Tweet
Re: Minimum wage, good or bad?
Actually Enrons Defined Benefit Pension plans (4 in total) are funded 100% and members will receive their benefits up through now but will not accrue any more benefits. The Defined Benefit plans were not affected by the stock crunch as ERISA rules do not allow concentrations in equity positions and are required to diversify. Members will get 100% of their pension, including retirees as well accrued benefits up till either 2004 or 2001 (not sure what date).
Again where the loss comes from is in the 401K plan. Enron used Enron stock to match participants 401k contributions. This is not uncommon at companies. The only hitch was that participants were not allowed to sell that stock till they were 50. After 50 they were allowed to sell the stock and direct to other investments up till about a year before the collapse where it was 25% a year. But that represented at most half of the contributions a member contributed to their 401K.
Enron put in at most 6% of an employees salary into an employees account each year. Yes that was in company stock but people were not required to put their own investments into the company stock. There were plenty of options out there. So yes, people were partially responsible for their own pain. They were not required to put their own funds into company stock, only the match which I had mentioned above.
Does that take away from what Enron did? Absolutely not. Should there be changes in ERISA to require the same diversification in sections 401a and 401K as the rest of the plan? Most likely yes. Does it take away from the fact people had losses? Absolutely not but you can't say people didnt have options when they actually did.
Let me repeat that Defined Benefit Pension members lost nothing. Only the 401K members.
Actually Enrons Defined Benefit Pension plans (4 in total) are funded 100% and members will receive their benefits up through now but will not accrue any more benefits. The Defined Benefit plans were not affected by the stock crunch as ERISA rules do not allow concentrations in equity positions and are required to diversify. Members will get 100% of their pension, including retirees as well accrued benefits up till either 2004 or 2001 (not sure what date).
Again where the loss comes from is in the 401K plan. Enron used Enron stock to match participants 401k contributions. This is not uncommon at companies. The only hitch was that participants were not allowed to sell that stock till they were 50. After 50 they were allowed to sell the stock and direct to other investments up till about a year before the collapse where it was 25% a year. But that represented at most half of the contributions a member contributed to their 401K.
Enron put in at most 6% of an employees salary into an employees account each year. Yes that was in company stock but people were not required to put their own investments into the company stock. There were plenty of options out there. So yes, people were partially responsible for their own pain. They were not required to put their own funds into company stock, only the match which I had mentioned above.
Does that take away from what Enron did? Absolutely not. Should there be changes in ERISA to require the same diversification in sections 401a and 401K as the rest of the plan? Most likely yes. Does it take away from the fact people had losses? Absolutely not but you can't say people didnt have options when they actually did.
Let me repeat that Defined Benefit Pension members lost nothing. Only the 401K members.
Comment