undefined | Better HN

0 pointslotsofpulp4y ago0 comments

They are binding until the money is not there decades in the future, and you do not have enough political power to get a full bailout, and end up having to take a haircut.

I would take a defined benefit pension from the federal government (or any other entity that can print money), but any other payout promised decades in the future is just as, if not more, risky as investing in an index fund, because you give up control of the money.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

ChrisMarshallNY4y ago· 1 in thread

When I left my company, after 27 years, I chose to take my pension in a lump sum. I had plenty of money in other investments, so I wasn't too worried about it.

I used the money to fund one of my companies, and tossed the rest into an index fund.

I made back the money I used to fund the company in a couple of years; just from the portion in the index fund (it's been crazy).

Earlier this year, my ex-employees told me that the company is shutting down their pension plan. I don't think that they are siphoning off the money, Jimmy Hoffa-style, but I think that I'm glad I took the cashout.

lotsofpulpOP4y ago

You made the smart choice. In a political environment where purchasing power is constantly being eroded, the only option is to stay ahead or on top of the wave by keeping assets invested and investing in new cash flow producing ventures.

A non COLA adjusted defined benefit just means you will continuously lose purchasing power, and even the COLA adjustments are subject to understatement due to political influences. Even Social Security is not immune, because at the end of the day, a smaller proportion of labor suppliers to labor buyers means less supply of labor per buyer, which means it has to get rationed somehow (for whatever amount does not get offset by automation/immigration).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse