# Ghost Pensions



## sags (May 15, 2010)

An interesting article in the CBC talking about "ghost pensions", which are basically promises of future pensions to employees that the employer doesn't fund properly or immediately.

This would include both private and public pensions, where there are shortfalls due to underpayment by employers and employees. It is simply too easy to promise today to pay some time in the future.

Well financed DB pensions are sustainable, as the HOOPP pension plan amply demonstrates, but many plans still remain in a deficit position.

We have well known pension plans like Nortel go bankrupt and retirees were forced to accept less than they were promised. The GM pension plan was severely underfunded when the government provided loans to save them.

We know some public pension plans are facing huge shortfalls and the taxpayer could be on the hook for those.

If Finance Minister Morneau can so easily solve the CPP expansion, perhaps he could also get this problem straightened out for us.

Accomplish that task, and Mr. Morneau may also forge a fine legacy for himself as a Finance Minister.

Former Finance Minister Paul Martin will always have a place in Canadian history as the Finance Minister who "saved" the CPP.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cpp-private-pension-bankruptcy-1.3647128


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In the US, the biggest "ghost pension" of them all is the US Social Security Plan.

In about 12 years, the SS plan will pay out more in benefits than it receives in contributions. 

There is no reserve fund investing and earning returns such as we have in the CPP. (Interesting that in 2015 the CPPIB earned $40 Billion in investment returns on the fund while collecting $5 billion in contributions)

The solution in the US is viewed as raising contributions 16% or reducing benefits to 75% and that still won't provide a reserve fund and will only extend the fund for a few more years.

The "ghost pension" problem is a real one in Canada as well and the earlier it is addressed the better the outcome will be.

Time can be a friend or an enemy. It all depends on what you are doing with it. The time to fix the problem is now.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

I suspect that in addressing a company's pension deficit, the employee most often comes out of it with a reduced benefit or greater future performance risk (DC rather than DB). I wonder how often the original terms were just too rich for a new economic reality versus how often investments were mismanaged. I suspect it is more often the former. My sense is that union-driven plans and government plans face more deficit challenges than private plans. For those inclined, here are some recent articles on the subject:

1.Mercer Canada - *VOLATILE FIRST QUARTER FOR PENSION PLANS* March 31, 2016 Canada, Toronto, ON
_The solvency position of Canadian pension plans fell slightly in the first quarter of 2016. The median solvency ratio of the pension plans of Mercer clients stood at 82% on March 30, 2016 down from 85% at the beginning of the year with more than 9 out of 10 plans being in solvency deficit position. The Mercer Pension Health Index, which represents the solvency ratio of a hypothetical plan finished the first quarter at 90%, down from 93% at the beginning of the year. 
The decline in funded status was due to poor global equity market performance, further declines in long-term bond yields and the strengthening Canadian dollar (which negatively impacted the return on unhedged foreign assets)...._ 
[url]http://www.mercer.ca/en/newsroom/volatile-first-quarter-for-pension-plans.html [/URL]

2. *Public Service pension plan faces $4.4B paper deficit that may draw critical fire* KATHRYN MAY, OTTAWA CITIZEN February 23, 2016 
_The latest actuarial report on the public service pension plan shows a $4.4 billion shortfall that the new Liberal government is legally bound to make up in special payments of at least $416M for 15 years...
Morneau said one reason that departmental spending or direct program expenses are $1.8 billion higher than projected last fall is because of “higher projected employee pension and future benefits expenses resulting from reduced projected interest rates.”
What it shows is a plan that is technically in surplus based on market value. However, in a bid to avoid wild swings in value because of the rise and fall of markets, the government decided to “smooth” the plan. That ‘smoothing’ of the assets puts the plan into deficit and triggers the top-up payments. 
Smoothing is an accounting practice the government has adopted to protect its pension funds from absorbing big losses or gains at once and allows them to be spread out over years.
Treasury Board President Scott Brison, who is responsible for the pension plans, has the discretion to recognize the market value of the surplus and eliminate the payments but that would be contrary to accounting practices._
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/public-service-pension-plan-faces-4-4b-paper-deficit-that-may-draw-critical-fire

3.Benefits Canada - *How Air Canada’s pension took off as Canada Post’s plan sank into deficit* Jennifer Paterson | April 15, 2016
_In recent years, Canada’s largest companies have struggled with the inherent ups and downs of managing risk in their defined benefit pension plans. Two employer-sponsored pensions in particular — despite experiencing similar types of labour strife, government intervention and plan redesign — have so far embarked on very different investment strategies to suit their businesses and have seen diverging results...
Nearly a decade and a financial crisis later and facing a nearly $4-billion pension solvency deficit, the company returned to the unions with a proposal to address the shortfall. Its solution, once again, was to close the plan to new hires and open a defined contribution pension plan..._
http://www.benefitscanada.com/news/how-air-canadas-pension-took-off-as-canada-posts-plan-sank-into-deficit-79555


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> ... The GM pension plan was severely underfunded when the government provided loans to save them.


I'm not so sure about the "was" part with GM issuing 20 and 30 year notes to "raise money to contribute to its U.S. hourly workers' pension plan and other corporate purposes."

http://wowway.net/news/read/categor..._2b_in_longterm_notes_to_fund_pension_pla-tca


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The GM plans are for the US and Canada are separate.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> An interesting article in the CBC talking about "ghost pensions", which are basically promises of future pensions to employees that the employer doesn't fund properly or immediately.
> 
> We have well known pension plans like Nortel go bankrupt and retirees were forced to accept less than they were promised. The GM pension plan was severely underfunded when the government provided loans to save them.
> 
> We know some public pension plans are facing huge shortfalls and the taxpayer could be on the hook for those.


The Ontario taxpayer is already on the hook for the Nortel pension deficit. My pension was reduced 40% about 3 years ago.
Working in Ontario, the Ontario PGF makes up for some of the reduced pension, (up to the first $1000
of the pension monthly payment but they just don't give you the full $1000, only what is calculated based on the numbers
below. Three years ago, I was getting about $1600 a month, now it's a tiny bit over $1300 and that
is with the OP added in. 



*The PBGF does not cover the following benefits:

pension benefits (including bridge benefits) that are in excess of $1,000 per month;
benefit improvements that became effective within three years of the Wind Up Date;
benefits payable from federally-registered pension plans; and
any indexation subsequent to the wind up date.
The PBGF rules are complex but, in general:*

Where a former member terminated employment prior to 1987... 
The PBGF will only apply if the former member was at least 45 years of age and had at least ten years of continuous employment or ten years of continuous pension plan membership at their date of termination from the plan.

*Where a former member terminates employment after 1986..*. 
The PBGF will partially apply only if the former member’s age plus years of employment or pension plan membership equals at least 50 at their date of termination from the plan. *If age and service equal 60 or more, the member is eligible for full coverage of the eligible portion of his or her pension. * The actual percentage of eligible benefits covered by the PBGF if age and service total between 50 and 60, will vary as shown in the following examples:
Age + Service	% of Eligible Benefits Guaranteed 
(to a maximum of $1,000 per month)
50	20%
51	28%
52	36%
53	44%
54	52%
55	60%
*56	68%*
57	76%
58 84%
59	92%
60	100%
Where the PBGF does not apply, *benefits are generally paid out of the pension plan at the funded level of the plan.*

11. Does the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (“PBGF”) protect all pension plans?

*The PBGF provides limited protection for most members who were employed in Ontario, in most single-employer defined-benefit registered pension plans.
*


*No PBGF coverage is provided for:
*
defined-contribution pension plans;
members whose employment took place in other provinces; and
multi-employer pension plans.



> If Finance Minister Morneau can so easily solve the CPP expansion, perhaps he could also get this problem straightened out for us.
> 
> Accomplish that task, and Mr. Morneau may also forge a fine legacy for himself as a Finance Minister.


This remains to be seen. I just got notification that the webinars will start this fall on the Nortel DB pension plan windup.
The company folded on Jan 9, 2009. Before that the pension fund was seriously underfunded. Now it's been 7 years of
partial pension payouts even with the PGBF kicking in some of it.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> The GM plans are for the US and Canada are separate.


The US plan was supposedly bailed out as well ... though the larger share of it's shortfall according to the Detroit Free Press analysis was due to company executives pulling money out of the pension for other programs instead of the widely reported claim of "drop in market values" or "expensive benefits".


But if you prefer a Canadian focus ... about $1 Billion of the $4 Billion bail out money targeted for pension fund contributions is left. Despite improvements in the funding levels as well as the previous years of contributions - the shortfall is something over $3 Billion.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...sion-plans-still-deep-in-red/article19301632/

Strangely, in the same period that other pension plans saw big gains for their pension asset values - GM Canada's plans saw their asset values drop.


It seems underfunding despite having a $1 Billion cushion is still a problem. Hence my questioning whether the past tense really applies.


Cheers


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Many firms are in fact keeping their DB plans funded to reasonable levels. My employer was a multinational IT supplier. Over the years the company made significant catch up payments to bring the plan up to full funding level. Just got a statement this month. Funding in 2010 was 88 percent. Funding in 2013 was 95 percent. Additional payments have, are being made to bring it to 100 percent funding.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

ian said:


> Many firms are in fact keeping their DB plans funded to reasonable levels. My employer was a multinational IT supplier. Over the years the company made significant catch up payments to bring the plan up to full funding level. Just got a statement this month. *Funding in 2010 was 88 percent. Funding in 2013 was 95 percent. Additional payments have, are being made to bring it to 100 percent funding*.


 ... how do you actually know? Does your statement actually show you the asset and liabilities funding numbers? Just curious.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

The DB plan is audited and reviewed by accountants/actuaries every three years with a view to comparing the results with 2 scenerios. The first assumes a pension plan windup, the second assumes an ongoing pension plan. These numbers are slightly different. I do not know exactly why.

When working, my annual pension statement listed the most recent audited level of funding, what the company contributed that year in terms of regular payments plus the amounts of any payments made to bring the plan up to the legislated funding levels. There were several years when those extra payments far exceeded the regular payments by a factor of three to five. While I was an employee, the pension statement did indicate the total value of the DB plan, the number active members, the total number of members, etc. I think they also gave a blurb on who managed the pension fund and the percentages invested in bonds, equities, foreign etc. Don't get this part any more.

Now retired, I get a statement every year on the health of the DB plan. It is a requirement for all plans registered in Ontario (as ours is) notwithstanding that I live elsewhere.

So no, I have no insight into the investments etc. I suppose that I do have a right to them since every statement has a note at the bottom saying that I have the right to examine the plan in further detail (again a Provincial requirement). The only time I exercised this is after retirement when I had a dispute with the outsourced pension administrators. I requested, and got, a copy of the DB plan and as importantly the amendments to the plan.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

ian said:


> ...
> 
> When working, my annual pension statement listed the most recent audited level of funding, what the company contributed that year in terms of regular payments plus the amounts of any payments made to bring the plan up to the legislated funding levels. There were several years when those extra payments far exceeded the regular payments by a factor of three to five. *While I was an employee, the pension statement did indicate the total value of the DB plan, the number active members, the total number of members, etc.* I think they also gave a blurb on who managed the pension fund and the percentages invested in bonds, equities, foreign etc. Don't get this part any more.
> 
> Now retired, I get a statement every year on the health of the DB plan. It is a requirement for all plans registered in Ontario (as ours is) notwithstanding that I live elsewhere.


 ... it would appears your employer was/is very transparent on its pension plan and this is a very good thing. In fact, I'm surprised that you as retiree would still get a statement on the health of your DB plan. 

Speaking "hypothetically" here ... what would you have done if you found out the funding of your DB plan went from 88% to 75% or a downtrend over the course of a decade?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I could not have done anything, at least I don't think so, if the pension was underfunded and getting worse.

Though, I did have two off ramps. At one point, when DB plans were being phased out for new employees, the company did offer to convert my DB to a DC or freeze the DB and start me on the DC. At that time I could have taken the commuted value and moved it over. I chose not to because it was not financially advantageous.

The second off ramp was on retirement. If I had been concerned about funding I could have taken my pension entitlement's commuted value instead of a pension. I realize of course that the amount of the commuted value can be reduced if the plan is significantly underfunded a la Nortel or some of the multi employer DB plans that are out there.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

GM started offering the commuted value for retirees a couple of years ago.

Despite the pension plan being underfunded, the commuted value payout was at 100%, which caused some concern among members about the effect on the pension plan.

The average buyout of a 30 year pension was around $600,000 and health benefits were retained through the union operated fund.

I was surprised that more people didn't take up the offer, as it was around 30% I believe. Given the 100% payout of an inflated commuted value due to low interest rates..........it looked like a good deal to me.

When I retired from GM in 2005, the only option to take the commuted value was to do so before age 55 (basically quit and forego all benefits including spousal, the bridge benefit and 30 year benefit, health benefits and group life insurance of $35,000.

The "stripped down" commuted value offered was only $260,000 and I would have been only 55. In the past 10 years I have already collected over $300,000 from the plan in monthly benefits. I also would not have been eligible for a $70,000 buyout package as I was termed quitting the company rather than retiring. Now I have to think about my benefits being cut in the future.

Given the same offers as today's retirees receive.........I would take the commuted value and run. I doubt there has ever been better offers on the table.

GM wants to eliminate the DB pension plan altogether, and that is the subject of current contract negotiations.

My prediction is the union will give up the DB pension plan in return for some guaranteed product placement. 

The past couple of contracts, GM has used the threat of moving production to demand a long list of concessions from workers and retirees.

And it continues and continues...............in a downward spiral to the bottom.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^


> ...*Given the same offers as today's retirees receive.........I would take the commuted value and run. I doubt there has ever been better offers on the table.
> *
> GM wants to eliminate the DB pension plan altogether, and that is the subject of current contract negotiations.
> 
> ...


 ... I wouldn't be so sure of that either ie. taking the commuted value and *run *even in these spectacularly low interest rates since you would no idea how that would be calculated. And taking the pension itself is no guarantee that the funds will be there perpetually and even less so with a company like GM .. spiraling to the bottom. 

For some reason, I keep seeing a pensions plan in the shape of a pointy silo ...


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

We spent six weeks in Australia two winters ago. Did a lot of driving. We saw a number of closed auto and auto engine factories (mostly Ford) that we closed. Our friends told us that Australia has lost all of its automobile manufacturing to SE Asia countries- Thailand etc. I fear that Canada and the US may be headed that way as production gets shifted to Mexico.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

My DB pension seems to be doing well I have been retired for 6 years now and received my statement.

It shows an actuarial surplus for a going concern basis and solvency basis the assets were equal to 94% of benefits accrued.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Wonder what future interest rate is assumed when they evaluate solvency and % of benefits accrued. Would be surprised if many DB pension plans were fully funded if the current low interest rate environment were to persevere. 

Canada is small though, the next major crisis will come when the boomers retire and claim their municipal DB pensions in the States. Those are all bankrupt.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

They cannot simply use any interest rate. They use a prescribed formulae. Just as they do when calculating the commuted values of a member's entitlement.

If interest rates increase we will see an increase in the funding levels for pension plans and a corresponding decrease in commuted values. 

There is another side to this. There have been periods of high interest rates and returns, high enough that some employers did not have to make even regular payments into the DB plan. Asset growth and declining commuted values took care of it for them. The current situation is the other side of the coin so to speak.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

ian said:


> *They cannot simply use any interest rate. *They use a prescribed formulae. Just as they do when calculating the commuted values of a member's entitlement.
> 
> If interest rates increase we will see an increase in the funding levels for pension plans and a corresponding decrease in commuted values.
> 
> *There is another side to this. *There have been periods of high interest rates and returns, high enough that some employers did not have to make even regular payments into the DB plan. *Asset growth and declining commuted values took care of it for them. *The current situation is the other side of the coin so to speak.


 ... yes, they can use any interest rate (even the formula is prescribed) as they deem fit - or to fit the other side of what you have described (bolded part).


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> An interesting article in the CBC talking about "ghost pensions", which are basically promises of future pensions to employees that the employer doesn't fund properly or immediately.
> 
> This would include both private and public pensions, where there are shortfalls due to underpayment by employers and employees. It is simply too easy to promise today to pay some time in the future.
> 
> ...


The only way to straighten out the pensions is to put more pressure for the companies to fund them properly, however, with the fall in interest rates, that's basically impossible.
Look at Canada Post, they're a few billion short to fully funding it, it's a nearly impossible situation.
It would be one thing if the companies had the money, but in most cases they quite simply don't have it, and it takes years to make up the shortage. 

The CPP fix is simple, force people to contribute more so they get out more. 

The issue is companies can't afford these super long time horizon obligations and should simply use DC pensions, DB are just too risky.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

It is not impossible. There are many well funded DB plans out there. We just hear about the big ones that are underfunded. There are some big ones that are in very, very good shape and have been for a number of years.

DB's are also risky for todays employees. Most employees today will have several employers, perhaps many, during their working lives. DB plans are set up so that the benefit accrues at an increasing rate with seniority and age. Participants in DB plans who change jobs do not reap the benefits....the DB plan does. For them, a DC plan is much better. Albeit a DC plan that has a reasonable employer contribution, ie 5-9 percent or more.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

Well said Ian.

Part of the problem with DB pensions is the courts ruled long ago that excess money belongs to the employer and agreed they were entitled to funding holidays. Had it been ruled that the money belonged to the pension fund we would not be faced with this problem today or for the last 15 years. We can all see what a 1% or 3% drop can do to the health of any pension plan.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Very good points. It makes the union's position with Canada Post confusing to me. Here is an industry that is rapidly changing, where a new hire has no certainty about the future. I would think the union would add more value by negotiating stellar DC terms for new employees rather than sticking with the DB, job for life model. It seems to me that they may actually be doing their members a disservice. Of course I don't know the details of the issues on the table.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Very good points. It makes the union's position with Canada Post confusing to me. Here is an industry that is rapidly changing, where a new hire has no certainty about the future. I would think the union would add more value by negotiating stellar DC terms for new employees rather than sticking with the DB, job for life model. It seems to me that they may actually be doing their members a disservice. Of course I don't know the details of the issues on the table.


I tend to agree the company I worked for changed many years ago from DB to DC for new hires even though our pension plan has always been in good shape. I don't think the postal union can win on this they really need to be talking about the best deal in terms of DC and see what they can do about the 6 billion deficit in the plan.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

The union is a smart negotiator.  They have a cadre of professionals with sharp pencils who can quickly discern the math on a deal.

Who is to say that the union is not positioning over DB and is ultimately prepared to make it a gimme? 

The union negotiators could well be using this position as a bargaining tool to enhance the current DC offer that is on the table for new employees. Perhaps move the employer contribution rate up a point or two? Plus, they are appearing to be very tough to their membership...important factor to the elected executive. This is what I would do if I were them. No doubt there are lots of other balls up in the air in this contract. The public does not get to see everything.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

^+1 Very true. It certainly is a fine line they tread, holding out and potentially putting your members off work to ostensibly keep benfits for new members who aren't even there yet. 
It reminds me of "Final Offer", the 1985 documentary by the NFB of Bob White and the UAW in negotiations. It's a different world today in so many ways. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjJp63qwm8A


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

ian said:


> ... Most employees today will have several employers, perhaps many, during their working lives. DB plans are set up so that the benefit accrues at an increasing rate with seniority and age. Participants in DB plans who change jobs do not reap the benefits....the DB plan does. For them, a DC plan is much better.


YMMV ... my experience is that a DB pension that is transferred to a combination of LIRA/RRSP worked way better than the DC plans I have been offered. 

Putting aside being able to choose from a much broader set of investments and costs ... the allegedly similar DC pension at the same company meant the employer contribution dropped from 3% or so to 1%. I was much happier to take the higher contributions into a LIRA and sometimes an RRSP.




ian said:


> ... Albeit a DC plan that has a reasonable employer contribution, ie 5-9 percent or more.


Question is ... how many are that high?

To date, the DC plans offered to me have had a high water mark for the employer contribution of 2%, with some being 1%. That was for a multi-national company.


Cheers


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I know of several DC plans where the employer matches up to 5 percent. Was told about one at 6 the other day but there are a few high ones but they may be supplemental management employees. My employer had a DC plan with up to 5 percent match. Multinationals, high tech. I think that six and six is a great number. 

Resigning and getting the commuted value of a DB plan is fine but it very much depends on your age and service. If you are under 40 with only a five years or so service you generally will not get much. Of course the commuted value also depends on the current/projected interest rates. And some plans do not vest until 2 years of service. I got an insignificant amount of money from my DB at age 35 w/seven years of service (granted interest rates were higher) when I left an employer.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Does anyone know where to find current data on the funding level (deficit) of Canadian pensions?

I found this current Mercer data for US pensions in a recent Bloomberg news article. This is showing the deficit in American pension plans. This is really amazing! Though the pensions have been chronically in a deficit ever since 2008, with the recent market rally, they are now only around 5% deficit.

This crazy market rally has almost rescued the American pensions.


----------



## fireseeker (Jul 24, 2017)

Mercer appears to crunch these numbers globally.
Here is a Globe story about the end-of-2020 health of Canada's pension plans.



> Canadian pension plans have returned to prepandemic solvency levels after a bruising 2020 thanks to a strong rebound in equity markets, although risks remain owing to low interest rates and uncertainty around the trajectory of the pandemic.
> 
> Funding ratios for defined benefit (DB) pension plans – the ratio of assets to the estimated cost of paying the future benefits promised by the plan – took a major hit last spring as stock markets collapsed and interest rates dropped. By the end of 2020, however, funding ratios for the typical Canadian pension plan had returned to their prepandemic levels, according to reports by two consulting firms published Monday.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Does anyone know where to find current data on the funding level (deficit) of Canadian pensions?


Not sure why Google isn't working for you.

It's revealing articles that say pension funding is at a new all time high of 114% (Mercer's tracking index started in 1999).








Pension plans end 2020 as well-funded as they began it | Mercer Canada


Driven by equities, Canadian pension plans’ funded position continued to recover in 2020, ending the year as well-funded as they began it. However, risks lie ahead.




www.mercer.ca






Cheers

*PS*
Keep in mind that March 2020's crash are described as dropping pension funding by 13% to 80% so the 2019 numbers were 93% or so.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eclectic12 said:


> It's revealing articles that say pension funding is at a new all time high of 114% (Mercer's tracking index started in 1999).


This is great news. If anyone doubts why central banks lean towards stimulus to boost markets.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

ian said:


> I know of several DC plans where the employer matches up to 5 percent. Was told about one at 6 the other day but there are a few high ones but they may be supplemental management employees. My employer had a DC plan with up to 5 percent match. Multinationals, high tech. I think that six and six is a great number ...


Agreed .... IIRC, it would have beat the DB pension employer's contributions.

I can't remember if I mentioned it in this thread but the other change the DC pension brought in for those defaulted to it was that anyone below manager lost their DB pension.
Someone at my level who started one month after I did was on their own as they received their salary, had access to a company Group RRSP and that was it.




ian said:


> .... Resigning and getting the commuted value of a DB plan is fine but it very much depends on your age and service. If you are under 40 with only a five years or so service you generally will not get much. Of course the commuted value also depends on the current/projected interest rates. And some plans do not vest until 2 years of service. I got an insignificant amount of money from my DB at age 35 w/seven years of service (granted interest rates were higher) when I left an employer.


I had ten years of service, where I had passed the two years of service for vesting and it wasn't much.

The vesting is less of an issue as most provinces have moved to immediate vesting.


Cheers


----------

