Today’s Federal Register.
Rachel Emma Silverman for the Wall Street Journal has this article: “Retirement Plans Reduce Choices: After Years of Expanding Investment Options, Companies Decide Fewer Funds May Be Better.” (Subscription required.) The article reports how “there is an emerging sense that employees may actually be more inclined to put money in their retirement plans if they have fewer choices.” (See previous post on this subject here.)
The New Jersey Star Ledger has this article: “The lump-sum pension vs. a check-a-week for life.” The article discusses how the lump sum payment option for participants right now is more attractive due to the low interest rates which can produce higher lump sum amounts, but that if Congress enacts proposed pension legislation, lump sum amounts would be reduced making this option less attractive for retirees.
Regarding the status of the proposed pension legislation which was approved by the House Ways and Means Committee week before last, this U.S. Newswire reports that “to the dismay of Democrats and at least one prominent Republican, the House Ways and Means Committee has not indicated that it will schedule another markup” of the bill even though it “served as the backdrop of one of the most bitter, partisan congressional debates in recent history.”
For a look at how participants of U.S. Airways are coping with the fact that their pensions have been downsized under terms of the distress termination by the PBGC, read this article by Jerome R. Stockfisch in the Tampa Tribune: “Broken Promises.”