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.

Technology Stocks : IBM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David Harker who wrote (5086)	4/29/1999 4:24:00 PM
From: Don Hurst	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8218

My ears really perk up when I hear comments about the retirement medical benefits being dropped. They have been pretty careful to just change the medical benefits plan for us old folks ever so slightly each year. I think I would be just a little bit upset if they changed them ALOT. Regards, Don

To: David Harker who wrote (5086)	4/29/1999 5:44:00 PM
From: Arrow Hd.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8218

I read the Yahoo thread and the retirement posts and dont see how they can be accurate. I am thrown off by the 50 to 60K statement. There is no way anyone over 40 or worse, someone in their 50s with more than 25 years being able to throw off enough cash from 60K to be equal with the annual payment from the traditional retirement plan and as I mentioned in an earlier post, ERISA would require some option for long term employees to chose from. Even if you used the 60K in lump sum for IPO shares in AOL, EBAY, etc. and rotated into other IPOs you would have a hard time catching up. I think the 50 to 60 is really 500 to 600K for an employee at the max range, say near 30 years. Using 100K salary, joint option which throws off 35% or so under most company plans thats 35K per year for someone in their late 50s with 30 years which would allow for full retirement. To be equivalent to 35K per year you have to have the ROI assumptions but lets use a conservative street portfolio mix of 5.5% for 30 year treasuries and 10% for the long term annual return for stocks. Thats 7.8% ROI. Now the principle required at 7.8% ROI is $448,718.00 to throw off 35K per year and not invade the principle. Retirement plans have to have company contributions if they invade the principle under ERISA so this is relatively conservative thinking. Also, 100K is not the upward salary limit for staff (Directors and above, who are true "executives" probably have a different plan) so, though the 448K number is below 500K to 600K, there will in fact be employees who would be in this range using my hypothetical example. I am sure there are non executive employees who make 150K which would be in the upper range. So I think the guy over at Yahoo left a few digits off the numbers.