The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investment Analysis Clubs / Macro Economic Trends and Risks
|Subject: Re: Proposal to end public pensions||Date: 7/10/2013 1:09 AM|
|Author: steve203||Number: 428322 of 514336|
Orrin claims this bill was his effort to prevent public employees from being shortchanged. It is also an effort to prevent municipalities from shortchanging their pension funding responsibilities.
And I have been on my soapbox for years, saying that all the schemes put forward regarding retirement savings, from Social Security privatization, to automatic enrolement in 401Ks, to automatic IRAs, to requiring 401Ks and IRAs to be rolled over to annuities at retirement, are aimed at shoveling more money into the hands of the financial industry so it can be skimmed with service fees.
This is just another vector of that agenda. Hatch's plan does nothing about the accuracy of the annuity company's pricing of the annuities, nor the company's ability to pay, nor the relevant state insurance fund's ability to pay for the company. And the size of the state fund would be critical, because, like with health insurance, there will be an argument to "let these companies compete across state lines" so the companies can shop for the state with the weakest regulations.
In short, the annuities are subject to all the risks that pension funds are, plus the risk that all the assumptions of the annuity are set in stone at the time of purchase, so they can't be revised as needed, plus the benefits not being covered by the PBGC, like defined benefits plans are.
|Copyright 1996-2017 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|