If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know if the early retirement CPP/OAS top up is general or specific to certain plans.
I believe it's pretty standard these days when the boomers are starting to take early retirements. The Municipal pension plan in B.C. has had that provision for around thirty years anyway, and I believe the plan for the provinical government is the same.
What's the alternative though? they lost less than the market...isn't that worth something? if you penny pinch on people taking care of billion dollar pensions and only reward them for hitting home runs, don't be surprised when they start swinging for the fences...
The alternative is to invest in assets which are lower risk. A more or less assured percentage gain without the large risk. I think they used to invest that way before the euphoria and greed inherent in market gains took hold. Slow and steady and safe.
Frankly, I'd fire anyone who was "swinging for the fences".
I don't think it much matters how you cut it, a 24 Billion dollar loss, or around 20% or more of our national pension plan, is startling. I think someone should be looking at the investments, how the portfolio is balanced, and so forth to determine if the investments were advisable. Were the equity investments reasonably solid like the banks which pay a good dividend or were they the Nortel's of the nation. What's the quality of the real estate part of the portfolio and the return?
As and example, were they selling down the oil investments when the price of oil went over $125.00? The chart had a parabolic pattern. The price was historically high. There were also seasonal factors involved. I knew to short oil when it went over $140.00 and did well. Did the professionals know?
Personally, I'd get rid of 20% of the employees working on that pension plan. There's that much less money to manage so it follows they need fewer and better people to ensure they don't reduce our pension plan to ZERO.
If they lost less than the market isn't really much comfort. Would it surprise you if I told you I'm up over the same period of time?
Lower risk assets historically (i.e. over long periods) do less well than higher risk ones. The government is forced to engage in relatively risky investments because they know that if they don't they can never afford to pay for all of those retirees that are just around the corner. People normally ignore the first half of "greater risk = greater reward" part of the equation. That's why so many jump ship or hesitate to get in when the markets start to tank. They don't have the stomach for it.
$100,000,000,000 looks like a huge amount of money. But if you divide it into say 5,000,000 retirees it works out to a measly $20K per person.
The solution is obvious, but no way any government would go for it. What they should do is tell people that they are on their own. The government is out of the pension business. If you don't have enough money to retire, then I guess you will be working your entire life. This would allow people like you to make smart investments with the money you save not having to pay CPP and have an even better standard of living in your retirement, if you so choose. No need to fork over money to CPP; you can choose to invest it, save it, spend it on whatever you want (e.g. you know you are going to die before you retire so you figure it's pointless to save). Let the individual control his/her own destiny and keep the government out of it as much as possible.
As for Mr. Seedhouse's idea that
"The GM plan would be well funded too, had various governments not allowed the company to "defer" their premium payments. That wasn't a decision made by the workers and they objected to it in fact, but they get to pay for those decisions they had no say over."
Seems to me that if GM had used that money to fund their pension plans they would have been bankrupt even quicker. The socialist types may believe that pensions are good and that cradle to grave government interference is a fine idea. The niggling little problem is that society can't afford it, in the same way that GM obviously couldn't.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Seems to me that if GM had used that money to fund their pension plans they would have been bankrupt even quicker. The socialist types may believe that pensions are good and that cradle to grave government interference is a fine idea. The niggling little problem is that society can't afford it, in the same way that GM obviously couldn't.
First, I am not a socialist. I believe in a mixed economy with a vigerous well regulated private sector and a government provides necessary services where the private sector cannot do that well.
Second, pensions are not "socialism". They are straightforward annuities and anyone who has studied how insurance works will understand this.
Third, people are going to get old and sick and then die, you and I included. The question is, I hope, not "are we going to take care of them when they can't take care of themselves?", but "HOW are we going to take care of then when they can't take care of themselves?"
If the question is the first one, then we should stop pretending to be a civilized society.
Third, your belief that we cannot "afford" to do this is merely a belief. One that is not, in my opinion, supported by the evidence, nor do you provide any.
$100,000,000,000 looks like a huge amount of money. But if you divide it into say 5,000,000 retirees it works out to a measly $20K per person.
The solution is obvious, but no way any government would go for it. What they should do is tell people that they are on their own. The government is out of the pension business. If you don't have enough money to retire, then I guess you will be working your entire life. This would allow people like you to make smart investments with the money you save not having to pay CPP and have an even better standard of living in your retirement, if you so choose. No need to fork over money to CPP; you can choose to invest it, save it, spend it on whatever you want (e.g. you know you are going to die before you retire so you figure it's pointless to save). Let the individual control his/her own destiny and keep the government out of it as much as possible.
If you are saying there are that many people collecting CPP, I'd like a reference. I seem to recall they changed the constitution to allow Quebec to run their own plan so the number you mention is startling on a population which includes only around 75% of Canadian total population.
The government can't simply walk away from the pension fund. I can recall back around 1965, when the plan started, myself and the people I worked with weren't thrilled to have the percentage taken from our pay cheques. One week the cheque was X. The next week and the cheque was X - the CPP deduction. Some of them didn't know where their mortgage payments were going to come from. Many had to renegotiate longer terms with smaller payments as soon as they could, to make ends meet.
To suggest these people haven't contributed to their pension and retirement is just plan wrong thinking. Some who were 18 at the time might not even have started collecting their pensions as yet, but they have been paying all these years.
I think there is some proposed legislation to deal with future early retirements from the CPP.
A lot of the guys I worked with didn't live enough years to collect the pension. Others who did were gone before they got to 70.
Company pensions are a bit different. I think a person has to consider the prospects of their employer if they are paying into a plan.
Anyhow, you and I will probably never agree on pensions and long term care for people. It's not so much a political thing with me about helping people out (socialism) but more a religious belief. I've done a lot of volunteer work over the years whose rewards were not monetary.
To be clear: I did not mean to imply that 5,000,000 people are presently collecting CPP. I meant that they will be ... soon. My number is even (I think) grossly conservative.
Let's look at some numbers from the 2001 census found here:
Keep in mind though that these numbers are much lower than what is going to happen after 2011 as the Baby Boomers at say a rate of 350,000/yr reach 65+. Yes, not everyone is going to retire the moment they can, and the government can start ratcheting up the age required to collect. But on the other hand people are living longer and there are pesky things like inflation to consider (not to mention the possibility of some prolonged stockmarket slump with year-over-year big losses).
In any event, I am not suggesting that people who have paid in their whole lives shouldn't be allowed to collect. They entered into a social contract in good faith and the government should stand by its side of the agreement (no matter how stupid that agreement was).
However, for younger people (say below 50) those people should get their payments back, with some modest interest, all tax-free, and be encouraged to invest it or save it for retirement.
The sooner people realize that the government can do little for them, the better off in the long run they will be.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
The question is, I hope, not "are we going to take care of them when they can't take care of themselves?", but "HOW are we going to take care of then when they can't take care of themselves?"
No. The question is "HOW are we going to EDUCATE them so that they can take care of themselves?" Consider how many people know nothing about finance, personal or otherwise. They have no clue and, worse yet, they don't want to know. And why should they? There will always be people making excuses for them.
I have a friend in California who sold all his municipal and state bonds because their idiot government is pretty much bankrupt (more pesky unfunded liabilities like pensions) and he figured it was too risky holding the bag. What is the state government doing? Economizing? Raising taxes? No. They are begging the Feds (the guys with the printing presses) for more money.
Third, your belief that we cannot "afford" to do this is merely a belief. One that is not, in my opinion, supported by the evidence, nor do you provide any.
I think my previous post will be useful when answering this objection. Yes, someone will no doubt point out that the economists say we have enough money to deal with the glut of retirees. Just a thought: these are the same economists who thought our economy was awesome and we would have no deficit or a small deficit this year.
Maybe I missed the part where you explain how having GM put their money in their pension plan would have made the company more robust.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Maybe I missed the part where you explain how having GM put their money in their pension plan would have made the company more robust.
Well since you never justified your claim by any actual evidence I don't see why I should have to justify my differing viewpoint.
GM negotiated their pension plans with their unions and where I come from you should honour your contracts until you can renegotiate them if necessary. Actually even GM is not claiming the cost of pensions as the major problem, but the cost of medical care for the pensioners, which is largely caused by an irrational system of medical care in the USA.
The cost of pensions is actually a very low percentage of production cost and was in fact more than offset by the increased production levels of the workers who along the way accepted various forms of automation without making a huge fuss.
The problems they have today were caused by many factors and many many bad management decisions over a long time, which the unionized workforce were not responsible for. But they now get to bear the cost of those bad decisions while the people who caused the disaster will end up rich.
GM negotiated their pension plans with their unions and where I come from you should honour your contracts until you can renegotiate them if necessary. Actually even GM is not claiming the cost of pensions as the major problem, but the cost of medical care for the pensioners, which is largely caused by an irrational system of medical care in the USA.
...
i think if pensions are an issue, a fair negotation would be to have the auto workers actually contribute to their own pension fund. in the HOOPP pension (which i belong), the employer contribute $1.30 for every dollar of contribution that they take from me. a model like this would make the pension more palatable than the GM model where the employees contribute *nothing* and then are surprised when there is nothing on the other end when they retire...
i think if pensions are an issue, a fair negotation would be to have the auto workers actually contribute to their own pension fund. in the HOOPP pension (which i belong), the employer contribute $1.30 for every dollar of contribution that they take from me. a model like this would make the pension more palatable than the GM model where the employees contribute *nothing* and then are surprised when there is nothing on the other end when they retire...
I seem to recall part of what the CAW agreed to in the latest contract included a $1.00 and hour payment toward their pension plan. The union argument on their pension plan would likely be that previously they paid the money anyhow because it was negotiated instead of money.
If you want to take this a little farther, let's look at disability insurance. Either the company can pay your disability insurance or they can give you the money and you pay for it. What's the difference? I think the difference is (or was) that if they pay the disability insurance for you and you have to collect because you become disabled, the benefits are taxable. If they give you the money in your pay and deduct it for the insurance then your benefits are not taxable. It's an insurance policy you have paid for.
An engineer at an auto company once told me that if you count everything that goes into a vehicle, right down to the last bolt, there is more energy that goes into manufacturing a vehicle than the average owners will put in the gas tank during the life of the vehicle. I don't think our Western Canadian energy producing provinces will complain too strenuously about the bailout.
For example, a couple of contracts ago CUPE in the Victoria B.C. area negotiated a big increase in the employer share of various benefits. To the employer this was an increase in their salary costs and so we ended up taking less of an "up front" raise.
The main difference is how benefit shares are taxed and who pays the taxes, and the benefit shares, in the absence of specific legislation, is generally arranged so that the total tax cost will be as low as possible.
When the press talks about the "cost" of GM workers they always include the cost of the benefits as part of the wage cost, which they should indeed do.
Last edited by Ed Seedhouse; Thursday, 4th June, 2009, 01:36 PM.
However, for younger people (say below 50) those people should get their payments back, with some modest interest, all tax-free, and be encouraged to invest it or save it for retirement.
The sooner people realize that the government can do little for them, the better off in the long run they will be.
I don't think you will see that happen. I can't see the government winding up a 100 Billion plan and sending the money to the citizens. People in their 40's will find it a little late to do the kind of savings you suggest. I can see the class action lawyers getting involved.
In any case they will end up with worse problems than they have now. People around 70 with Alzheimers and in need of nursing home care. Now their pensions tend to cover a lot of it. Without pensions it becomes a social problem. Probably better to be sending them a monthly pension than to give them a lump sum when they are younger and having to pay the nursing home charges as well from the health care or whatever.
You can go from talking to someone and showing him something on your computer to waking up in a hospital not being able to move and then having to learn to walk again, as fast as you can say it. Happened to a relative a few months ago. Strokes happen that fast when you get over 65.
In this country I don't think a government which wants to take apart the social net would last long. If we have learned anything from recent history, we should have learned that a government which does not do the wishes of the people, such as the Mulroney government, can be reduced from a majority to a mere 2 seats and the entity never again forming the government in this country. The Progressive Conservative party was folded into the old Reform Party as a junior partner. Even as a combined political party, the voters have not yet seen fit to give them a majority government.
It's been awhile since I last wrote in this thread. I've now had my electronics replaced. Hopefully this pack will work for me as well as the last one. The settings seem to be different, or at least they feel different.
Since I last wrote GM has declared bankruptcy. The government has promised money. GM now trades over the counter, I think it is. The symbol is GMGMQ which reminds me of EI-EI-O. My understanding is the "Q" denotes the company is in bankruptcy.
The leader of the federal liberal party has done enough this week to convince me he's not someone I can support. I like leaders who have cojones. Leaders like Jean Chretien. When Day dared him to call an election he did and won. Who can ever forget the Shawinigan Handshake?
In this case, the Prime Minister ran ads saying Ingatieff is "just visiting" and he hasn't defended himself by taking it to the polls. He let a bully kick sand in his face. I figure if he won't fight for himself he won't fight for me either.
Sometimes the worth of a political party is evident from the judgment, or lack thereof, they show in choosing their leader.
So we continue to throw Billions at foreign auto companies which make and sell products we have no idea if people will buy. It would be just as easy to mandate foreign automakers have to build one vehicle in Canada for every one they sell.
The Americans are making a mockery of the free trade agreement with their Buy American stance. Maybe it's time to opt out and tell the Americans we won't sell raw natural resources in the future. If they want our natural resources they should have to buy the finished products. Their country of origin labeling for meat is a travesty.
The worst province in Canada for investing, in my opinion, is B.C. For a good 30 years now I have been buying assets there only if they are dirt cheap. The latest is Catalyst Paper for which I paid chump change. The towns in which they operate are charging property taxes of 10 to 20 times the residential rate. The company is going to court to try to get the tax rates overturned. In any case, I realize the pulp and paper business is unlikely to ever be what it was. My main hope is they will permanently shut down at least one of their mills and maximize the usage in the others. I seem to recall the tax rates for major industrial in Alberta is capped at 4 time the residential rate. Anyhow, the company is trying to get concessions from some of their unions to bring the labour cost per tonne to $80.00.
I like trucking companies. Can't recall if I mentioned it but the last one I bought was Pacer International in the U.S. They lost money, had to suspend the dividend, and take a lot of other measures to try to get back to profitability. I like what they are doing to get profitable but the stock price got creamed. So I've bought some at slightly more than it's currently trading. Frankly, it's trading like it's about to go bankrupt. Still, if the shares get down under $2.00 I'll buy more. That company has traded for over $30.00 a share. Trucking companies is a thing with me and not to everyone's liking. Some people like shipping and the Baltic Dry Index which I don't even understand. I like trucking. Most of the others I still hold.
DISCLAIMER: None of what I write should be used for investment decisions. I write this stuff for entertainment. Consult a financial advisor.
Harpers ads are just plain offensive... as someone who is just right of Attila the Hun I could never support Harper. American style attack ads offend me to the core of my being.
As for investing in BC, sure its not great if you are just looking at the forestry sector, but Im pretty sure there are other companies in BC that are worth looking at :)
As for GM, good riddance. Even if the Government hands out cash, I would never buy one of those bailout buggy's.
I certainly hope you don't have any nortel stocks left :)
Harpers ads are just plain offensive... as someone who is just right of Attila the Hun I could never support Harper. American style attack ads offend me to the core of my being.
As for investing in BC, sure its not great if you are just looking at the forestry sector, but Im pretty sure there are other companies in BC that are worth looking at :)
As for GM, good riddance. Even if the Government hands out cash, I would never buy one of those bailout buggy's.
I certainly hope you don't have any nortel stocks left :)
It not just forestry. Take something like sugar. They get caught with the B.C. carbon tax. I just consider it a high taxation province where it's hard for a company and investor to make money.
Let's go back to around 1980. I had shares in Lacana Mining. It was producing Mexican silver and Nevada gold mines. But it also had a small uranium project in B.C. Early stage exploration. Moratorium on uranium exploration, as I recall, and the value dropped a dollar or two. B.C. is just too unpredictable for me - unless I get a real deal.
I never had Nortel. Talked about buying it if the price got low but never did. Do you know that when it stopped trading today both the share price and market value of Nortel was more than on a going concern like Catalyst? Catalyst made money in the first quarter from what I read.
Regarding autos, I think one has to consider resale value before buying any auto. I figure if I buy a car and want to trade it in 3 years it should have a reasonable value. As an example, 3 to 5 thousand on an auto which originally cost 30 thousand isn't reasonable after such a short period of time. Unless there is something seriously wrong with the car or I really hate it, I'd just keep driving it. This might be part of the reason new cars aren't selling. The trade in doesn't always pay the sales taxes.
I'm open minded so which companies in BC are worth a look?
Tweet
Comment