, after moving executives' supplemental benefits into a pension plan, now take steps to protect them. When Hartmarx Corp. added executive obligations to its pension plan last year, it set up a trust that automatically would be funded if the plan failed.

Glenn Morgan, the clothier's chief financial officer, said the trust benefits nine or 10 people. "The purpose is to pay them the benefit they've earned," he said.
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds. It will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
- Charles Mackay, Scottish journalist, circa 1841

"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it." - John Lennon

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2008, 02:23:52 PM »
Isn't this very, very, very, very illegal?
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2008, 04:22:39 PM »
Well, that triggered the gag reflex a bit.

Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2008, 07:38:24 PM »
It used to be idle hands that did the Devil's work, now it's idle legal minds with billable hours.  There are a lot of people whose sole purpose in life is to use ingenuity to screw others.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

seeker_two

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,922
  • In short, most intelligence is false.
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2008, 01:18:40 AM »
I want to see some of those "idle legal minds" figure out a way to bring a class-action, breach of contract lawsuit against all these corporations that have raided their pension/retirement benefits.....and there are quite a few that have..... angry
Impressed yet befogged, they grasped at his vivid leading phrases, seeing only their surface meaning, and missing the deeper current of his thought.

HankB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,640
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2008, 05:31:13 AM »
Forget tar and feathers, I'm thinking tall tree, short rope . . . pitchforks . . . torches . . .
Trump won in 2016. Democrats haven't been so offended since Republicans came along and freed their slaves.
Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods. - H.L. Mencken
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,762
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2008, 05:54:59 AM »
Our company recently moved away from a pension to just paying out additional 401K money.  A lot of people didn't like that, but at least that money is mine. 
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

Harold Tuttle

  • Professor Chromedome
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,069
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2008, 06:03:26 AM »
Hence, why the head of the HR department is on the board of directors at my old job

"Let them eat cake"
"The true mad scientist does not make public appearances! He does not wear the "Hello, my name is.." badge!
He strikes from below like a viper or on high like a penny dropped from the tallest building around!
He only has one purpose--Do bad things to good people! Mit science! What good is science if no one gets hurt?!"

doc2rn

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 164
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2008, 06:03:31 AM »
I am thinking public floggings to humiliate CEOs and their accomplices, who steal from tax payers and defraud lower income workers.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2008, 06:17:18 AM »
I am thinking public floggings to humiliate CEOs and their accomplices, who steal from tax payers and defraud lower income workers.

I'd watch THAT for a dollar.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

Racehorse

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 829
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2008, 06:41:59 AM »
This is something I've struggled to understand for a while now. Once you've got around $10 million in the bank, what's this insatiable drive to have more? Most corporate executives will nickel and dime employees over a $500 bonus, but then drive the company into the ground to ensure their own ridiculously large bonuses.

Really, after you have $10 or $20 million, why would you want more? Is it some kind of competitive game to them? I don't get it. Anyone have any insight?

ilbob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,546
    • Bob's blog
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2008, 06:42:28 AM »
as long as it does not endanger the pensions of any existing beneficiaries, what difference does it make?
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #12 on: August 05, 2008, 06:53:09 AM »
as long as it does not endanger the pensions of any existing beneficiaries, what difference does it make?

That's the thing: these are a liabilty to the existing beneficiary.  From the article:

Quote
Consolidated later filed for bankruptcy and handed its pension plan over to a government insurer, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. The PBGC commits to paying pensions only up to certain limits. Mr. Paulsen said he and other executives have been told they won't get their supplemental pensions.

Some lower-level people will lose benefits, too. Chester Madison, a middle manager who retired in 2002 after 33 years, saw his pension fall to $20,400 a year from $49,200. Mr. Madison, 62, has taken a job selling flooring in Sacramento, Calif.

He faults those who made the pension decisions. "I look at it as greed and taking care of the top echelons," he says.

It's impossible to know how much the addition of executive pensions to the pension plan contributed to the plan's failure. But in this as in similar companies where a plan saddled with executive benefits failed -- such as at kitchenware maker Oneida Ltd. in upstate New York -- it's clear the move weakened the plans by adding liabilities but no assets.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

ilbob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,546
    • Bob's blog
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #13 on: August 05, 2008, 07:03:44 AM »
back when the stock market was really moving, it was not uncommon for companies that had pension funds that ended up being overfunded to remove the excess. Just like they have to make up the shortfall if their investments don't pan out.

personally, I think defined benefit pension plans are dinosaurs.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,762
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #14 on: August 05, 2008, 07:48:20 AM »
This is something I've struggled to understand for a while now. Once you've got around $10 million in the bank, what's this insatiable drive to have more? Most corporate executives will nickel and dime employees over a $500 bonus, but then drive the company into the ground to ensure their own ridiculously large bonuses.

Really, after you have $10 or $20 million, why would you want more? Is it some kind of competitive game to them? I don't get it. Anyone have any insight?
You don't quite get it (which probably says good things about you).  Once you have 20 mil, you buy a big mansion and a limo (w/driver) and a country house and have to hire a manager for that.  Suddenly, your 20 mil doesn't generate enough to pay for all that and you need more.  You can't stop as you have to keep up with all the other rich guys at the club that you know.  Plus you probably would marry a trophy wife who will do her best to spend all the money you have left over.  Smiley

I agree that kind of money should set just about anyone up for life; HOWEVER, you can look at those shows about tragic lottery stories and see how easy it is for even normal average Joe's to get carried away and spend all the money they have and don't have.  It seems like the exception sometimes to hear about the guy who has money and still lives in a modest house and does modest work.
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,836
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #15 on: August 05, 2008, 11:25:20 AM »
back when the stock market was really moving, it was not uncommon for companies that had pension funds that ended up being overfunded to remove the excess. Just like they have to make up the shortfall if their investments don't pan out.

personally, I think defined benefit pension plans are dinosaurs.

Yep-instead of getting what was promised or what is agreed upon in advance, you get whatever they're willing to give you after 30 plus years of work.

Honest contracting and exchange is so old fashioned.
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

ilbob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,546
    • Bob's blog
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #16 on: August 05, 2008, 11:32:46 AM »
back when the stock market was really moving, it was not uncommon for companies that had pension funds that ended up being overfunded to remove the excess. Just like they have to make up the shortfall if their investments don't pan out.

personally, I think defined benefit pension plans are dinosaurs.

Yep-instead of getting what was promised or what is agreed upon in advance, you get whatever they're willing to give you after 30 plus years of work.

Honest contracting and exchange is so old fashioned.
for most people, traditional pension plans suck. if you don't work somewhere your whole life, you get very little, and few people stick around for that long anymore.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

cosine

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,734
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #17 on: August 05, 2008, 11:38:44 AM »
This is something I've struggled to understand for a while now. Once you've got around $10 million in the bank, what's this insatiable drive to have more? Most corporate executives will nickel and dime employees over a $500 bonus, but then drive the company into the ground to ensure their own ridiculously large bonuses.

Really, after you have $10 or $20 million, why would you want more? Is it some kind of competitive game to them? I don't get it. Anyone have any insight?

I always understood it to be that one became accustomed to a lifestyle requiring millions of dollars, and so one needs that kind of money to keep flowing in to continue living that sort of life. You know, multi-million dollar mansions, $500,000 cars, $2,000 dinners at fancy restaurants, etc.
Andy

Racehorse

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 829
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #18 on: August 05, 2008, 12:02:13 PM »
I always understood it to be that one became accustomed to a lifestyle requiring millions of dollars, and so one needs that kind of money to keep flowing in to continue living that sort of life. You know, multi-million dollar mansions, $500,000 cars, $2,000 dinners at fancy restaurants, etc.

Yeah, that's probably what it is. I guess part of my problem is that I'm too simple to really understand the appeal of that lifestyle. I understand wanting to drive a Ferrari, for example, but I could just rent one when I felt like driving one. I don't understand having a house so big that you never even go in a lot of the rooms or only go in them once or twice a year. That makes no sense to me.

Anyway, sorry for the thread drift. Maybe someday I'll be lucky enough to understand the burden of being a multimillionaire.

The Annoyed Man

  • New Member
  • Posts: 1
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #19 on: August 05, 2008, 03:36:46 PM »
From my understanding, to be the kind of person who will earn $20million, you have to have a particular mindset. That mindset doesn't evaporate after you reach $20million: you keep trying to amass more wealth...

 The people you hear about who inherit (or win) great wealth, then loose it all, do so because they have no concept of making their money work for them (except to spend it, usually foolishly).

 Usually, those who don't mind living modestly don't acquire great wealth.

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2008, 03:40:58 PM »
Y'all might be surprised just how little 10 or 20 million is.

Scout26

  • I'm a leaf on the wind.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,997
  • I spent a week in that town one night....
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2008, 03:45:10 PM »
Y'all might be surprised just how little 10 or 20 million is.

Send me $10-20 million and surprise me.....
Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants won't help.


Bring me my Broadsword and a clear understanding.
Get up to the roundhouse on the cliff-top standing.
Take women and children and bed them down.
Bless with a hard heart those that stand with me.
Bless the women and children who firm our hands.
Put our backs to the north wind.
Hold fast by the river.
Sweet memories to drive us on,
for the motherland.

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2008, 03:51:39 PM »
If I had it to spare, I would.  But of course, if I had it I'd probably still want more.

thebaldguy

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #23 on: August 05, 2008, 05:21:26 PM »
I had some family members who lost their pension plan when the company went under; LTV Steel. They lost about 30% of their pension and also some medical benefits. Turns out that the company had been knowingly underfunding the plan. They declared bankruptcy, and the PBGC took over the pension plan.

Evidently the feds don't monitor pension plans too closely. I think in the near future we'll hear about more pension plan problems.

Waitone

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,133
Re: The Single Most Incomprehensively Stupid Move by a Company
« Reply #24 on: August 05, 2008, 06:51:23 PM »
Problem is LTV and other companies set the pattern.  Short fund pensions to get around financial problem.  Go into bankruptcy protection.  Dump the retirement play (usually on to PBGC).  Emerge from bankruptcy with vim and vigor.  Watch for actions from Ford and GM.  They have to get legacy costs down and the way to do so is protection pending a restructuring.  And as usual, the little guy takes it up the  . . . . 
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds. It will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
- Charles Mackay, Scottish journalist, circa 1841

"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it." - John Lennon