As Workers' Pensions Wither, Those for Executives Flourish

Wall Street Journal ^ | June 23, 2006 | Ellen E. Schultz and Theo Francis

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

This is the pension squeeze companies aren't talking about: Even as many reduce, freeze or eliminate pensions for workers -- complaining of the costs -- their executives are building up ever-bigger pensions, causing the companies' financial obligations for them to balloon.

Companies disclose little about any of this. But a Wall Street Journal analysis of corporate filings reveals that executive benefits are playing a large and hidden role in the declining health of America's pensions. Among the findings:

• Boosted by surging pay and rich formulas, executive pension obligations exceed $1 billion at some companies. Besides GM, they include General Electric Co. (a $3.5 billion liability); AT&T Inc. ($1.8 billion); Exxon Mobil Corp. and International Business Machines Corp. (about $1.3 billion each); and Bank of America Corp. and Pfizer Inc. (about $1.1 billion apiece).

• Benefits for executives now account for a significant share of pension obligations in the U.S., an average of 8% at the companies above. Sometimes a company's obligation for a single executive's pension approaches $100 million.

• These liabilities are largely hidden, because corporations don't distinguish them from overall pension obligations in their federal financial filings.

• As a result, the savings that companies make by curtailing pensions for regular retirees -- which have totaled billions of dollars in recent years -- can mask a rising cost of benefits for executives.

• Executive pensions, even when they won't be paid till years from now, drag down earnings today. And they do so in a way that's disproportionate to their size, because they aren't funded with dedicated assets.

[Gondring]

I could not have said it as well as you did. Excellent summary of the situation.

[dakine]

If that is what he was hired to do, sounds like he did a fine job....

[BlueDragon]

When workers commit to contribute to companies, for years at time, part of many of the compensation arrangements, were pensions. Those whom abrogate those agreements, are thieves, liars, and worse. We all know where they'll end up---in HELL.
Problem is, those sort are contributing to creating hell, here on earth. For that, they should be lined up against a wall, and shot. You should be lined up, too, since you're so supportive of them...

[Gondring]

It's called capitalism. Running complex multi-billion dollar corporations takes years of education, work experience, and guts.

You forgot government bailouts when these brilliant execs screw up.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

This isn't about capitalism. It's about pension funds. P-E-N-S-I-O-N F-U-N-D-S.

What do you think pension funds are? Cradle-to-the-grave socialism?

Chickens are coming home to roost, that's all.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

You forgot government bailouts when these brilliant execs screw up.

All of this can be blamed on the income tax.

[dennisw]

Bob Palmer got $53 million for destroying Digital Equipment Corporation and putting 100,000 people out of work. And that was in 1997.

This is a mafia bust out done 100% legally. Just choose board members who will award you outrageous compensation. And there are no million dollar kickbacks into offshore bank accounts?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

When workers commit to contribute to companies, for years at time, part of many of the compensation arrangements, were pensions. Those whom abrogate those agreements, are thieves, liars, and worse. We all know where they'll end up---in HELL.

Most of this can be blamed on the tax code and government financial regulations.

Problem is, those sort are contributing to creating hell, here on earth. For that, they should be lined up against a wall, and shot. You should be lined up, too, since you're so supportive of them...

More idle threats. Yeah, you're a baaaad mutha (shut yo' mouth)

[tempe]

What the article gets to is BOTTOM LINE FISCAL ACCOUNTING/REPOSABLITY.

Most pensions, including those that are moving to elimination or freezing are either fully funded or over funded for the most part for those who are rank and file employees.

Most corporations have different pension plans for rank and file members, others for white collar management and still others for UPPER MANAGEMENT. What the WSJ is saying is that the UPPER MANAGEMENT Pensions are underfunded significantly and are passed on to the FUTURE MANGEMENT to pay. And these future liabilities are MEGAONES

So this isn't MARXIST gobbledygook, but important thing to look at if one where were to invest in these companies using fundamental analysis....

[CAWats]

...and the individual shareholder has been left out in the cold while they have feathered their nests and raided the corporations.

No, the indivuduals are free to succeed on the open market as capitalists or whatever and become responsible for their own success and quit whining like a one-year old. Companies are in business to make money; not coddle its employees. They can work elsewhere if they don't like it.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

The article fails to pinpoint the diagnosis of the issue at hand.

I expected better from the WSJ.

[Gritty]

So while some greedy executives are running away with corporate money which should maybe go to stockholders, the pandering politicians are giving away our Social Security money to illegal aliens, money which should go to "us".

Which scam is really getting into our individual pockets?

[King Moonracer]

Check this out. So many executives are in cahoots. A local small family run company, is being investigated and they were on Tyco's board.  

[BlueDragon]

You are a poster boy, of why many folks hate the right wing...
Of all the negative attributes that one may fairly attribute to the worst of them, you have much of them, in spades.
I bet your momma, is so proud....

[caryatid]

They can work elsewhere if they don't like it.

You obviously did comprehend my post. I said nothing about workers, for G-d's sake!

I am talking about the individuals who have been free to succeed --- and have done exactly that --- and have been imminently successful --- and have been 100% responsible for their own success --- and are not whining like a one-year old.

You must not own shares in anything. If you did, you would have understood my post.

Read my post again. It relates entirely to shareholders in corporations --- the people who are actually supposed to OWN the corporation --- thanks to their hard work elsewhere --- who have then invested their wealth [rather than squandering it] and are being shafted by management of corporations they OWN.

Yes, indeed, companies are in business to make money --- and, they are supposed to distribute a reasonable amount of it to their shareholders. The average return on shares was [last time I looked] a little over 1%. Do you consider that a reasonable return on investment? Or, would you prefer to see 100% of a company's profits go to a handful of executives?

[caryatid]

You forgot government bailouts when these brilliant execs screw up.

It does not even take a government bailout. Why should a former [female, I might add] CEO who ran a once proud company like Mattel into the ground --- while spending her time dancing on the table [literally, I kid you not!] at board meetings, and making one of the most colossal failure of Mattel's history [a dark haired Barbie in her own image] --- then be awarded a $50 million golden parachute --- just to get rid of her?

[Gondring]

I considered golden parachutes, but that was not the point of that reply. The idea that such shareholders get what they deserve is not true when government bailouts occur.

[caryatid]

You obviously did comprehend my post

This should, obviously read:

You obviously did NOT comprehend my post ...

[caryatid]

Why is that the stockholders of these companies allow for these outrageous arrangements for executives?

... because the boards of directors have voted in rules that make it virtually impossible for shareholders to defeat any proposal made by the board of directors.