If Pensions were not guaranteed by govt, what would you do or have done differently?

[TuborgP]

Originally Posted by 58robbo

i probably didn't get my point across properly in the op, but what i really wanted to know is how behaviour might be different if we didn't have the "bailer-outer-in-chief". if that was the case would more or less people have a plan b and c? would we be more or less inclined to spread out our risk? (when i say spread out our risk i'm not only referring to dollar income related investments)

You are asking a hypothetical question to people who have a variety of different plans based on a variety of different contribution mechanisms. Considering the variety of pension plans and the many different complexities it can be difficult to answer the hypothetical in a RETIREMENT forum. The threat to most public pensions from the recipient perspective is long term and folks in a retirement mode are of a different mindset than those in a long term planning mode.

[NHartphotog]

We were fully vested in the pension plan when our 15,000-employee company underwent a phony "change of control." This allowed the robber-baron CEO to take the over $1 billion pension plan (about 75% of last 5 years average pay for life) and replace it with a cash settlement equal to about half a years pay (at that time). The change of control never actually took place, but the CEO had the lawyers write the papers so that it was "considered" a change of control upon vote to accept the merger by the shareholders. The CEO then sabotaged the merger, as he had always intended. Bye-Bye, retirement security. All perfectly legal.