Due to errors in my separation from IBM at age 54 in 2004 after about 19 years
service, it took awhile to correctly bridge me to age 55.  As a result I
discovered a couple years later that my FHA account was zero.  I opened a case
with the service center and eventually got it corrected.  My Netbenefits
continues to reflect what I assume to be the correct amount ever since.
I called the service center to see what I will have to do to take advantage of
IBM health benefits after my Cobra expires in a few months, when I must enroll
and what the plans would cost.  I want to make sure that I can enroll at the
time that my Cobra expires at the end of March 2010 rather than having to do it
during "open enrollment."  The service center representative claims I am not
eligible despite having continuous coverage with another employer since leaving
IBM.  I provided my previous case number which the representative looked up but
said he could find no such case.  He opened up another case.  What a hassle.
He never did answer my questions.  So if anyone can help let me know.  Meanwhile
I guess I will wait for them to get back to me and be prepared to fight all over
again.  Also if anyone else has had a similar experience please let me know.

Every corporation with a frozen plan should be looked at the same way....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-11-18-pensions_N.htm

As pensions dried up, four firms paid top execs $49.5M

By Matt Kelley, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Top executives at four companies that jettisoned their employee
pension plans received $49.5 million in retirement and severance benefits in the
years before the companies filed for bankruptcy, while retirees saw their
benefits cut by as much as two thirds, congressional investigators conclude in a
report to be released today.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that pensions at the
companies, United Airlines, US Airways, Polaroid and Reliance Insurance, were
underfunded by more than $11 billion when the companies turned them over to a
government-backed insurance fund. The report says executives at those four
companies and six others that abandoned their pension plans took in a total of
$350 million in pay and perks in the years leading up to the bankruptcies.

"If the pension is getting deeper into trouble and the executives are getting
richer, there's something wrong with that picture," said House Education and
Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif.

Miller requested the report as part of an examination of the troubles facing the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., the federal pension plan insurer. The PBGC,
which insures pension plans covering 44 million people, warned this month that
it has a deficit of nearly $22 billion.

Miller is sponsoring one of three proposals to let struggling companies take a
break from their required pension contributions while the economy improves. He
said he is considering how to craft a provision to "tie executive compensation
to the status of the pension plan."

Restrictions on retirement pay could deter executives from joining a troubled
company or encourage them to quit, said executive compensation expert Ira Kay of
the Watson Wyatt consulting firm. "Retaining and motivating executives to run
their companies as best as possible is the best outcome for all participants in
a pension," Kay said.

The GAO examined compensation for executives at 10 of the largest companies that
turned their pensions over to the government in the past decade. At United, for
example, CEO Glenn Tilton and two other executives got $7.6 million in
retirement benefits from 2002 through 2006, during which time the airline shed
four pension plans covering 122,000 workers. A retired United pilot told the GAO
he gets only a third of the pension he had expected. PBGC benefits are limited
to $4,500 per month.

United spokeswoman Jean Medina said Tilton's $4.5 million retirement trust
replaced benefits he lost by leaving Chevron and "had nothing to do with a
United pension plan." The trust was approved by the company's board of directors
and its bankruptcy creditors, she said.

Currently, the GAO says, the PBGC is a low-priority creditor and would be
unlikely to get any money if a bankruptcy judge ordered executives to repay or
forgo their retirement packages.

Deficit plagues pension insurer

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.'s financial activity:
Year Deficit Pensions terminated Workers covered Benefits paid
2005 $23.1 billion 120 1.3 million $3.7 billion
2006 $18.9 billion 94 1.3 million $4.1 billion
2007 $14.1 billion 110 1.3 million $4.3 billion
2008 $11.2 billion 67 1.3 million $4.3 billion
2009 $21.9 billion 144 1.5 million $4.5 billion

Source: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.
---------------------------------------
(above table looked fine when pasted in; go to URL at top if not now the case)

William said 'My point is be very aware and careful on what you want to
communicate over the open "world wide web".'

Agreed. However, there are a lot of folks who are so paranoid that their
information is not safe on the web that they do no online shopping or bill
paying. That is just staying in the Stone Age. While there is no such thing as
perfect safety on the web, the chances of you having your information
compromised is infinitesimally small. Most personal information is obtained
through phishing scams or other such acts which rely on the naivety of the
customer. Also, there are break-ins where databases containing personal info are
compromised. None of these have anything to do with SSL. SSL is the de-facto
protocol for secure transactions on the web, and if it eventually becomes too
easy to compromise, then something new and better will take its place. Your
favorite online store and your browser will cooperate without you even knowing
that the protocols have changed.  So, SHOP NOW, and do not be afraid.  :-o

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, "William C" <tiger4062@...> wrote:
>
>
> I don't want to get into a debate about this issue. The fact that it
> was just discovered means it has been there for the long term. As long as
secure communication via SSL, consider this.
>
> "The MITM attack could also be done over an https connection by using the same
technique; the only difference consists in the establishment of two independent
SSL sessions, one over each TCP connection. The browser sets a SSL connection
with the attacker, and the attacker establishes another SSL connection with the
web server. In general the browser warns the user that the digital certificate
used is not valid, but the user may ignore the warning because he doesn't
understand the threat. In some specific contexts it's possible that the warning
doesn't appear, as for example, when the Server certificate is compromised by
the attacker or when the attacker certificate is signed by a trusted CA and the
CN is the same of the original web site."
>
> My point is be very aware and careful on what you want to communicate over the
open "world wide web".
>
> Take care.

I don't want to get into a debate about this issue. The fact that it
was just discovered means it has been there for the long term. As long as secure
communication via SSL, consider this.

"The MITM attack could also be done over an https connection by using the same
technique; the only difference consists in the establishment of two independent
SSL sessions, one over each TCP connection. The browser sets a SSL connection
with the attacker, and the attacker establishes another SSL connection with the
web server. In general the browser warns the user that the digital certificate
used is not valid, but the user may ignore the warning because he doesn't
understand the threat. In some specific contexts it's possible that the warning
doesn't appear, as for example, when the Server certificate is compromised by
the attacker or when the attacker certificate is signed by a trusted CA and the
CN is the same of the original web site."

My point is be very aware and careful on what you want to communicate over the
open "world wide web".

Take care.


--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, "orsonbear" <orsonbear@...> wrote:
>
> The man in the middle exploit of SSL described here was only discovered
November 4. It allows someone to insert text into the middle of an SSL session.
It does not allow for the decryption of secure data or the return of data to the
intruder or for the insertion of data into the return information. Read the
details.
>
> --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, "William C" <tiger4062@> wrote:
> >
> > Bob.
> > You may have been a victim of the MITM (man in the middle) flaw in
> > SSL communication that was just detected a few days ago.  For information on
this see:
http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200945/4738/SSL-flaw-allows-man-in-the-\
middle-attacks
> >
> > Using the internet does open you up to a great deal of people who want to
steal your money.
> >
> > --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Miller" <bluegrassbob@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Back around May of 2007 some of us were told that a tape with payroll info
was lost by IBM and we were enrolled in ID TheftSmart to monitor illegal
activity.  I received reports from them for a year and a half with no abnormal
activity.
> > >
> > > Fast forward to today.  I just got a letter and call from my bank about a
partially successful attempt to get in our account. They were able to add a
couple of e-mail addresses but the bank online security stopped them from
transferring money. We will now have to get a new account. What puzzles me is
that we rarely use the online banking and then only to view cleared check and
balances. We have two PC with up to date AV software and operating system
software so how did the hackers get the info to do this.  I just thought about
the lost tape so I thought I'd ask if anyone else has received any notification
from their bank about attempts to get access.
> > >
> > > Bob Miller
> > >
> >
>

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, madinpok <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> No matter what, being under the FHA plan will cost you a lot of your own
money. It is simply a matter of when you have to pay it.
>

No problem, madinpok.  Everyone on the FHA is independently wealthy.  You knew
that, didn't you?

I took a bridge in 92 and officialy retired in 98. NOT 1 penny increase since
then. But my insurance has gone up 25-33% per year. 

--- On Sat, 11/14/09, thomas365us <tomt@...> wrote:


From: thomas365us <tomt@...>
Subject: [IBM Pension] IBM pension
To: ibmpension@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, November 14, 2009, 1:10 PM


 



I acutally did get a small increase last year in my pension (retired in 86) It
was not a decrease in withholding as I do not have any taxes withheld from my
pension. Tried to find the paperwork stating how much it was, but no luck. It
would be a miracle if anyone could find anything around my desk. My wife just
shakes her head when cleaning the room.











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

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pension14-2009nov14,0,6975516.story

similar articles:
http://www.reuters.com/article/gc04/idUSTRE5AD01Q20091114
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hg31XJi2kctny4uBl-8FPnwSES6AD9\
BUT41G0

latimes.com
Pension insurer's deficit nearly doubles to $22 billion

Bloomberg News

5:06 PM PST, November 13, 2009

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. said Friday that its deficit had almost
doubled to $22 billion in fiscal 2009 and that its exposure to future losses
from weak companies had more than tripled.

The agency, which insures company pension plans, reported a $11.2-billion
deficit for the end of fiscal 2008. The agency said it had a $33.5-billion
deficit at mid-year 2009.

"Exposure to possible future terminations means that we could face much higher
deficits in the future," Acting Director Vince Snowbarger said. "We won't fail
to meet our obligations to retirees, but ultimately we need a long-term solution
to stabilize the pension insurance program."

The report shows that the agency's potential exposure to future pension losses
from financially weak companies increased to about $168 billion from $47 billion
in fiscal year 2008.

Delphi Corp., the auto-parts maker, and Nortel Networks Corp.'s U.S. subsidiary
are among the companies whose pensions the PBGC took over this year.

The agency's investment return rate was 13.2%.

The annual report to Congress classified 27 large pension plans with a total
underfunding of $1.64 billion as probable losses on the PBGC balance sheet.

Legislation has been introduced in Congress to revamp the agency's governance
after its inspector general found that its former director, Charles E.F.
Millard, had inappropriate communications with eight of 16 Wall Street firms
that bid last year to manage $2.5 billion in assets. The resulting contracts
were canceled in July.

This week, President Obama nominated Joshua Gotbaum, an investment banker, to
head the PBGC.

Gotbaum is an operating partner at Blue Wolf Capital Management who spent more
than 10 years at Lazard Freres in New York and London. Blue Wolf is a New
York-based private equity firm.

Here is what I have gleaned as a best way to stretch your FHA dollars:

1) Use COBRA for as long as possible, usually 18 months.  This is a high
out-of-pocket expense to pay the full employee cost of health insurance plus 2%.
You are trading up front costs at employee rates now to extend FHA dollars at
retiree rates later.  This also has the risk that IBM will renege on the FHA
dollars at some point.

2) Next, pay for health coverage 100% with FHA dollars. With FHA it is use it of
lose it.  Just be sure not to spend the last FHA dollar or few dollars in your
FHA account so you can always get back into the plan, paying out of pocket, as
long as you hold continuous medical insurance coverage.

3) It is difficult at this point to predict how universal health care will
affect the above, but it looks like when it is passed it will not kick in until
at least 2013.

Is there anything I am missing or other suggestions?


--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, madinpok <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Your analysis is correct - the FHA won't allow you to pay rates as if you were
an active employee until age 65.  The bottom line is that it will cost you more
out of your own pocket.
>
> Here is my way of looking at it.
>
> As an active employee, IBM was paying about 80% of your health insurance
premiums and you were paying the other 20%.   But once you retire, you are moved
into a new, higher risk, retiree pool where premiums are roughly doubled.  You
can see this if you compare the COBRA rates to the FHA rates.
>
> So the $69 Cigna rate you paid before is only about 10% of the FHA rate.
>
> I think IBM planned the FHA so that it would provide an "average IBM retiree"
(who retires at age 58) with the equivalent of the $7000 subsidy that IBM gives
to retirees on the old plan.  Thus, if you withdraw only $7000 per year, the
$50,000 balance will last 7 years - just long enough to get you to age 65 and
medicare.  After that, you are on your own.  Retirees under the old plan
continue to receive a $3000 subsidy after age 65 and will be better off than the
FHA retirees.
>
> If you withdraw only $7000 per year from your FHA account, you have to plan
that the amount you pay each year will increase.
>
> Another way to use the FHA is to use it to pay 100% of your premiums each year
and spend it as fast as you can. That will reduce the risk that IBM might take
it away before you use it all.
>
> No matter what, being under the FHA plan will cost you a lot of your own
money. It is simply a matter of when you have to pay it.
>
> --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, "Pho Le" <le_hoang_pho@> wrote:
> >
> > Just some numbers to illustrate the money for FHA :
> >
> > Scenario:
> >
> > IBM "newly retiree 2009" after 30 years with company, age 55.
> >
> > Bucket for FHA = 50k and some change.
> >
> > Cost per month:
> >
> > IBM EPO - Cigna (Self) for retiree (2010)                 = $741.83
> >
> > IBM EPO - Cigna (Self) for current employee(2010)  =  $69.00 (increase of 2
> > dollars from 2009)  + on the top there are some no co-pay for certain
> > situations .
> >
> >
> >
> > Assume  my part is $69  and the cost of $741.83 remains constant for next
> > several years  (bad assumption)
> >
> > I can buy  my insurance for  6.1 years. It would get me to the age of 61.1,
> > well short of 65 by 3.9 years .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > If it is true that the cost is 11 times more (may be we are considered high
> > risk thus move us into a high risk pool?)
> >
> > why can IBM put a cap on the max so we know that we can stretch the FHA
> > until we reach 65, or allow us to buy
> >
> > insurance from other insurance provider ? What is the real cost for retiree
> > or there are also fees for administration?
> >
> >
> >
> > Any suggestion to optimize the FHA in order to stretch it out to 65 years of
> > age ?
> >
> > Any one has number for Blue Cross rate for an equivalent of IBM EPO - Cigna
> > for people over 55 years of age ?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

I acutally did get a small increase last year in my pension (retired in 86) It
was not a decrease in withholding as I do not have any taxes withheld from my
pension. Tried to find the paperwork stating how much it was, but no luck. It
would be a miracle if anyone could find anything around my desk. My wife just
shakes her head when cleaning the room.

Expect the FHA to cover you at 100 percent for 5 years. Then it is out of your
own pocket. BUT, you should be eligible to take money from your 401K (over 59
1/2). That money can be used to supplement your pay for what you pay for your
Health Plan. Also, the amount over 6.5 percent
of you earnings is deductible on your taxes.

AFTER USING ALMOST ALL YOUR FHA: Get the IBM High Deductible HSA plan and your
max out of pocket (+drug payments over the plan limit) should limit you to
spending around $20K per year until you hit Medicare age.
REMEMBER TO KEEP SOME MONEY IN YOUR FHA ACCCOUNT to keep access to the IBM
PLANS; there usually are better options.

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, madinpok <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Your analysis is correct - the FHA won't allow you to pay rates as if you were
an active employee until age 65.  The bottom line is that it will cost you more
out of your own pocket.
>
> Here is my way of looking at it.
>
> As an active employee, IBM was paying about 80% of your health insurance
premiums and you were paying the other 20%.   But once you retire, you are moved
into a new, higher risk, retiree pool where premiums are roughly doubled.  You
can see this if you compare the COBRA rates to the FHA rates.
>
>

>FHA dollars, can it covers until 65 years of age

No. That's why it was put in place by IBM, to screw you and me.


> Any suggestion to optimize the FHA in order to stretch it out to 65 years of
age?

Yup. Don't use it, as I am not, until I am 65 and get the Medicare FHA something
or other option.

Can't do that?

Gee, too bad.

You all should have raised holy hell like fhawontcutit and I did in 1999.

Now you're/we're all screwed.

Welcome to IBM's FHA rape of 1999.

Oh, but of course, IBM might screw us all and discontinue the FHA altogether.






--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, "Pho Le" <le_hoang_pho@...> wrote:
>
> Just some numbers to illustrate the money for FHA :
>
> Scenario:
>
> IBM "newly retiree 2009" after 30 years with company, age 55.
>
> Bucket for FHA = 50k and some change.
>
> Cost per month:
>
> IBM EPO - Cigna (Self) for retiree (2010)                 = $741.83
>
> IBM EPO - Cigna (Self) for current employee(2010)  =  $69.00 (increase of 2
> dollars from 2009)  + on the top there are some no co-pay for certain
> situations .
>
>
>
> Assume  my part is $69  and the cost of $741.83 remains constant for next
> several years  (bad assumption)
>
> I can buy  my insurance for  6.1 years. It would get me to the age of 61.1,
> well short of 65 by 3.9 years .
>
>
>
>
>
> If it is true that the cost is 11 times more (may be we are considered high
> risk thus move us into a high risk pool?)
>
> why can IBM put a cap on the max so we know that we can stretch the FHA
> until we reach 65, or allow us to buy
>
> insurance from other insurance provider ? What is the real cost for retiree
> or there are also fees for administration?
>
>
>
> Any suggestion to optimize the FHA in order to stretch it out to 65 years of
> age ?
>
> Any one has number for Blue Cross rate for an equivalent of IBM EPO - Cigna
> for people over 55 years of age ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Your analysis is correct - the FHA won't allow you to pay rates as if you were
an active employee until age 65.  The bottom line is that it will cost you more
out of your own pocket.

Here is my way of looking at it.

As an active employee, IBM was paying about 80% of your health insurance
premiums and you were paying the other 20%.   But once you retire, you are moved
into a new, higher risk, retiree pool where premiums are roughly doubled.  You
can see this if you compare the COBRA rates to the FHA rates.

So the $69 Cigna rate you paid before is only about 10% of the FHA rate.

I think IBM planned the FHA so that it would provide an "average IBM retiree"
(who retires at age 58) with the equivalent of the $7000 subsidy that IBM gives
to retirees on the old plan.  Thus, if you withdraw only $7000 per year, the
$50,000 balance will last 7 years - just long enough to get you to age 65 and
medicare.  After that, you are on your own.  Retirees under the old plan
continue to receive a $3000 subsidy after age 65 and will be better off than the
FHA retirees.

If you withdraw only $7000 per year from your FHA account, you have to plan that
the amount you pay each year will increase.

Another way to use the FHA is to use it to pay 100% of your premiums each year
and spend it as fast as you can. That will reduce the risk that IBM might take
it away before you use it all.

No matter what, being under the FHA plan will cost you a lot of your own money.
It is simply a matter of when you have to pay it.

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, "Pho Le" <le_hoang_pho@...> wrote:
>
> Just some numbers to illustrate the money for FHA :
>
> Scenario:
>
> IBM "newly retiree 2009" after 30 years with company, age 55.
>
> Bucket for FHA = 50k and some change.
>
> Cost per month:
>
> IBM EPO - Cigna (Self) for retiree (2010)                 = $741.83
>
> IBM EPO - Cigna (Self) for current employee(2010)  =  $69.00 (increase of 2
> dollars from 2009)  + on the top there are some no co-pay for certain
> situations .
>
>
>
> Assume  my part is $69  and the cost of $741.83 remains constant for next
> several years  (bad assumption)
>
> I can buy  my insurance for  6.1 years. It would get me to the age of 61.1,
> well short of 65 by 3.9 years .
>
>
>
>
>
> If it is true that the cost is 11 times more (may be we are considered high
> risk thus move us into a high risk pool?)
>
> why can IBM put a cap on the max so we know that we can stretch the FHA
> until we reach 65, or allow us to buy
>
> insurance from other insurance provider ? What is the real cost for retiree
> or there are also fees for administration?
>
>
>
> Any suggestion to optimize the FHA in order to stretch it out to 65 years of
> age ?
>
> Any one has number for Blue Cross rate for an equivalent of IBM EPO - Cigna
> for people over 55 years of age ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, finitewisdom <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2009/11/12/will-the-baby-boom-spell-doom-\
for-stocks.aspx
>
>
> Will the Baby Boom Spell Doom for Stocks?
>
> Dan Caplinger
> November 12, 2009
>
> For decades, the baby-boom generation has captured the attention of those
looking for a demographic secret to successful investing. As the first of the
boomers start to approach normal retirement age, the big question that many
investors have is this: Are cash-seeking baby-boomers going to dump stocks,
leading to the next downturn for the market?


You betcha, especially if their stock is IBM and IBM screwed them.

Too bad if it leads to a downturn in the market, the BOD should have thought of
that before they encouraged Sammy Boy and Mo Fat to screw 10,425 employees in
2009 and ruin their lives.



>
> Testing the theory
> The idea behind the concern that many have over the boomer cohort's impending
retirement is pretty simple. Boomers collectively have a lot of money, and in
order to finance their living expenses in retirement, they'll need to cash in
their investments. Because there are a lot of boomers and a relatively smaller
group of young workers accumulating wealth and making new investments, the
resulting imbalance in buying and selling will result in prices falling.
>
> The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently took a closer look at this
theory to see if a major disruption to the financial markets was likely. It
concluded that retiring baby boomers were unlikely to cause a big drop in prices
of stocks and other financial assets for a variety of reasons, including the
following:
>
>     * Like most retirees, baby boomers will have an incentive to try to
preserve their savings as long as possible, and so it's unlikely that they'll
sell off their investments all at once. Markets should be able to absorb a more
gradual pace of boomers' sales.
>     * In particular, concerns about rising health-care costs, the desire to
leave money to future generations, and the fact that many boomers have enough
wealth to make massive liquidations unnecessary should combine to drive boomers
to keep their investments rather than selling them.
>     * Because the baby-boom generation is 18 years long, made up of people
born from 1946 to 1964, boomers will obviously retire at different times in the
future. It'll take decades for the full effects of retiring boomers to make
itself known, and the extended duration of the transition should moderate its
impact.
>     * Regardless of demographic trends in the U.S., economic development
throughout the world will increase demand among foreign buyers to buy U.S.
financial assets, lifting prices.
>
> Of these reasons, the last seems the most compelling. Already, foreign
companies have expressed interest in making major investments in U.S. companies,
such as CNOOC's (NYSE: CEO) unsuccessful bid for Unocal, which was later
acquired by Chevron (NYSE: CVX). In addition, foreign businesses have provided
infusions of capital to several struggling companies in past years, including
Citigroup (NYSE: C) and Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS). More recently, the China
Investment Corporation reportedly bought a stake in the electricity company AES
(NYSE: AES), and further acquisitions seem likely for the foreseeable future.
>
> Looking at asset mixes
> That's good news for the financial markets generally. But a variant of the
primary theory sounds potentially more plausible. It goes like this: Even if
retiring boomers keep their stocks, one might think that they'd move their money
from risky, highly volatile stocks to more conservative investments. That could
help investors in blue-chips like IBM (NYSE: IBM) and Procter & Gamble (NYSE:
PG) but hurt those who gravitated toward small-caps and other higher-risk
assets.
>
> The CBO report, however, debunks that theory as well. Despite financial advice
to the contrary, the CBO found that in reality, most aging retirees don't reduce
their general allocations to stocks or to particular types of stocks.
>
> What to do
> Skeptical investors will note that being a government agency, the CBO has at
least some political incentive to downplay any threat to the financial markets,
especially given the events of the past year. Yet the CBO has often taken
controversial positions contrary to other government agencies, on issues ranging
from the budget deficit to health-care costs. Most experts trust its
impartiality.
>
> The CBO report suggests that whether you're a baby-boomer or someone on either
side of that group, you should be able to keep following your own investing
strategy without fear of a large demographic effect on stocks. Given all the
other challenges that investors face right now, taking even a single item off
your worry list is a nice thing to be able to do.
>

Just some numbers to illustrate the money for FHA :

Scenario:

IBM "newly retiree 2009" after 30 years with company, age 55.

Bucket for FHA = 50k and some change.

Cost per month:

IBM EPO - Cigna (Self) for retiree (2010)                 = $741.83

IBM EPO - Cigna (Self) for current employee(2010)  =  $69.00 (increase of 2
dollars from 2009)  + on the top there are some no co-pay for certain
situations .



Assume  my part is $69  and the cost of $741.83 remains constant for next
several years  (bad assumption)

I can buy  my insurance for  6.1 years. It would get me to the age of 61.1,
well short of 65 by 3.9 years .





If it is true that the cost is 11 times more (may be we are considered high
risk thus move us into a high risk pool?)

why can IBM put a cap on the max so we know that we can stretch the FHA
until we reach 65, or allow us to buy

insurance from other insurance provider ? What is the real cost for retiree
or there are also fees for administration?



Any suggestion to optimize the FHA in order to stretch it out to 65 years of
age ?

Any one has number for Blue Cross rate for an equivalent of IBM EPO - Cigna
for people over 55 years of age ?















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

http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2009/11/12/will-the-baby-boom-spell-doom-\
for-stocks.aspx


Will the Baby Boom Spell Doom for Stocks?

Dan Caplinger
November 12, 2009

For decades, the baby-boom generation has captured the attention of those
looking for a demographic secret to successful investing. As the first of the
boomers start to approach normal retirement age, the big question that many
investors have is this: Are cash-seeking baby-boomers going to dump stocks,
leading to the next downturn for the market?

Testing the theory
The idea behind the concern that many have over the boomer cohort's impending
retirement is pretty simple. Boomers collectively have a lot of money, and in
order to finance their living expenses in retirement, they'll need to cash in
their investments. Because there are a lot of boomers and a relatively smaller
group of young workers accumulating wealth and making new investments, the
resulting imbalance in buying and selling will result in prices falling.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently took a closer look at this theory
to see if a major disruption to the financial markets was likely. It concluded
that retiring baby boomers were unlikely to cause a big drop in prices of stocks
and other financial assets for a variety of reasons, including the following:

     * Like most retirees, baby boomers will have an incentive to try to preserve
their savings as long as possible, and so it's unlikely that they'll sell off
their investments all at once. Markets should be able to absorb a more gradual
pace of boomers' sales.
     * In particular, concerns about rising health-care costs, the desire to
leave money to future generations, and the fact that many boomers have enough
wealth to make massive liquidations unnecessary should combine to drive boomers
to keep their investments rather than selling them.
     * Because the baby-boom generation is 18 years long, made up of people born
from 1946 to 1964, boomers will obviously retire at different times in the
future. It'll take decades for the full effects of retiring boomers to make
itself known, and the extended duration of the transition should moderate its
impact.
     * Regardless of demographic trends in the U.S., economic development
throughout the world will increase demand among foreign buyers to buy U.S.
financial assets, lifting prices.

Of these reasons, the last seems the most compelling. Already, foreign companies
have expressed interest in making major investments in U.S. companies, such as
CNOOC's (NYSE: CEO) unsuccessful bid for Unocal, which was later acquired by
Chevron (NYSE: CVX). In addition, foreign businesses have provided infusions of
capital to several struggling companies in past years, including Citigroup
(NYSE: C) and Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS). More recently, the China Investment
Corporation reportedly bought a stake in the electricity company AES (NYSE:
AES), and further acquisitions seem likely for the foreseeable future.

Looking at asset mixes
That's good news for the financial markets generally. But a variant of the
primary theory sounds potentially more plausible. It goes like this: Even if
retiring boomers keep their stocks, one might think that they'd move their money
from risky, highly volatile stocks to more conservative investments. That could
help investors in blue-chips like IBM (NYSE: IBM) and Procter & Gamble (NYSE:
PG) but hurt those who gravitated toward small-caps and other higher-risk
assets.

The CBO report, however, debunks that theory as well. Despite financial advice
to the contrary, the CBO found that in reality, most aging retirees don't reduce
their general allocations to stocks or to particular types of stocks.

What to do
Skeptical investors will note that being a government agency, the CBO has at
least some political incentive to downplay any threat to the financial markets,
especially given the events of the past year. Yet the CBO has often taken
controversial positions contrary to other government agencies, on issues ranging
from the budget deficit to health-care costs. Most experts trust its
impartiality.

The CBO report suggests that whether you're a baby-boomer or someone on either
side of that group, you should be able to keep following your own investing
strategy without fear of a large demographic effect on stocks. Given all the
other challenges that investors face right now, taking even a single item off
your worry list is a nice thing to be able to do.

Folks,

I've seen a number of positive notes about Aetna but cannot recall seeing
anything about Mutual of Omaha.  Has anyone out there had any experience with
Mutual of Omaha for their Medicare supplemental health insurance coverage?

Thanks,

Bart

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

Yes, it, supposedly, was based upon one's gross pension, or so they claimed
until I proved that I was BELOW the gross pension they cited to me. So all they
could do was to come up with another reason I was ineligible for it. After all,
as I previously stated, what I might have gotten is  more likely to make Sam P.
happy when applied as an additional bennie to him than to me, thus I respect
their decision and pray that it helps Ole Sam get just what he deserves in life.

In the meanwhile I feel that I  am truly fortunate when I compare my
circumstances to that of so many other IBMers of recent times.



--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, w2uhabud@... wrote:
>
> it was very strange, supposedly it depended on your gross pension  amount,
> i never got a straight story, some guys i know got about $30.00 bux i
> retired in 85 with no extra payments  just went out fancy free
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Good luck on getting your FHA moneys that you think you are entitled to. I was
part of a sell off to Qualxserv just a year before my 30 year retirement date
and although I got my full pension for working past my 30th with the other
company, I lost the FHA due to the fact that I didn't "retire" directly from
IBM. I ran it up the ladder all the way to corporate and they held fast on their
denials quoting some gibberish from the retriement paln. Other than spending a
ton of my own money to persue it through the courts, I gave up on that matter
after 6 months of BS from the higher ups. I wish you the best!

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, "callert@..." <callert@...> wrote:
>
> Just received results of second appeal of loss of a $46,000 Future Health
Account.  IBM restructured its pension and healthcare accounts several years
ago, going from defined benefit to defined contribution plans.  To be eligible
for the FHA account you need to have at least 15 years of service.  When I
started with IBM in January 1995 the had a hiring freeze on so for the first 5
months I worked through a subcontracting firm so I am 5 months shy of being
eligible to use the FHA funs when I retire.   From doing some research it
appears a good number of employees just shy of the 15 years needed to become
entitled to the FHA were laid off from IBM.  How convenient!  I am trying to
prove that I was treated as an employee  and not a subcontractor. The Feds have
20 questions it uses to determine if an individual is a subcontractor or an
employee.  When I answer them they all point to me being an employee. As anyone
else appealed not receivingaccess to their FHA funds, and if so were you
successful?  How  many of you who were within a year of being eligible for FHA
funds were part of a resource action?
>

In today's comic:

http://comics.com/frank&ernest/

Returning from a "Benefits Meeting", the caption says "Making our benefits
"portable" is management's way of saying they're going to make them smaller!"

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, "thomas365us" <tomt@...> wrote:
>
> I retired in 86 and I got a few bucks increase last year. Don't remember how
much, remember it was not worth celebrating about.
>

Take a close look at your pension statements. What looked like an increase may
have been a reduction in your federal withholding tax, giving you more "take
home" pay. But remember, because there was no decrease in income tax, you may
have to pay back this "Increase" to the IRS at Income Tax time. I retired 15
years ago, and don't expect to see any COLA in the future. My retirement income
is going down every year because of my increases in Medical Insurance costs.
When I first retired, my medical insurance co-pay was close to zero. Now it is
about $600 a month (for the IBM portion), which lowers my net pension by $7,200
a year. When I add up what I pay IBM for their insurance, the Medicare Part B
payments, and all the co-pays after the deductables, my net cost for medical
care is about $12,000 a year, for myself and spouse. If one of us should get
something bad like cancer, the $12,000 will look like pocket change. That is
quite a change from the "Paid medical for life" differed compensation I was told
I would get.

Yes, we had this arrangement last year with an AARP supplemental. It
does work, but you will never get anything from the IBM plan for your
Medicare claims. As soon as they find out that you have the AARP plan
they (IBM/UHC) invoke a clause that says they don't have to pay. So even
though you pay the premium they will not pay. Something about
coordination of benefits.
This year we have the Aetna Integration Plan A and Medicare Part D plans
for drugs. Has worked so far.


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

it was very strange, supposedly it depended on your gross pension  amount,
i never got a straight story, some guys i know got about $30.00 bux i
retired in 85 with no extra payments  just went out fancy free


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

The man in the middle exploit of SSL described here was only discovered November
4. It allows someone to insert text into the middle of an SSL session. It does
not allow for the decryption of secure data or the return of data to the
intruder or for the insertion of data into the return information. Read the
details.

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, "William C" <tiger4062@...> wrote:
>
> Bob.
> You may have been a victim of the MITM (man in the middle) flaw in
> SSL communication that was just detected a few days ago.  For information on
this see:
http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200945/4738/SSL-flaw-allows-man-in-the-\
middle-attacks
>
> Using the internet does open you up to a great deal of people who want to
steal your money.
>
> --- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Miller" <bluegrassbob@> wrote:
> >
> > Back around May of 2007 some of us were told that a tape with payroll info
was lost by IBM and we were enrolled in ID TheftSmart to monitor illegal
activity.  I received reports from them for a year and a half with no abnormal
activity.
> >
> > Fast forward to today.  I just got a letter and call from my bank about a
partially successful attempt to get in our account. They were able to add a
couple of e-mail addresses but the bank online security stopped them from
transferring money. We will now have to get a new account. What puzzles me is
that we rarely use the online banking and then only to view cleared check and
balances. We have two PC with up to date AV software and operating system
software so how did the hackers get the info to do this.  I just thought about
the lost tape so I thought I'd ask if anyone else has received any notification
from their bank about attempts to get access.
> >
> > Bob Miller
> >
>

Bob.
You may have been a victim of the MITM (man in the middle) flaw in
SSL communication that was just detected a few days ago.  For information on
this see:
http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200945/4738/SSL-flaw-allows-man-in-the-\
middle-attacks

Using the internet does open you up to a great deal of people who want to steal
your money.

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Miller" <bluegrassbob@...> wrote:
>
> Back around May of 2007 some of us were told that a tape with payroll info was
lost by IBM and we were enrolled in ID TheftSmart to monitor illegal activity. 
I received reports from them for a year and a half with no abnormal activity.
>
> Fast forward to today.  I just got a letter and call from my bank about a
partially successful attempt to get in our account. They were able to add a
couple of e-mail addresses but the bank online security stopped them from
transferring money. We will now have to get a new account. What puzzles me is
that we rarely use the online banking and then only to view cleared check and
balances. We have two PC with up to date AV software and operating system
software so how did the hackers get the info to do this.  I just thought about
the lost tape so I thought I'd ask if anyone else has received any notification
from their bank about attempts to get access.
>
> Bob Miller
>

--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, w2uhabud@... wrote:
>
>  i was not entitled to the pension increase last year, guess been retired
> too long, yes it is hard to imagine the IBM i retired from in 1985 is not the
> same IBM in 2009, the comments i read  are almost unbelievable,


Aren't they though? But they ARE the truth, believe me, don't believe the
apologists whatever you do.

You would be HORRIFIED at how executives and managers and team leaders treat the
worker bees.

Horrified.

But isn't it nice to be rid of IBM?

Believe me, it's the best place in the world to be, rid of IBM, even WITH the
specter of no COLA and no medical when one needs it most, thank you IBM.

THAT'S how bad IBM 2009 is.








although my
> medical options have changed an become more costly over these 24 years they
> are manageable  at this time but who knows what the future will bring
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I do believe that you hit upon the real truth as to why we were not entitled to
the pension adjustment last year. We have outlived the predictions of the
actuaries of the 1980's and now IBM is teed off at us.  :-)



--- In ibmpension@yahoogroups.com, w2uhabud@... wrote:
>
>  i was not entitled to the pension increase last year, guess been retired
> too long, yes it is hard to imagine the IBM i retired from in 1985 is not the
> same IBM in 2009, the comments i read  are almost unbelievable, although my
> medical options have changed an become more costly over these 24 years they
> are manageable  at this time but who knows what the future will bring
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I am on Medicare and am using the IBM Medical/Prescription Drug Supplement. My
medical cost are quite high and my wife's are minimal. The drug coverage with
this plan is adequate.
I have thought about signing up for one of the AARP or the American legion
supplemental plans to help pick up some of the cost. I called IBM benefits and
they say I can do this without loosing the IBM Medical coverage. They said all I
have to do is get the providers to bill Medicare, other supplemental and then
IBM medical in that order.
Has anyone else done this with the IBM Medical/Prescription Drug Supplement
plan?
I was/am concerned that IBM plan would get canceled.

Vern

For all of my fellow Vets , THANK YOU for your service

I retired in 86 and I got a few bucks increase last year. Don't remember how
much, remember it was not worth celebrating about.

i was not entitled to the pension increase last year, guess been retired
too long, yes it is hard to imagine the IBM i retired from in 1985 is not the
same IBM in 2009, the comments i read  are almost unbelievable, although my
medical options have changed an become more costly over these 24 years they
are manageable  at this time but who knows what the future will bring


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