Pensions are the least of our worries......it seems the ship is taking on water and the lifeboats have left.
Merck announced months ago that it was converting its traditional pension to a cash balance plan. That transition is going until 2018 or 19, I can't remember exactly. Most realize that the conversion was the first step to ending the pension - EXACTLY as Pfizer did several years ago. Now that Pfizer's other shoe has dropped it should be clear to all that Merck's will as well.
Most companies cannot end their pensions full-stop as to do so they need to be fully funded for all present and future obligations. The conversion process is how they devalue future obligations and the end of the process usually marks when it will be fully funded and ended full-stop.
Be well.
So, are you saying that the conversion does not take effect until 2018 or 2019?
And what would happen for those who retire before this date? Thanks.
So, are you saying that the conversion does not take effect until 2018 or 2019?
And what would happen for those who retire before this date? Thanks.
There were several emails sent out at the beginning of the year discussing the changes to the pension plan and a video that you could watch at your leisure that discussed the changes.
The pension plan will change to a cash balance beginning on 1/1/2013. Until 1/1/2018, you will receive the greater of the 2 plans value. At that time, it will ALL revert to the cash balance plan - age + yrs of service + 8% - or something to that effect.
I believe that all of this information is still available on comm central. Hope that this is helpful.
"At that time".........what time? January 2012 or 2018?
Sounds like the older employees with less years of serve will take a big hit.
How are you figuring this?
For example.....100K - (age, 55) = 45??? + service (say, 7) = 52
+ 8% = 56 ????????? vs 100K?
Correct me, clarify.
This industry has followed a "monkey-see, monkey-do" model for 30 years. Pfizer and Merck have become so similar only a high-level insider would be able to discern them. One wonders why each of these top-ten pharmas have individual, over-compensated CEOs and BODs. They might better just collectively outsource this role to one single CEO or BOD for the lot of them. They used to be techs and were largely valued on growth. Now they are more like utilities or consumer products companies - merely pretending to be techs. In fact almost no so-called tech company is as low tech as a pharma. The discrepancy between what is technically achievable by applying known science and engineering and what is actually being done is massive. Electronics, chemistry, plastics, food science, materials science - arguably automobiles and even now construction - have all become significantly more high tech than the relatively backwards pharma. A lot of this has to do with the risk-averse regulatory environment; some of it has to do with the scientific neanderthals running the companies and the regulators. In short, whatever a Pfizer elects to do to make it through another year pretending to be great and powerful, Merck will emulate within months, and vice versa. But none of these marginal cosmetic changes will fundamentally break the inevitable trend to failure.
"At that time".........what time? January 2012 or 2018?
Sounds like the older employees with less years of serve will take a big hit.
How are you figuring this?
For example.....100K - (age, 55) = 45??? + service (say, 7) = 52
+ 8% = 56 ????????? vs 100K?
Correct me, clarify.
