It has been mentioned many times before: The IBM Plan for the US "was"
fully funded, but the world-wide funds were not. After the whipping
the stock market took, down 50 percent this year, the US Plas "WAS"
fully funded, but most likely is not any more.

To try and beat the market and fund the Plan from fund earnings versus
using the money actually deferred by the employees, IBM and other
complanies started investing too much in stocks and not into the
stead-fast Treasuries bills.

Now the market is taking revenge on the companies greediness and is
breaking out a can of "WHIP AZ" !

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, "teamb562" <teamb562@...> wrote:
>
> Can anyone venture a guess as to why IBM is asking for relief from
> the 2006 funding obligation if: 1)we are supposedly fully funded and
> 2)they have already frozen our pension(note the last sentence).
> What's really up?
>
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/business/economy/20pension.html?
> _r=1&em
>
>

Senate Committee Leaders Announce Pension Legislation


Leaders of the Senate Finance Committee and Senate Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions Committee have announced legislation to address
the financial strain on American families and businesses due to the
lagging economy. The package includes modifications to pension
distribution requirements for seniors and businesses, as well as
provisions included in the Pension Protection Technical Correction
Act of 2008.

As was communicated to NRLN Grassroots Members in the Nov. 17, 2008
Action Alert the, NRLN is lobbying to have three pension asset
protection provisions included in the legislation. The measures the
NRLN wants included are:

• Protect pension plan assets by preventing companies from using
assets for restructuring expenses, such as paying lump-sum severance
or layoff payments.

• Prevent the purchase of pension plans by third parties, such as
financial firms.

• Prevent the use of pension plan assets to enhance deferred
compensation of executives.

The NRLN's position is simple and straightforward…Pension assets
should remain in pension trusts to provide a cushion against economic
downturns such as we are currently experiencing, and when there is
sufficient surplus the assets should be used to fund Cost of Living
Allowances (COLA) for plan participants.

If you have not yet emailed your letter to your U.S. Senators and
Representative please do so immediately by going to:
http://capwiz.com/abtr/home/ . Use the NRLN's sample letter to
communicate to your elected representatives the need to protect
pension plan assets. If you have a problem accessing the above link,
go to www.nrln.org and click on the "Take Action Now" headline at the
top of the website home page.

The following is Senator Edward Kennedy's press release on the
proposed pension protection legislation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
KENNEDY, COLLEAGUES ANNOUNCE PENSION PROTECTION PLANS,
PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDES TAX HELP FOR FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES
Senator Edward M. Kennedy Press Release - Nov. 19, 2008

Washington, DC – Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-
Mont.) and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) were joined today
by Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee
Chairman Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Ranking Member Mike Enzi (R-
Wyo.) in announcing legislation to help ease the financial strain on
American families and businesses due to the lagging economy. The
package includes important modifications to pension distribution
requirements for seniors and businesses, as well as provisions
included in the Pension Protection Technical Correction Act of 2008,
originally passed by the Senate in December 2007 and the House in
March and July of this year. The bipartisan package also extends for
one year business tax relief that was included in the first economic
stimulus package, and allows companies to write off a greater
percentage of their investments in business assets to free up cash
for payroll and other expenses.

Kennedy said, "This bipartisan package addresses immediate pension
needs arising from the financial crisis. It's an important first
step, but there is much more to be done to protect families'
retirement security. In these hard economic times, Americans have
much to be concerned about, but they shouldn't have to lie awake at
night worrying whether their hard-earned pensions will survive. I
look forward to working with my colleagues to do all we can to see
that employees' pensions stay safe and sound."

"Americans need real help from Congress to make sure their retirement
savings are safe and sound and available to them when they need it.
The provisions we're offering here today are a viable effort to move
the economy toward recovery," Baucus said. "We've included measures
to make pension plan requirements as friendly as they can be for
seniors and employers so that they avoid a tax hit that wouldn't
otherwise burden them under normal market conditions. And we're
making it possible for struggling businesses to keep their houses in
order by allowing them a greater return on what they invest in their
operations. "

"This bill contains important stop-gap measures to help protect
pension holders given the great anxiety many face right now because
of the economic downturn. It also contains tax relief measures to
help employers weather the storm and continue to meet obligations to
employees. These are common sense measures to help get through a
difficult environment," Grassley said.

"I'm pleased that we've been able to work together in a very short
period of time and reach agreement on a balanced package that will
help protect the retirement interests of individual retirees,
workers, and pension plans," Enzi said. "This agreement not only
recognizes the economic stress families are feeling with their
retirement nest eggs, but also will put in place key provisions of
the Pension Protection Technical Correction Act. Together, these
changes will help families and bring temporary relief to weather
troubled markets that threaten the safety of the retirement savings
millions are depending on."

Business tax incentives and pension provisions in the package include:


A provision for companies to claim as an expense a greater portion of
their property cost, as well as increase the total dollar amount of
allowable asset depreciation for a period of one year.
A measure to provide relief for seniors age 70 and 1/2 or older who
are required to take distributions from their retirement plans. This
allows savings to stay put and avoid a tax hit when the market is
down.
A provision allowing single-employer pension plans to account for
expected earnings in addition to contributions and distributions when
determining the value of the plan's assets. In addition, for those
plans that fall below the set target funding percentage for a
particular year (e.g., 92 percent in 2008), these plans will only be
required to fund up to the specified funding percentage for that
year, instead of 100 percent.
Other pension provisions address difficulties faced by multi-employer
pension plans by allowing a freeze of their current funding status so
that funds that have dropped in value due to the decline in the stock
market can avoid being classified as "endangered" or "critical." For
those multi-employer plans that have established a funding
improvement or rehabilitation plan for 2008 and 2009, the funding
improvement and rehabilitation period would be extended from ten
years to thirteen years.
A measure to allow plans, for purposes of applying the restriction on
benefit accruals, to use their 2008 funding status in 2009.
A Tribal pension provision would eliminate the distinction between
different types of employees within Indian tribal government pension
plans so that tribal plans receive the same tax treatment as state
and local government plans.

A summary of the tax and pension provisions follows here:

The Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 2008

Business Stimulus Provisions

• Extend bonus depreciation for one year by allowing a taxpayer to
depreciate 50 percent of the cost of an asset in the year in which
the asset was acquired (2009). This proposal is estimated to cost
$7.6 billion over ten years.

• Extend elective expensing (section 179) by one year, allowing small
businesses to elect, in lieu of depreciation, to deduct up to
$250,000 for property acquired and placed into service in 2009. This
proposal is estimated to cost $100 million over ten years.

Pension Recovery Provisions

This bill also contains a number of additional provisions designed to
provide relief to individuals, pension plans, and businesses affected
by the recent financial crisis.

• Place a one year moratorium on required minimum distributions from
individual retirement accounts for 2009. This proposal is effective
for 2009. This proposal is estimated to cost $3.7 billion over ten
years.

• The funding target under the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA)
is phased in over three years. For those plans that fall below the
set target funding percentage for a particular year, these plans will
be required to fund up to the specified funding percentage for that
year, instead of 100%. This provision is effective as if included in
the Pension Protection Act. The proposal is estimated to raise less
than $50 million over ten years.

• For plan years starting between October 1, 2008 and October 1,
2009, multi-employer plans may elect to freeze their current funding
certification based on the previous year's level.

• Three year extension of the current funding improvement or
rehabilitation period for multi-employer plans, from 10 to 13 years.

Tribal Pensions:

• For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA, a governmental
plan is defined as including a plan established or maintained for its
employees by an Indian tribal government, subdivision or agency of an
Indian tribal government, or an entity established under Federal,
State or tribal law which is wholly owned or controlled by an Indian
tribal government, subdivision, or agency of an Indian tribal
government.

Worker Protections:

• For purposes of staving off restrictions on benefit accruals as a
result of being less than 60% funded, plans would be able to look
back to the previous plan year for purposes of determining their
funding status as it would apply to benefit accrual limits only. This
provision would apply for plan years beginning on or after October 1,
2008 and before October 1, 2009. For plan years beginning January 1,
2009t, that means a lookback to January 1, 2008 conditions.

Pension Protection Act Technical Correction Provisions

• The 2008 transition rule for determining at-risk status applies to
both the 70% and 80% prongs.

• Lump sums of $5,000 or less can be paid, even if an underfunded
plan is otherwise prohibited from paying lump sums.

• For applicable defined benefit (hybrid) plans:

o The new vesting rules for hybrid plans are effective on the basis
of plan years and apply to participants with an hour of service after
the applicable effective date for the plan.

o The new interest crediting rules for hybrid plans in existence on
June 29, 2005 apply to years beginning after December 31, 2007,
unless the sponsor elects to apply the rules earlier.

o The vesting and interest crediting rules that apply to collectively
bargained plans do not apply to plan years beginning before the
earlier of: (1) (a) the later of January 1, 2008 or (b) the
termination of the collective bargaining agreement; or (2) January 1,
2010.

• The combined plan deduction limit for defined benefit and defined
contribution plans does not apply to the defined benefit plan if
contributions to the defined contribution plan are no more than 6% of
compensation. If these contributions are more than 6% of
compensation, only contributions in excess of 6% count toward the
deduction limit.

• All plans must permit rollovers out of the plan for non-spousal
beneficiaries.

• The exclusion for up to $3,000 of health insurance premiums for
retired public safety officers applies to self-funded arrangements.
To be excluded, the amounts must be distributed from a public safety
officer's former employer's retirement plan.

• Plan expenses expected to be paid out of plan assets must be
included in calculating the plan's target normal cost.

• The Secretary of Treasury is given authority to prescribe special
rules for small defined benefit plans that have a valuation date
other than the first day of the plan year for purposes of, among
others, quarterly contributions and determining the application of
the benefit restriction rules.

• Rollovers from a Roth 401(k) or 403(b) plan to a Roth IRA are not
subject to the Roth IRA contribution AGI limits.

Non-Technical Retirement Security Provisions

• Airline workers whose defined benefit pension plan was terminated
or frozen as a result of bankruptcy (filed after September 11, 2001,
and prior to January 1, 2007) would be allowed to roll-over
bankruptcy payments intended to replace lost retirement income to a
Roth individual retirement account ("Roth IRA"). This provision is
estimated to cost $82 million over 10 years.

• Small defined benefit plans would be required to determine the
value of lump sum distributions not in excess of the Code section 415
limit using a fixed 5.5% interest rate, instead of the greater of the
5.5% rate or 105% of the corporate bond yield curve rate. This
provision is estimated to cost $59 million over 10 years.

• Governmental retirement plans that credit a plan participant's
account balance with a specified interest rate would be permitted to
use a rate that exceeded the "market rate of return" (as defined by
the Treasury Department), provided the governmental plans' interest
rate was set by Federal, State, or local law. This provision has a
negligible revenue effect.

• A plan established by a State or local government to reimburse
certain medical care expenses incurred by State or local government
employees on a tax-free basis shall not lose this favorable tax
treatment merely because the plan provides for reimbursements of
medical care expenses incurred by a deceased plan participant's non-
spouse/non-dependent beneficiary. This provision is estimated to
raise $3 million over 10 years.

• The penalty that is in effect for the failure to file an S
corporation tax return shall be increased by $4. This provision is
estimated to raise $38 million over 10 years.

• The penalty that is in effect for the failure to file a partnership
tax return shall be increased by $4. This provision is estimated to
raise $42 million over 10 years.

• The value of a plan's assets may be adjusted for contributions,
distributions, and expected earnings with a cap on expected earnings
equal to the 3rd segment rate of the yield curve. This provision is
estimated to raise $100 million over 10 years.

I joined it on LinkedIn, because I thought it would be a good way to
connect with my former colleagues and IBM friends. Once it moved to
ibm.com it lost all its usefulness, as it is now more like an online
newsletter than a social network. It's actually pretty cheesy.

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, finitewisdom <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Anyone know much about this and have comments?
>
> http://www.ibm.com/ibm/greateribm/
>

Anybody knows where to find the form for Matching Grant? It used to be
accessible from http://www-1.ibm.com/afteribm/us/, but this page does not exist
anymore. I tried search through IBM site, the program seems still available to
retirees, but I could not find the form.

Yelena





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Try http://www-01.ibm.com/afteribm/us/
Herb
--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, yelena moss <ylnmss@...> wrote:
>
> Anybody knows where to find the form for Matching Grant? It used to
be accessible from http://www-1.ibm.com/afteribm/us/, but this page
does not exist anymore. I tried search through IBM site, the program
seems still available to retirees, but I could not find the form.
>
> Yelena
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

IBM has no business asking for relief.  Each year, they buy back tens
of billions of dollars in shares, to shore up executive stock
options.  We are not here to supply their cash cow.  IBM is wealthy
enough to make the pensions payments to our trust.  Only if they pass
on a year of cash outlay stock buybacks will I ever believe they need
relief.  This is a smokescreen!

Here is an interesting old article (still timely) by Bob Djurdjevic,
a well known IBM street analyst.
http://www.truthinmedia.org/Truthinmedia/Activism/bw4-06-98.html

Kathi Cooper

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, madinpok <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> My theory is as follows:
>
> Although the pension plan has been frozen and had a rather large
> surplus as of 12/31/2007, it is probably now underfunded due to the
> decline in the stock market.
>
> The result may be that IBM will have to contribute additional money
to
> the pension plan.  Chances are, that at some time in the future, the
> market will recover and the fund will once again have a surplus,
> making the additional contribution to the fund seem unnecessary.
And
> cnce the money has been added to the pension fund, IBM cannot remove
> it.  So, in that sense, from the company's point of view, it will
have
> been wasted.
>
> In the meantime, making that contribution will reduce profits and
have
> the side effect of also reducing executive bonuses.
>
>
> --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, "teamb562" <teamb562@> wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone venture a guess as to why IBM is asking for relief
from
> > the 2006 funding obligation if: 1)we are supposedly fully funded
and
> > 2)they have already frozen our pension(note the last sentence).
> > What's really up?
> >
>

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, yelena moss <ylnmss@...> wrote:
> Anybody knows where to find the form for Matching Grant? It used to
be accessible from http://www-1.ibm.com/afteribm/us/, but this page
does not exist anymore. I tried search through IBM site, the program
seems still available to retirees, but I could not find the form.
>
> Yelena

Logon to the netbenefits.fidelity.com website
Click on the "health & Insurance" tab
Scroll down to "More Benefit Resources"
Click on  "All Health & Insurance Forms"
It will be the fifth form in the "Work/Life Support and Community
Service" section, available as a pdf

http://financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081121/REG/811219993/1036

EXCERPT:
---------
A bill designed to boost the economy in part by easing stringent
pension funding rules for companies died in the lame-duck session of
the Senate on Thursday, November 20.

It's not clear whether the measure will be revived in another special
session in December or will have to wait until a new Congress is
seated in January.

Before the Senate adjourned, it passed a $5.7 billion extension of
unemployment insurance. The measure provides seven more weeks of
benefits for most workers and 13 additional weeks in high-unemployment
states.

The House approved the unemployment extension this fall. President
Bush has indicated that he will sign the bill.

The pension measure, which also included business tax breaks and
pension rule relief for individuals, was put on a fast track for
Senate passage but halted when at least one member anonymously
objected. Even if the bill had made it through the Senate, it's not
clear when or if the House would have acted.
---------

If the plan was fully funded and benefits were frozen, then why does
IBM not invest the pension fund in Treasury bills and bonds?

There is no reason to take risks if the plan is fully funded and frozen.

Except G-R-E-E-D !!!


--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, madinpok <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> My theory is as follows:
>
> Although the pension plan has been frozen and had a rather large
> surplus as of 12/31/2007, it is probably now underfunded due to the
> decline in the stock market.
>
> The result may be that IBM will have to contribute additional money to
> the pension plan.  Chances are, that at some time in the future, the
> market will recover and the fund will once again have a surplus,
> making the additional contribution to the fund seem unnecessary.  And
> cnce the money has been added to the pension fund, IBM cannot remove
> it.  So, in that sense, from the company's point of view, it will have
> been wasted.
>
> In the meantime, making that contribution will reduce profits and have
> the side effect of also reducing executive bonuses.
>
>
> --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, "teamb562" <teamb562@> wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone venture a guess as to why IBM is asking for relief from
> > the 2006 funding obligation if: 1)we are supposedly fully funded and
> > 2)they have already frozen our pension(note the last sentence).
> > What's really up?
> >
>

"Fully Funded" means that the plan has enough money to pay all the
retirees over their expected lifetimes, assuming a certain rate of
return on the money in the fund.

In 2007, IBM assumed a long term average rate of 8.0%.  Since Treasury
bills and bonds do not typically pay such a high a rate, the plan
needs to invest a significant portion of the money in other
instruments, such as stocks.

In theory, IBM could invest only in Treasuries if they wanted absolute
safety, but then they would need far more money in the plan in order
for it to be considered fully funded.

I'm not sure I would call IBM's investment strategy greed. Investing
in a mix of stocks and bonds has long been viewed as a reasonable
investment strategy.

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, ibm_slave <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> If the plan was fully funded and benefits were frozen, then why does
> IBM not invest the pension fund in Treasury bills and bonds?
>
> There is no reason to take risks if the plan is fully funded and frozen.
>
> Except G-R-E-E-D !!!

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, madinpok <no_reply@...> wrote:
> Investing in a mix of stocks and bonds has long been viewed as a
>reasonable investment strategy.

You make it sound like our pension trust has conventional
investments.  Bull!

Try hedge funds… (admitted to in their annual report)
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08692.pdf

"Because of hedge funds' risky nature, rapid growth, lack of
oversight, and recent losses, some wonder if they are appropriate
investments for workers' retirement funds.  Congress has asked the
Government Accountability Office to examine the use of hedge funds by
public and private sponsors of defined benefit pension plans.
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RS22679_20070615.pdf

Try Mortgage Backed Bonds (MB's)
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mbs.asp

Try Collateralized Mortgage Obligations Bonds (CMO's)…
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cmo.asp

All of which can't be valued (means can't be sold/marketed which
means they have no functional value)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

Want to bet they sell some of the funds 'overnight' to other
institutions/countries?  (swaps)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swap_(finance)

In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they had credit default
swaps tied into our trust at some point.

With stocks in the pits, worthless bonds, derivatives with no value,
high risk hedge funds, verious market funds (feeding off those items
just mentioned), I suspect our trust fund is like everyone elses...
in need of major funding!

I don't think our pension trust is safe and secure.  Not by any
means.  I can't wait to get my hands on their next 5500.

Kathi Cooper

To give you an idea of how much our pension trust might be damaged,
you only have to examine CALPERS.  CALPERS is a very well run pension
trust.  They are very open about their disclosure (they have to be,
they are a public pension trust)

In the following article, they admit they have lost 20% of their fund
through October 20th.  Well, it is now Nov 23rd and the stock market
has fallen another 15% sinced then.  That is a 35% total drop in
value.  Toss in bonds, hedge funds, etc...., you get the picture.
http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122469119659558689.html

I would assume our pension trust has fallen at least 35-40%, to date,
and still crashing.

Let's see, 35%-40% of 19.5B = 6.8B to 7.8B that has vaporized.
http://www.ibm.com/annualreport/2007/note_u.shtml

Yep, time for some major funding...

Kathi Cooper

ON THE FULLY FUNDED ISSUE

FWIW - My understanding, and I may be wrong, is that 'fully funded' means the
following simplified assumptions for a defined benefit plan.

1) Company ceases to exist on DEC 31 of the plan year or plan year ending date
2) There are sufficient funds to 'purchase' or fund on that date an appropriate
service-based annuity, payable at age 65, for ALL employees who are covered
under the plan and who are VESTED as of Dec 31 (or the appropriate plan year
ending date.)

Of course, the cost of an annuity on any date depends on the future expected
returns on the moneys invested on your behalf.

Keeping in mind that it is YOUR deferred wages, on the order of 6 to 8 percent,
that are tax exempt and invested on 'your' behalf to be returned to you when you
are put out to pasture, the pension is NOT a gift as many think. If it were, you
would NOT pay taxes.

AS a side, most do not realize the profit motive in estimating a high rate of
return, nor do they realize how companies make money on layoffs of low seniority
people.

I prepared the following graph (the story of 'Joe Lunchpail') for my friends at
Boeing several months ago; you might interesting:

http://home.att.net/~justfacts/JOELUNCHPAIL_PENSION.pdf

document don

--- madinpok wrote:
> "Fully Funded" means that the plan has enough money to pay all the
> retirees over their expected lifetimes, assuming a certain rate of
> return on the money in the fund.
>
> In 2007, IBM assumed a long term average rate of 8.0%.  Since
> Treasury bills and bonds do not typically pay such a high a rate,
> the plan needs to invest a significant portion of the money in
> other instruments, such as stocks.
>
> In theory, IBM could invest only in Treasuries if they wanted
> absolute safety, but then they would need far more money in the
> plan in order for it to be considered fully funded.
>
> I'm not sure I would call IBM's investment strategy greed.
> Investing in a mix of stocks and bonds has long been viewed as
> a reasonable investment strategy.
>
> --- ibm_slave wrote:
> > If the plan was fully funded and benefits were frozen, then why
> > does IBM not invest the pension fund in Treasury bills and bonds?
> >
> > There is no reason to take risks if the plan is fully funded and
> > frozen -- Except G-R-E-E-D !!!

In September, as some may know, The Boeing Machinists (IAM) went on strike.
There were many issues on the table and some hidden [from the public and
non-employees] takeaways, which were eventually exposed and as a result of the
strike.

I have copied one of the issues regarding retirees, which I believe shows the
value of taking the time to examine the LEGAL documents involved.  Few people
do, and in the past, even unions have been sandbagged.

Document Don ;-)

IAM November News  page 1
Strike Preserves Retiree Medical
Perhaps one of the most disturbing changes Boeing tried to slip into their
September 3rd offer pertained to retiree medical. While Boeing announced
publicly they would back off their proposal to eliminate retiree medical for
future hires, they put a more devious takeaway clause buried in the fine print
of the 9/3/08 proposal.

Boeing's language, as printed in the offer members rejected on September 3rd,
would have taken those who are already retired (current retirees) out of the
scope of the Agreement, threatening their coverage. Just as disturbing is the
implication of Boeing's proposed language on current active members. The
Company's 9/3/08 language basically provided coverage only for active employees
who retire during the term of this Agreement. If this three-year agreement
expired, so would the contractual guarantee for retiree medical benefits of
those newly retired members. If you planned to retire during that contract, this
would be very important because if that language had been implemented, then
after this contract we could no longer negotiate on your behalf.

As Union negotiators, this was one of the most frustrating issues -- realizing
Boeing's intent was to threaten our current retirees and limit the Company's
future liability with word games. While Boeing said they didn't intend to change
these benefits, without the contract language there would be no guarantee AND
Boeing was refusing to put in writing that they would not change these benefits.
The Union was left in a tough spot.

Because of a Supreme Court ruling over four decades ago, retiree benefits for
those already retired are non-mandatory subjects of bargaining; therefore, a
Union cannot require an employer to bargain over the benefits of past retirees.
More importantly, it also means a Union cannot make health care benefits for
past retirees a strike issue. That is why the Union could not mention retiree
medical in our summary or recommendation for 9/3/08. Since the Union had to
ensure retiree medical for past retirees was NOT a strike issue (because that
would be illegal), the Union simply instructed members to read the Company's
proposal closely.

Had Boeing succeeded in getting this language approved by the members, they
would have faced legal action for unilaterally stripping retirees of their
medical benefits. These cases turn on interpretations of a medical plan's
governing documents and whether the documents promise a 'vested' lifetime
benefit or not. The success of these claims depends a great deal on the
governing documents themselves and the statements and promises made by the
employer.

Should Boeing ever succeed in getting this language into an IAM contract, the
Union will pursue legal action to challenge any change to benefits for current
retirees. In the meantime, Unions will continue to fight in the legislative
arena to get the right to bargain for the retired members who came before us.
Until then, read the fine print in each proposal (especially Sections 11.3 and
11.4).

If I had a crystal ball I would have moved my 401K out of stocks
before the crisis.  Since I didn't have one I have lost nearly 40% of
the value in my 401K.  However if I look at the money I personally
have put into the plan, pretend I put it into something safe, bonds, a
savings account, etc.  Even with the 40% loss I have much more money
than I would have had.  IBM's personal contribution has been fairly
significant to the returns generated.  I was just too stupid to figure
out when to get out of stocks.
While stocks were climbing out of sight I'm sure if IBM had put their
pension money into low performing assets the stock holders would have
had something to say about the lack of sense IBM had in missing the
great money take.  Things like whey do you have billions tied up in
the pension fund making only 4% when you could have less in stocks
making 12%.
I'm not defending anyone here, I'm simply making a point that the
greed wasn't just IBM or our American corporations, the greed went all
the way down to the individual investor and the home buyer.  Strangely
enough this same greed sickness appears to have struck the entire
world.  Now we all have to pay the piper, the only remaining question
will be, what form will that payment take?


--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, justa_bean_counter <no_reply@...>
wrote:
>
> To give you an idea of how much our pension trust might be damaged,
> you only have to examine CALPERS.  CALPERS is a very well run pension
> trust.  They are very open about their disclosure (they have to be,
> they are a public pension trust)
>
> In the following article, they admit they have lost 20% of their fund
> through October 20th.  Well, it is now Nov 23rd and the stock market
> has fallen another 15% sinced then.  That is a 35% total drop in
> value.  Toss in bonds, hedge funds, etc...., you get the picture.
> http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122469119659558689.html
>
> I would assume our pension trust has fallen at least 35-40%, to date,
> and still crashing.
>
> Let's see, 35%-40% of 19.5B = 6.8B to 7.8B that has vaporized.
> http://www.ibm.com/annualreport/2007/note_u.shtml
>
> Yep, time for some major funding...
>
> Kathi Cooper
>

I understand that some here on this board have a king size erection
against IBM, but lets level the playing field. Lets stop the "sky is
falling" - armageddon garbage and look at where we really are. It's
not time to leap to your death from a tall building. I didn't hear
any complaints from here over the last 5 years when the funds were
growing at 15+% a year. Reward has always been proportional to risk -

Anytime you quote a percentage loss you should provde the data
numbers and the starting points and ending points you are comparing.
Down 35-40% from where?? -- compared to the peak it has ever
reached????  Why didn't you provide the growth percentage since the
last recession until the current mess and where we stand compared to
th early 2000 years ?? Could it be that didn't support your mission
of trying to make it look like a total disaster managed by dummies.
Numbers can be used to create false images by people with a mission .
Following is the 2003 to 2007 real data for your perusal.

Looking at the DOW: It was was at a 7500 plus level in March 2003
(7552). In Oct 2007 it peaked at 14093. This is about 4 1/2 years --
and is  increase of 6500 plus points. This is a 86+% increase from
2003. The DOW closed on 11/21/08 at 8046 - down from the 10/2007 peak
of 14093. Thats a drop of approx 6047 - so you are still ahead 400
plus points on the DOW compared to 2003. In other words, you are
still up about 5.3% ahead based on 3/2003. The S&P shows a very
similar story across those periods. Now go ahead and leap to your
death if you wish -




--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, justa_bean_counter <no_reply@...>
wrote:
>
> To give you an idea of how much our pension trust might be damaged,
> you only have to examine CALPERS.  CALPERS is a very well run
pension
> trust.  They are very open about their disclosure (they have to be,
> they are a public pension trust)
>
> In the following article, they admit they have lost 20% of their
fund
> through October 20th.  Well, it is now Nov 23rd and the stock
market
> has fallen another 15% sinced then.  That is a 35% total drop in
> value.  Toss in bonds, hedge funds, etc...., you get the picture.
> http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122469119659558689.html
>
> I would assume our pension trust has fallen at least 35-40%, to
date,
> and still crashing.
>
> Let's see, 35%-40% of 19.5B = 6.8B to 7.8B that has vaporized.
> http://www.ibm.com/annualreport/2007/note_u.shtml
>
> Yep, time for some major funding...
>
> Kathi Cooper
>

Check here: http://www-03.ibm.com/employment/us/benefits/afteribm/

yelena moss wrote:
> Anybody knows where to find the form for Matching Grant? It used to be
accessible from http://www-1.ibm.com/afteribm/us/, but this page does not exist
anymore. I tried search through IBM site, the program seems still available to
retirees, but I could not find the form.
>
> Yelena
>
>
>

1) I take it you're a guy? Erections? How childish!
2) I'm not complaining. Where do you get that?
3) I'm letting people know that if it can happen to Calpers, it can
happen to IBM and we have ample evidence that it probably is.
4) START WATCHING IBM! They have a bad track record when it comes to
our pension trust.
6) The 15% percentage loss is from Oct 20th to Nov 23rd, check it out
yourself.  (NYSE)

Kathi Cooper

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, tx_rodmaster <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I understand that some here on this board have a king size erection
> against IBM, but lets level the playing field. Lets stop the "sky
is
> falling" - armageddon garbage and look at where we really are. It's
> not time to leap to your death from a tall building. I didn't hear
> any complaints from here over the last 5 years when the funds were
> growing at 15+% a year. Reward has always been proportional to
risk -
>
> Anytime you quote a percentage loss you should provde the data
> numbers and the starting points and ending points you are
comparing.
> Down 35-40% from where?? -- compared to the peak it has ever
> reached????  Why didn't you provide the growth percentage since the
> last recession until the current mess and where we stand compared
to
> th early 2000 years ?? Could it be that didn't support your mission
> of trying to make it look like a total disaster managed by dummies.
> Numbers can be used to create false images by people with a
mission .
> Following is the 2003 to 2007 real data for your perusal.
>
> Looking at the DOW: It was was at a 7500 plus level in March 2003
> (7552). In Oct 2007 it peaked at 14093. This is about 4 1/2 years --

> and is  increase of 6500 plus points. This is a 86+% increase from
> 2003. The DOW closed on 11/21/08 at 8046 - down from the 10/2007
peak
> of 14093. Thats a drop of approx 6047 - so you are still ahead 400
> plus points on the DOW compared to 2003. In other words, you are
> still up about 5.3% ahead based on 3/2003. The S&P shows a very
> similar story across those periods. Now go ahead and leap to your
> death if you wish -
>
>
>
>
> --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, justa_bean_counter <no_reply@>
> wrote:
> >
> > To give you an idea of how much our pension trust might be
damaged,
> > you only have to examine CALPERS.  CALPERS is a very well run
> pension
> > trust.  They are very open about their disclosure (they have to
be,
> > they are a public pension trust)
> >
> > In the following article, they admit they have lost 20% of their
> fund
> > through October 20th.  Well, it is now Nov 23rd and the stock
> market
> > has fallen another 15% sinced then.  That is a 35% total drop in
> > value.  Toss in bonds, hedge funds, etc...., you get the
picture.
> > http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122469119659558689.html
> >
> > I would assume our pension trust has fallen at least 35-40%, to
> date,
> > and still crashing.
> >
> > Let's see, 35%-40% of 19.5B = 6.8B to 7.8B that has vaporized.
> > http://www.ibm.com/annualreport/2007/note_u.shtml
> >
> > Yep, time for some major funding...
> >
> > Kathi Cooper
> >
>

I have to disagree with you on #4.

IBM has an extremely good record when it comes to managing the
investments in the pension trust.  I think you are confusing the
executives who made the decisions to cut retirement benefits with the
people who actually manage the investments.

For most of the trust's history, it has been in extremely good shape.
  Is it down this year?  Sure.  And so is just about everything else.
Can't blame IBM for that.  Have they invested in a variety of
financial instruments?  Sure.  That's called diversification.  Now, if
IBM invested all of the fund in just one type of security, then I'd be
worried.

Previously, you said that IBM has pension fund money invested in
things like hedge funds and CMOs.   Can you tell us what percentage of
the fund is invested in those items?

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, justa_bean_counter <no_reply@...>
wrote:
>
> 4) START WATCHING IBM! They have a bad track record when it comes to
> our pension trust.
> 6) The 15% percentage loss is from Oct 20th to Nov 23rd, check it out
> yourself.  (NYSE)
>
> Kathi Cooper

*Kevin Wallace posted:**"If I had a crystal ball I would have moved my 401K
out of stocks *before the crisis. Since I didn't have one I have lost nearly
40% of the value in my 401K."I take responsibility for not moving all of my
401K out of stocks before the crisis although Fidelity spent significant
energy encouraging me to ride it out in aggressive or moderate funds.
Fortunately, I ignored them, moved into income plus, and  lost 10%.  After
losing 10%, I decided to wait it out in stable funds and once again Fidelity
was duty-bound to tell me to return to stocks.

Mind you, I can retire in 1 year.

Even though I am a stockholder, I would have expected IBM to exercise
similar caution with our pension funds.  But then, I'm also against the
privatization of SS.   Funds needed short-term should never be put at risk,
IMO.

Beryl


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gee, I ran outside and did NOT find any pieces of the sky on the
ground.  What you are referencing is a GAO document that indicates
what type of investment companies can make, NOT what ALL companies are
doing. Granted, IBM MAY have some of the pension plan in some possible
risky investments (of course, ALL equity investments carry some degree
of risk), but it is not clear whether or not they have made the risky
investments that you fear. I would not cite CALPERS as an example of
what IBM has done. California is not a shining example of how a state
should be run. You can see what IBM did for 2007 at the following
URLs: http://www.ibm.com/annualreport/2007/note_u.shtml and
http://www.ibm.com/annualreport/2007/note_l.shtml . As indicated, they
have some investments in equities and other investments in fixed
securities.

What I did find of interest is an assumption is made that the life
expectancy of those who start collecting a pension is 10 years. Since
the pension plan was terminated in 2005 and "Benefit accruals under
the SERP ceased effective January 1, 2008 for all participants.", it
looks like none of us are expected to live past 2018. But not a
problem, the Mayan calender ends of 12/21/2012. That's probably when
you will start finding pieces of the sky on the ground. Personally, I
don't buy into the hype that this is the worst economy we have ever
experienced since "President F. D. Roosevelt went on national TV back
in 1929 and calmed the people's fears about the coming depression (per
our VP-elect as told to CBS's Katie Couric - and CBS and the
mainstream media said Sarah Palin was clueless).


--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, justa_bean_counter <no_reply@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, madinpok <no_reply@> wrote:
> > Investing in a mix of stocks and bonds has long been viewed as a
> >reasonable investment strategy.
>
> You make it sound like our pension trust has conventional
> investments.  Bull!
>
> Try hedge funds… (admitted to in their annual report)
> http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08692.pdf
>

I have been asking since the stock market climbed to that magic 4000
number, where the heck is all this 'value' or 'money' coming from.  It
can't be created out of nothing.  If it can, it can drop back into
nothingness.
Where is the real value in the stock market?  What number is real, not
simply "confidence", "public balance sheets based upon some numbers".
Stockholders for the past 30 years beat a company to death when it has
a long slow growth plan that is solid and reward only immediate
gratification.  CEO's that planned were booted out for those that
could "deliver quick results".
Now we have what we asked for.
It's very similar to what customers asked for in the mid-80's.  We
don't want your products to include the costs of people and darkening
the sky with planes...so we dropped the costs of PSR's, account SE's
and such, then the customer screamed when we gave them what they asked
for.



--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, tx_rodmaster <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I understand that some here on this board have a king size erection
> against IBM, but lets level the playing field. Lets stop the "sky is
> falling" - armageddon garbage and look at where we really are. It's
> not time to leap to your death from a tall building. I didn't hear
> any complaints from here over the last 5 years when the funds were
> growing at 15+% a year. Reward has always been proportional to risk -
>
> Anytime you quote a percentage loss you should provde the data
> numbers and the starting points and ending points you are comparing.
> Down 35-40% from where?? -- compared to the peak it has ever
> reached????  Why didn't you provide the growth percentage since the
> last recession until the current mess and where we stand compared to
> th early 2000 years ?? Could it be that didn't support your mission
> of trying to make it look like a total disaster managed by dummies.
> Numbers can be used to create false images by people with a mission .
> Following is the 2003 to 2007 real data for your perusal.
>
> Looking at the DOW: It was was at a 7500 plus level in March 2003
> (7552). In Oct 2007 it peaked at 14093. This is about 4 1/2 years --
> and is  increase of 6500 plus points. This is a 86+% increase from
> 2003. The DOW closed on 11/21/08 at 8046 - down from the 10/2007 peak
> of 14093. Thats a drop of approx 6047 - so you are still ahead 400
> plus points on the DOW compared to 2003. In other words, you are
> still up about 5.3% ahead based on 3/2003. The S&P shows a very
> similar story across those periods. Now go ahead and leap to your
> death if you wish -
>
>
>
>
> --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, justa_bean_counter <no_reply@>
> wrote:
> >
> > To give you an idea of how much our pension trust might be damaged,
> > you only have to examine CALPERS.  CALPERS is a very well run
> pension
> > trust.  They are very open about their disclosure (they have to be,
> > they are a public pension trust)
> >
> > In the following article, they admit they have lost 20% of their
> fund
> > through October 20th.  Well, it is now Nov 23rd and the stock
> market
> > has fallen another 15% sinced then.  That is a 35% total drop in
> > value.  Toss in bonds, hedge funds, etc...., you get the picture.
> > http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122469119659558689.html
> >
> > I would assume our pension trust has fallen at least 35-40%, to
> date,
> > and still crashing.
> >
> > Let's see, 35%-40% of 19.5B = 6.8B to 7.8B that has vaporized.
> > http://www.ibm.com/annualreport/2007/note_u.shtml
> >
> > Yep, time for some major funding...
> >
> > Kathi Cooper
> >
>

Folks, for some the 401K is the penion fund, for most already retired
it is NOT. The pension fund for us is the DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN and
for a few the CASH BALANCE PLAN. For us the 401K was touted as an
additon to your Pension and then bacame an integral part of the
calculations.

Some are saying, you didn't complain when things were going good. We
in the Defined Benefit Plan has constantly been complaining about NO
COLA. So no matter how well the funds did, we didn't see the benefit.
The multipliers used were very high for interest rates which meant
the core number required to get to the age 65 was lower, which meant
less money to the employee. Damn right I was complaining; IBM using
8% or 10% interest rate values when the real amount was 4% or 6%.

Also, using those values made it appear you had a lot more money in
the DBP to meet requirements, than was actually there. So now IBM is
complaining that they have to really put the money in, that they said
they had.

Also, they lobbied to get the laws changed to allow them to use a
large stock allocation in the Plan. In the 70's and 80's they were
limited to Baa or higher bonds and Treasury Bonds/Notes only. The
problem was, if they continued doing this they really had to
contribute to the Plan instead of saying it was self sufficient to
generate needed payments. What, actually contribute the monies that
WE had deferred out of our pay. Nah !!!

If you call pimping our pension trust for the benefit of executive
bonuses, yes, I agree with you that our pension trust is the finest
whore on the block.

Kathi Cooper
P.S.  Do you work for HR?

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, madinpok <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I have to disagree with you on #4.
>
> IBM has an extremely good record when it comes to managing the
> investments in the pension trust.  I think you are confusing the
> executives who made the decisions to cut retirement benefits with
the
> people who actually manage the investments.
>
> For most of the trust's history, it has been in extremely good
shape.
>  Is it down this year?  Sure.  And so is just about everything
else.
> Can't blame IBM for that.  Have they invested in a variety of
> financial instruments?  Sure.  That's called diversification.  Now,
if
> IBM invested all of the fund in just one type of security, then I'd
be
> worried.
>
> Previously, you said that IBM has pension fund money invested in
> things like hedge funds and CMOs.   Can you tell us what percentage
of
> the fund is invested in those items?
>
> --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, justa_bean_counter <no_reply@>
> wrote:
> >
> > 4) START WATCHING IBM! They have a bad track record when it comes
to
> > our pension trust.
> > 6) The 15% percentage loss is from Oct 20th to Nov 23rd, check it
out
> > yourself.  (NYSE)
> >
> > Kathi Cooper
>

"In 2003, the FASB issued Statement 132(R), which addresses concerns
about the need for enhanced disclosures of plan assets, cash flows for
benefit payments and contributions, and components of net benefit cost
reported in interim periods. Over the past few years, staff research
and constituent feedback have indicated that the use of alternative
investment instruments and vehicles such as derivatives and hedge funds
has increased substantially. Often, these assets are included in
the "other" or "debt" categories and there is little to no discussion
of risk exposure and usage (that is, leverage versus speculative
purposes).

At the August 2007 Board meeting, the Board decided that it could
improve the disclosure of the risk exposure of plan assets by creating
more robust guidance in Statement 132(R). This guidance would require
more detailed disclosure, including further disaggregation of asset
categories and improved qualitative discussion about risk exposures in
the asset portfolio."
http://www.fasb.org/project/fas132r_disclosures_about_plan_assets.shtml

What did that just say?  It says they know there are hedge funds and
derivitives and 'other' financial instruments that are not being
disclosed, as well as they should be, to the shareholders. FASB wants
disclosure of assets and their risks, by category.  The companies all
have something to say about it.
http://www.fasb.org/ocl/fasb-getletters.php?project=FSP132RA

In the end, I don't know if FASB will push back with enough force so we
can see the true assets and true risks we face. And valuation?  Well,
that is still up in the air.  FASB 157 is in the ditch.  No one knows
how to value much of anything anymore.  The books are too fragile to be
truthful about the king's clothes.

Interesting reading...

Kathi Cooper

Perhaps the Boeing gang has some classier competition on the other side of the
street  . .

One of the reasons Boeing did not contribute to pensions from 2000  to 2003 had
to do
with the bizzare accounting methods which can be used

	 A- generally  they cannot fund over 150% of benefits and still get a tax
exemption
	 B- they get to define 'surplus ' based on ESTIMATED income for the year, not
actual
	 C- for the year 2003, their actual return on pension investments was 17 percent
( source annual report for 2003, page 30 )

	 The following figures taken from annual reports of pension 'earnings' that were
put
into OPERATING EARNINGS, which help to boost executive pay and perks

2001 report page 43
                  Ref to note 20 -
		 2000  = 403 M
  		 2001 = 785 M

2002 report  page 41    . . . as indicated in note 16  . . .
		 2002 = 537 M
		 2003 = 147 M

But thats not enough - To put more caviar on the cheesecake ;-P, they have other
sources
and enticements  . .
Here are the links to the 401K case court docs - I do not have the most recent
which show
it being certified as a class action

tinyurl.com/6dmr54

tinyurl.com/5fvt2r


Case 3:06-cv-00743-DRH-DGW Document 107 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
GARY SPANO, et. al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE BOEING COMPANY, et. al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:06-cv-00743-DRH-DGW
ORDER
Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Complaint
(Doc.
79), Defendants have responded (Doc. 91), and Plaintiffs have filed a reply
(Doc. 93). For
the
reasons set forth below, this motion is GRANTED.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Plaintiffs in this case, Gary Spano, John Bunk, and James White, Jr.
("Plaintiffs"), filed
their complaint against the Defendants, The Boeing Company, the Employee
Benefits Plans
Committee, and Scott Buchanan ("Defendants"), on September 28, 2006 (Doc. 2).
The
Plaintiffs
bring this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29
U.S.C. §
1001 et. seq. ("ERISA"), alleging that the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties as
defined contribution plan administrators under the Act. . . . In response to
Plaintiffs'
discovery requests, the Defendants produced almost 56,000 pages of documents
between
April and October of 2007 (Doc. 79, pp. 2-3; Doc. 93, p. 1).
During the course of reviewing these documents, the Plaintiffs discovered that
Boeing had
delegated operational and investment matters to an Employee Benefits Investment
Committee (the "EBIC"), as revealed in a document entitled "VIP Investment Funds
Delegation of Authority" produced by the Defendants on September 14, 2007 (Doc.
79,
pp. 3-4).

====

Seems that when the employees put their money into BA stock thru the 401k plan,
the
company took a small perecentage off the top and then charged an ongoing
management
fee . . . plus some high fee mutual funds available.

Of course they deal with   citi-street - a spin off of citi-bank

++++
--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, justa_bean_counter <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> If you call pimping our pension trust for the benefit of executive
> bonuses, yes, I agree with you that our pension trust is the finest
> whore on the block.
>
> Kathi Cooper
> P.S.  Do you work for HR?
>
> --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, madinpok <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I have to disagree with you on #4.
> >
> > IBM has an extremely good record when it comes to managing the
> > investments in the pension trust.  I think you are confusing the
> > executives who made the decisions to cut retirement benefits with
> the
> > people who actually manage the investments.
> >
> > For most of the trust's history, it has been in extremely good
> shape.
> >  Is it down this year?  Sure.  And so is just about everything
> else.
> > Can't blame IBM for that.  Have they invested in a variety of
> > financial instruments?  Sure.  That's called diversification.  Now,
> if
> > IBM invested all of the fund in just one type of security, then I'd
> be
> > worried.
> >
> > Previously, you said that IBM has pension fund money invested in
> > things like hedge funds and CMOs.   Can you tell us what percentage
> of
> > the fund is invested in those items?
> >
> > --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, justa_bean_counter <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 4) START WATCHING IBM! They have a bad track record when it comes
> to
> > > our pension trust.
> > > 6) The 15% percentage loss is from Oct 20th to Nov 23rd, check it
> out
> > > yourself.  (NYSE)
> > >
> > > Kathi Cooper
> >
>

I'm not sure what you mean by pimping our pension trust for the
benefit of executive bonuses.   I'm guessing that you mean that they
used the surplus that the fund had to claim credits to the corporate
bottom line, which in turn increase earnings per share and thereby
increased executive bonuses.

That is a different issue from the investment strategy of the fund.
You were claiming that the pension fund has made investments that you
believe are way too risky for a pension fund and that the fund is not
well managed.  I'm asking you to back up your claims.

> P.S.  Do you work for HR?

No, I don't work for HR.  It's a shame to see resort to mud slinging
rather than backing up your statements.

I prefer to deal in facts.  You've been making some extreme claims
lately that don't seem to hold up.  Need I remind you of your warning
over on the IBMretiree board about 2 months ago where you claimed
everyone's credit cards would be canceled or their credit lines frozen?

Kathi said: "Your credit cards won't be working in a few weeks. Promise."

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/ibmretiree/message/13144



-- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, justa_bean_counter <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> If you call pimping our pension trust for the benefit of executive
> bonuses, yes, I agree with you that our pension trust is the finest
> whore on the block.
>
> Kathi Cooper
> P.S.  Do you work for HR?
>
> --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, madinpok <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I have to disagree with you on #4.
> >
> > IBM has an extremely good record when it comes to managing the
> > investments in the pension trust.  I think you are confusing the
> > executives who made the decisions to cut retirement benefits with
> the
> > people who actually manage the investments.
> >
> > For most of the trust's history, it has been in extremely good
> shape.
> >  Is it down this year?  Sure.  And so is just about everything
> else.
> > Can't blame IBM for that.  Have they invested in a variety of
> > financial instruments?  Sure.  That's called diversification.  Now,
> if
> > IBM invested all of the fund in just one type of security, then I'd
> be
> > worried.
> >
> > Previously, you said that IBM has pension fund money invested in
> > things like hedge funds and CMOs.   Can you tell us what percentage
> of
> > the fund is invested in those items?
> >
> > --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, justa_bean_counter <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 4) START WATCHING IBM! They have a bad track record when it comes
> to
> > > our pension trust.
> > > 6) The 15% percentage loss is from Oct 20th to Nov 23rd, check it
> out
> > > yourself.  (NYSE)
> > >
> > > Kathi Cooper
> >
>

You know quite well what I mean. I've been posting on this site since
1999.  I have not said what you claim.

This is what I said, 'IBM has no business asking for relief. Each
year, they buy back tens of billions of dollars in shares, to shore
up executive stock options. We are not here to supply their cash cow.
IBM is wealthy enough to make the pensions payments to our trust.
Only if they pass on a year of cash outlay stock buybacks will I ever
believe they need relief. This is a smokescreen! Here is an
interesting old article (still timely) by Bob Djurdjevic, a well
known IBM street analyst.
http://www.truthinmedia.org/Truthinmedia/Activism/bw4-06-98.html'

And I also said, 'You make it sound like our pension trust has
conventional investments. Bull! Try hedge funds… (admitted to in
their annual report)
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08692.pdf  "Because of hedge funds'
risky nature, rapid growth, lack of oversight, and recent losses,
some wonder if they are appropriate investments for workers'
retirement funds. Congress has asked the Government Accountability
Office to examine the use of hedge funds by public and private
sponsors of defined benefit pension plans.
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RS22679_20070615.pdf Try Mortgage
Backed Bonds (MB's) http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mbs.asp  Try
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations Bonds (CMO's)…
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cmo.asp All of which can't be
valued (means can't be sold/marketed which means they have no
functional value)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis Want to bet
they sell some of the funds 'overnight' to other
institutions/countries? (swaps) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swap_
(finance) In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they had credit
default swaps tied into our trust at some point. With stocks in the
pits, worthless bonds, derivatives with no value, high risk hedge
funds, verious market funds (feeding off those items just mentioned),
I suspect our trust fund is like everyone elses... in need of major
funding! I don't think our pension trust is safe and secure. Not by
any means. I can't wait to get my hands on their next 5500.'

And I said, 'To give you an idea of how much our pension trust might
be damaged, you only have to examine CALPERS. CALPERS is a very well
run pension trust. They are very open about their disclosure (they
have to be, they are a public pension trust) In the following
article, they admit they have lost 20% of their fund through October
20th. Well, it is now Nov 23rd and the stock market has fallen
another 15% sinced then. That is a 35% total drop in value. Toss in
bonds, hedge funds, etc...., you get the picture.
http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122469119659558689.html I would
assume our pension trust has fallen at least 35-40%, to date,
and still crashing. Let's see, 35%-40% of 19.5B = 6.8B to 7.8B that
has vaporized. http://www.ibm.com/annualreport/2007/note_u.shtml
Yep, time for some major funding...'

And regarding the IBMRetiree board, this is what I said on September
29th, (an important date): 'A couple of weeks ago, I surfaced on this
site. I explained that bad stuff was coming and it was not about the
stock market, that it was about frozen credit. I told you to get cash
heavy. I explained that you might move your MM and MF money into safe
deposits, those that are insured. I spent way too much time trying to
explain to you the FDIC limits becasue some of you thought having an
account over 100,000 was ok, or having another account over 250,000
is OK. In all cases, I explained that the lowest common denominator
in all of this is YOU. We know certain IRA accounts are safe up to
250,000. We know if you have a spouse, the two of you can insure your
money up to 100,000 each (which adds up to 200,000). No more
explaining 'safe' to you. You are adults. Find out your exposure and
move it to a 'safe' place. You are out of time. The gate is snapping
shut and it will remain closed for a few years. I hope you have lots
of cash, as I had suggested. Your credit cards won't be working in a
few weeks. Promise.'

On September 29th, the House was wresting with approving a 700
billion bailout, which it did NOT pass.  AIG, Lehman Brothers, Morgan
Stanly, Wachovia...  any of those ring a bell?  Shall I keep going?
Freddie, Fannie, CITIGroup, American Express, GMAC...  any of those
ring a bell?  The Dow closed at 10,365 on that day. Today, it is
sitting on 8,479.  And the latest news, another 700B was set aside
today to grease the credit freeze.

And what has all that government support kept afloat?  Your precious
credit cards.

Thanks to Hank.

Actually, one other thing happened on September 29th.  Paul Newman
passed away.

Kathi Cooper


--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, madinpok <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by pimping our pension trust for the
> benefit of executive bonuses.   I'm guessing that you mean that they
> used the surplus that the fund had to claim credits to the corporate
> bottom line, which in turn increase earnings per share and thereby
> increased executive bonuses.
>
> That is a different issue from the investment strategy of the fund.
> You were claiming that the pension fund has made investments that
you
> believe are way too risky for a pension fund and that the fund is
not
> well managed.  I'm asking you to back up your claims.
>
> > P.S.  Do you work for HR?
>
> No, I don't work for HR.  It's a shame to see resort to mud slinging
> rather than backing up your statements.
>
> I prefer to deal in facts.  You've been making some extreme claims
> lately that don't seem to hold up.  Need I remind you of your
warning
> over on the IBMretiree board about 2 months ago where you claimed
> everyone's credit cards would be canceled or their credit lines
frozen?
>
> Kathi said: "Your credit cards won't be working in a few weeks.
Promise."
>
> http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/ibmretiree/message/13144
>
>
>
> -- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, justa_bean_counter <no_reply@>
wrote:
> >
> > If you call pimping our pension trust for the benefit of
executive
> > bonuses, yes, I agree with you that our pension trust is the
finest
> > whore on the block.
> >
> > Kathi Cooper
> > P.S.  Do you work for HR?
> >
> > --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, madinpok <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have to disagree with you on #4.
> > >
> > > IBM has an extremely good record when it comes to managing the
> > > investments in the pension trust.  I think you are confusing the
> > > executives who made the decisions to cut retirement benefits
with
> > the
> > > people who actually manage the investments.
> > >
> > > For most of the trust's history, it has been in extremely good
> > shape.
> > >  Is it down this year?  Sure.  And so is just about everything
> > else.
> > > Can't blame IBM for that.  Have they invested in a variety of
> > > financial instruments?  Sure.  That's called diversification.
Now,
> > if
> > > IBM invested all of the fund in just one type of security, then
I'd
> > be
> > > worried.
> > >
> > > Previously, you said that IBM has pension fund money invested in
> > > things like hedge funds and CMOs.   Can you tell us what
percentage
> > of
> > > the fund is invested in those items?
> > >
> > > --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, justa_bean_counter
<no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 4) START WATCHING IBM! They have a bad track record when it
comes
> > to
> > > > our pension trust.
> > > > 6) The 15% percentage loss is from Oct 20th to Nov 23rd,
check it
> > out
> > > > yourself.  (NYSE)
> > > >
> > > > Kathi Cooper
> > >
> >
>

I would suggest that instead of trying to play one-up on this board, you
concentrate on the issues at hand. I checked the post you mentioned and it is
dated Sept 29th.
  http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/ibmretiree/message/13144
Most anyone would consider that a great call, and right on the money; on Sept
29th the DOW was at 10,500. It just closed today around 8,500.

The issue was (and is) the degree to which IBM 'pension managers' were/are
willing to play with YOUR money to put the excess into the bottom line to
improve the top executives pay. They do have absolute fiduciary responsibility
to ALWAYS work in YOUR best interests and to ALWAYS do due diligence. Do YOU
think they did ? ? ?

And the problems with 'transparency'. . .

And maybe where to look to get a clue. . .

Try freeerisa.com and look up the IBM forms 5500 for starters.

Document Don

++++

--- madinpok wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by pimping our pension trust for the
> benefit of executive bonuses.   I'm guessing that you mean that
> they used the surplus that the fund had to claim credits to the
> corporate bottom line, which in turn increase earnings per share
> and thereby increased executive bonuses.
>
> That is a different issue from the investment strategy of the
> fund. You were claiming that the pension fund has made
> investments that you believe are way too risky for a pension
> fund and that the fund is not well managed.  I'm asking you to
> back up your claims.
>
> > P.S.  Do you work for HR?
>
> No, I don't work for HR.  It's a shame to see resort to mud
> slinging rather than backing up your statements.
>
> I prefer to deal in facts.  You've been making some extreme
> claims lately that don't seem to hold up.  Need I remind you of
> your warning over on the IBMretiree board about 2 months ago
> where you claimed everyone's credit cards would be canceled or
> their credit lines frozen?

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/08/11/24.php#22481

From Monday, Nov. 24
---------
The Economy and Pensions

Diane and her guests discuss what the financial crisis means for
retirement accounts, including pressures on employers, workers, and
retirees.
Guests

David Wessel, economics editor, The Wall Street Journal

Mark Iwry, a nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, a
Principal of the Retirement Security Project, Research Professor at
Georgetown University, and former Benefits Tax Counsel at the U.S.
Treasury Dept. from 1995-2001.

Karen Friedman, policy director, Pension Rights Center

James Klein, president, American Benefits Council
---------

Audio at the link.