Breaking News: Laborers’ Local 265 Pension Fund MPRA Letter

The MPRA webstie popped up with another multiemployer plan resolution. This time it was the Laborers Local 265 Pension Plan out of Cincinnati, OH which withdrew their application.

Excerpts from their latest 5500 filing:

Plan Name: Laborers Local 265 Pension Plan
EIN/PN: 31-6127282/001
Total participants @ 10/31/17: 1,328 including:
Retirees: 733
Separated but entitled to benefits: 307
Still working: 288

Asset Value (Market) @ 11/1/16: $50,786,954
Value of liabilities using RPA rate (3.06%) @ 11/1/16: $152,450,002 including:
Retirees: $92,265,429
Separated but entitled to benefits: $32,022,935
Still working: $28,161,638

Funded ratio: 33.31%
Unfunded Liabilities as of 11/1/16: $101,663,048

Asset Value (Market) as of 10/31/17: $50,780,934
Contributions: $2,069,089
Payouts: $7,283,516
Expenses: $523,4540

3 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Tough Love on March 4, 2019 at 1:07 pm

    Off topic ………..

    CA Supreme court decision in CA “airtime” case (Cal Fire Local 2881 v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System) ………

    From the Ruling:

    “We conclude that the opportunity to purchase ARS credit was not a right protected by the contract clause. Thereis no indication in the statute conferring the opportunity to purchase ARS credit that the Legislature intended to createcontractual rights. Further, unlike core pension rights, the opportunity to purchase ARS credit was not granted to public employees as deferred compensation for their work, and here we find no other basis for concluding that the opportunity to purchase ARS credit isprotected by the contract clause. In the absence of constitutional protection, the opportunity to purchase ARS credit could be altered or eliminated at the discretion of the Legislature.Wetherefore affirm the decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeal, which concluded that PEPRA’selimination of the opportunity to purchase ARS credit did not violate the Constitution.”

    Source …………

    http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S239958.PDF

    ————————————–

    WONDERFUL ……….. now END the “California Rule” in it’s entirety

    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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: