Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (69082)	10/14/1999 3:40:00 PM
From: Alias Shrugged	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Wayne, >>>>I assume that in a normal environment for stocks and bonds, (as far as returns go) that GE funds its pensions annually as well as getting a return on the existing assets>>> GE has not funded its plan since 1987: pension fund assets are so large that the IRS won't allow them to contribute any more. I would guess that current plan assets exceed the present value of ALL future benefits payable to all plan participants (retired, active, whatever). Assuming the plan was not so overfunded, a rough estimate of the ongoing pension expense would equal the plan's "Service Cost for Benefits Earned", as defined by FAS87 and shown in the Company's pension footnote. Service Cost was $625 million in 98; $596 million in 97. So, you might argue an expense of $625 million has been turned into income of $1,016 million, a swing of $1.6 billion. This situation is not temporary, unless the assets incur absolutely horrendous losses. Going forward, the plan will annually incur pension income of $1 billion or more forever, assuming asset returns of 8% to 9.5%.