Breaking News: United Furniture Workers Pension Fund A Gets MPRA Letter

On August 17, 2016 trustees of the United Furniture Workers Pension Fund A out of Nashville, TN became the eighth multiemployer (union) plan to file for benefit cuts under MPRA in an attempt to avoid insolvency. That application was withdrawn on February 21, 2017 and resubmitted on March 15, 2017. Yesterday they got their letter.

Approved.

From their latest 5500 form here is the plan’s relevant data:

Plan Name: United Furniture Workers Pension Fund A
EIN/PN: 13-5511877/001
Total participants @ 2/29/16: 9,896 including:
Retirees: 5,509
Separated but entitled to benefits: 3,311
Still working: 1,076

Asset Value (Market) @ 3/1/15: 70,887,468
Value of liabilities using RPA rate (3.44%) @ 3/1/15: $290,549,936 including:
Retirees: $151,631,639
Separated but entitled to benefits: $89,993,573
Still working: $48,924,724

Funded ratio: 24.40%
Unfunded Liabilities as of 3/1/15: $219,662,468

Asset Value (Market) as of 2/29/16: $55,798,192
Contributions: $3,864,739
Payouts: $13,603,642
Expenses: $1,758,131

 

37 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by skip3house on July 21, 2017 at 1:03 pm

    Just as NJ future . . . Incompetent officers, actuaries, and lack of reasoning/understanding 8th grade arithmetic of employees.
    Defined contributions best to avoid ‘mistakes.’ (being polite)

    Reply

  2. Posted by George on July 21, 2017 at 6:36 pm

    Does approved mean they will get reduced payments from the pension, instead of full benefits from PBGC? What happens to the active workers?

    Reply

    • Posted by PS Drone on July 24, 2017 at 9:48 pm

      PBGC hardly pays “full” benefits. Probably lucky to get 30% to (maybe) 50%. Plus PBGC itself is going broke. Good luck to all; the light at the end of the tunnel keeps moving in this direction.

      Reply

  3. Posted by Anonymous on July 22, 2017 at 2:57 pm

    Who wood believe it, Fed pensions next up as the printing presses go silent!

    Reply

  4. Posted by Earth on July 22, 2017 at 4:59 pm

    wouldpecker?

    Reply

  5. Posted by Anonymous on July 23, 2017 at 1:52 pm

    It’s the same old song…:-[

    Ho-ho-ho ho ho! Ho-ho-ho ho ho!
    Oh, that’s the Woody Woodpecker song

    Reply

  6. Posted by Anonymous on July 23, 2017 at 3:15 pm

  7. Posted by dentss dunnigan on July 23, 2017 at 6:22 pm

    One of the best piece of advice out there ….. Measure and publicize pension liabilities – while governments are loathe to publicize the massive size of their unfunded pension liabilities for fear of voter backlash, all governments must make this data available so that voters can clearly understand the scope of the problem. With calculations showing that there are in the billions in unfunded and underfunded pension liabilities not appearing on the balance sheets .Simply pretending that the problem is non-existent isn’t going to solve anything.

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on July 23, 2017 at 9:54 pm

      NOT just ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

      “while governments are loathe to publicize the massive size of their unfunded pension liabilities for fear of voter backlash”

      but ALSO…………….

      “The UNIONS & WORKERS are loathe to publicize the massive size of their PROMISED PENSIONS for fear of Taxpayer demands to materially REDUCE (or FREEZE) them for them future service of all CURRENT workers.”

      Reply

  8. Posted by Anonymous on July 24, 2017 at 11:02 am

    18 months at the trough and still feeding!

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on July 24, 2017 at 1:03 pm

      How do you handle the hungry public with pension reform…..
      Time for the Feds to set the example and disclose their real P&B cost as well as regulate State and Local P&B.

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on July 24, 2017 at 3:09 pm

        The “cost” of a pension (or benefits) is the actual amounts paid out (as they are paid).

        If (and if so, under what schedule of amount and timing) you pre-fund all or a portion of that cost does not CHANGE the “cost”.

        Nor does investment earnings on any accumulated pre-funding assets change the “cost” because those earnings constitute foregone earnings to the contributors ….. i.e., would have remained in the pockets of the contributors (primarily the Taxpayers) in the absence of pre-funding.

        Which of course means that NONE (not one penny) of the true “cost” of a pension is paid for by some 3-ed entity called “investment earnings”. 100% of pension “costs” are “paid-for” by only the contributors, which for Public Sector Plans. is typically split 10% to 20% of total Plan “costs” from the workers, and the remaining 80% to 90% from the Taxpayers.

        Reply

  9. Posted by Anonymous on July 24, 2017 at 3:45 pm

    Watch (via comment …his standard BS and several responses) S. Moderation Douglas (posting comments under his real name) get bashed here:

    http://norcal.news/news/23867-should-california-pensions-be-more-line-private-sector

    ******************************************************************************
    P.S. SMD, you lied when you said you were handsome. You’re an old goat !

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on July 24, 2017 at 7:03 pm

      SMD is continuing the never-ending BS in comments to that linked article…….that it’s OK to discount Plan liabilities using 6.2% (because the investment return assumption is used for that purpose in Gov’t Plan valuations).

      No it’s not……….. which is why it’s NOT ALLOWED in Private Sector Plan valuations.

      Munnell’s discounting of the liabilities at 6.2% is wrong BECAUSE it implicitly assumes that there is no “risk” in the equity-heavy asset-allocation necessary today to achieve that overall return.

      And it does so ONLY because there is a sucker in the room (the Taxpayers) who they can send the bill for shortfalls when things go wrong.

      “Risk” indeed HAS a “cost” and a reasonable estimate of that “cost” is the difference between the 4.2% that the AEI study uses, and the 6.2% that Munnell uses.

      Reply

    • Posted by S Moderation Anonymous on July 26, 2017 at 1:44 pm

      Just letting you know I returned the PR favor…

      https://m.facebook.com/groups/76289549634?view=permalink&id=10155059271514635

      Maybe get some more followers on John’s website.

      Reply

  10. Posted by S Moderation Anonymous on July 24, 2017 at 7:10 pm

    • Posted by Anonymous on July 24, 2017 at 9:46 pm

      Hey you don’t look bad to me but I got my glasses at four eyes…..

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on July 24, 2017 at 9:51 pm

        That’s not SMD. SMD is the old-goat with the picture next to his comments on the linked article.

        Reply

      • Posted by Earth on July 25, 2017 at 1:31 am

        Earth to Anonymice:

        Sex with two people is a “two”some.
        Sex with three people is a “three”some.
        Should be able to figger out what “hand”some is.

        Reply

  11. Posted by Anonymous on July 24, 2017 at 9:17 pm

    It woke up.

    Reply

  12. Posted by S Moderation Anonymous on July 25, 2017 at 1:24 am

    It would appear I have my very own PR department now. This started I think, a couple of years ago… “Ed Ring, Ed Ring! Douglas is writing about you in another blog!!”

    Ed Ring: “Good, we could always use the referrals.”

    I hope no one is expecting a commission. I don’t make as much as Maviglio.

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on July 25, 2017 at 1:47 am

      No, not your own … “very own PR department”.

      “It’s the ……. “we don’t go for BS department”

      ************************

      Maviglio ……….. sure must be a spot reserved in hell for THAT Union mouthpiece (makes even YOU look like a piker).

      Reply

  13. Posted by Anonymous on July 25, 2017 at 2:30 am

    YUP SMD, Public Sector Unions (especially those in your home State of CA) sure ARE a CANCER inflicted upon civilized society.

    http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/07/24/editorial-self-serving-labor-plan-would-strangle-services-for-the-needy/

    Reply

  14. Posted by Anonymous on July 25, 2017 at 10:01 am

    It’s been fun but getting back on topic!

    Regarding the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico being the possible lithmus test for ailing States’ pension funds. I don’t remember any mention here or elsewhere of a Federal government bailout.

    In essence their 2012 tax reforms allows for significant tax reductions and redirection from the US Treasury to Puerto Rico to help stimulate their economic recovery. While the Feds couldn’t grant such direct tax incentives to a State there are others mechanisms at their disposable.

    Doesn’t 4+5 % Federal tax liability paid directly to Puerto Rico sound better than whatever your Federal tax bracket is? Why should all us privates be paying such high Federal taxes to support all the Federal, including military, P&B!

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on July 25, 2017 at 12:52 pm

      “Back on topic” means addressing the problem associated with the HUGE cost of HUGE pension/benefit “promises” made to State & LOcal (esp NJ’s) Public Sector workers ………. not trying to re-direct the attention to problem at the Federal level.

      And “addressing the problem” has no effective solution that doesn’t include material reductions in the future service pensions accruals of all CURRENT workers.

      Reply

      • Posted by PS Drone on July 25, 2017 at 11:08 pm

        Forget future benefit accruals for CURRENT workers. Reduce all pensions for retirees and future retirees to a MAX of $60K per annum and retroactively increase the age to receive benefits to 66. Only solutions. The longer we wait the worse the haircuts are going to be.

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on July 26, 2017 at 4:06 pm

          While there is MORE THAN sufficient justification* for reducing PAST service pension accruals, clearly doing so is legally more difficult and objectionable to a larger population.

          As for reducing FUTURE Service pension accruals, I’m sure WELL OVER 75% of non-Public Sector worker voters would vote to allow such reductions given the change …… because they DO NOT have such protections from FUTURE service pension-accrual reductions and Plan freezes for CURRENT workers.

          * MORE THAN sufficient because the Taxpayers were never HONESTLY represented is setting the (ludicrously generous) level of these pensions. and the many RETROACTIVELY-applied pension increases were nothing but a THEFT of Private Sector Taxpayer wealth……. and SHOULD BE rolled-back.

          Let’s push for part one now….. Public Sector DB Plan freezes or VERY materiel reductions in the pension accrual rate for the FUTURE service of all CURRENT workers. THEN with HONEST (10+-year) financial projections in hand, see if and how large reductions in PAST Service unfunded liabilities need to be (with pensions “caps” as you suggested, being one opton.).

          Reply

  15. Posted by Earth on July 25, 2017 at 1:11 pm

    Earth to Anonymous:

    The topic is ” United Furniture Workers Pension Fund A Gets MPRA Letter”

    New Jersey is not the only pension problem. Just the biggest one.

    Reply

  16. […] « Breaking News: United Furniture Workers Pension Fund A Gets MPRA Letter […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: