Search the News Archive

The New York Times is Freezing Pension Plan

Excerpt: The New York Times Company has amended The New York Times Companies Pension Plan, a defined benefit pension plan for non-union employees, to discontinue future benefit accruals and freeze existing accrued benefits effective December 31, 2009. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Times said it is increasing contributions under The New York Times Companies Supplemental Retirement and Investment Plan (SRIP), its 401(k) plan, such that participants will receive a cash contribution of 3% of pay, up to applicable limits, effective January 1, 2010.

The New York Times, Fees, Regulation and Wrap Fees

"[An interesting article from the New York Times, directed at plan participants who may want to increase the returns in their 401(k)s by decreasing the costs in their plans and of their investments] is not interesting so much for what it says -- nothing in it is likely to be very surprising, or even new, to most regular readers of this blog ? but more for two points that it illustrates, both of which line up well with themes that have developed on this blog."

Piling On: Corporations Support the New York Times in Multiemployer Pension Calculation Dispute

"Several large employers are disputing how much money the New York Times owes a union multiemployer pension fund. Recently, six companies ... filed an amicus brief supporting the New York Times in its case before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.... The underlying issue in this case involves an actuarial method called the 'Segal Blend,' which often is used to value unfunded vested benefits and calculate withdrawal liability (an exit fee) from a union multiemployer pension plan."

The 'Plan to Avert the Pension Crisis' Article in the New York Times: NCPERS Responds (PDF)

"[T]here is no public pension crisis. The vast majority of pubic pension plans -- which, like all institutional investors, took a hit when the Great Recession collapsed the economy in 2008 -- have rebounded nicely and are more than adequately funded. The few plans in peril are in jurisdictions that chose not to make their required contributions during boom economic times."

The New York Times Shines a Bright Light on Healthcare Pricing -- What Should We All See?

"[P]rice transparency alone is not the cure for the disease plaguing U.S. healthcare. Rather, it is a symptom of a larger, far-reaching affliction -- acceptance of the status quo. Payers, particularly employers who provide the majority of coverage in this country, must REFUSE to continue to tolerate high costs overall, uneven quality, and providers whose higher comparative costs do not correlate to better health outcomes. Instead, self-funded employers should work with their advisors to find ways to incent and reward efficient, cost-conscious health systems and practitioners who provide better care at lower costs."

A Response to the New York Times Editorial on the Cadillac Tax

"[The editorial's] reasoning for tweaks to the law, rather than outright repeal of the tax, was based on many inaccurate assumptions.... [T]he shift of premium expenses for maintaining the same plan does nothing to reduce the tax. Under IRC Section 4980I, the tax is based upon the total premium cost of the plan, regardless of the percentages paid by the employer or employee.... The overall conclusion of the editorial may actually have it right, despite all of its inaccuracies."

What the New York Times Doesn't Know About Medicaid Under Health Reform

"Let's see -- there are about 50 million uninsured ... mostly living in states that are not expanding Medicaid ... and as a result there will be 3.6 million who don't get insured ... And ... 3.6 divided by 50 ... is 7.2%. Hmmm. Only 7.2 percent of the uninsured will fail to get insurance because half the states don't expand Medicaid? We could fail to insure that many just by bureaucratic snafus alone.... It turns out that below 100 percent of poverty, people who are not eligible for Medicaid will not be entitled to subsidized insurance in the health insurance exchanges."

New York Times Gets It Wrong, Again, on ObamaCare

"Yesterday, The New York Times, a consistent cheerleader for ObamaCare, questions: Is the Affordable Care Act Working? It should come as no surprise that the article states, as if it were fact, that 'For now, dire warnings that the law would cause premiums for most people to rise sharply have proved unfounded.' The truth? As [a recent] Forbes article cites, new health research shows that non-group premiums (those policies families and individuals have to buy on their own instead of getting one from their employer) in 44 states have increased by an average of 24.4 percent versus what was expected prior to enactment of ObamaCare."

New York Times Unfairly Blasts DROPs

Excerpt: A lead article in the May 5, 2004 New York Times is entitled 'Some Cities Struggling to Keep Pension Promises.' We're not quite certain why that title was chosen, inasmuch as the article is nothing more than a condemnation of deferred retirement option programs.

The Guy Who Quit Goldman Sachs in a New York Times Op-Ed Now Wants to Fix Your 401(k)

"Last month, [Greg] Smith joined Blooom, an Overland Park, Kansas-based firm ... [and] will serve as the firm's president.... Blooom's main offering is a service that, for $15 a month, will take control of your 401(k) and manage it for you. (The fee drops to $1 a month for 401(k) accounts of less than $20,000.) The company uses a computer program to devise an asset allocation (bonds vs. stocks, for example) for each of its clients. It then looks at the investment options in your 401(k) plan, deciphers what they are, and separates those choices into categories. Blooom then, essentially, picks out the fund in each category with the lowest fees and puts your money there. Blooom's investing algorithm doesn't seem to take into account how those particular investments have performed."