I saw what I saw, and worked on what I worked on: internal projections in 2008 that were projecting a 4.5% GDP growth rate for 2008, and a 5% GDP growth rate for the years 2009-2012. Those numbers were used to try and generate what baseline interest there would be in going to various branches of the business in the future, and that would help determine projected EE headcounts and so forth and so on.
Now, how close were those numbers to what actually happened? That’s what I saw and worked with. And yes, told them that those numbers were impossible to meet. The bosses didn’t want to hear it, because their bosses didn’t want to hear it, all the way up to the guys at the very top.
There were some really funny assumptions in there about interest rates to be used computing actuarial obligations to the pension funds. Those were HIDEOUSLY wrong, as I saw that in statements my mother got about her pension. But to be fair, those numbers were on the actuaries that had been hired to do the projections.
But please, feel free to tell me that what I saw and worked on wasn’t what I saw and worked on, and that you, brilliant business man that you are, can tell me that it was something completely different. I mean, you’re going to anyway.
Settle down. I’m the King of Empiricism, and respect that far more than professors and their “studies.” Sometimes electronic communication distorts or does not fully convey.
But I do have some questions. Who in their right mind would even take those GDP assumptions seriously without belly laughing? Was this a public or private entity? You didn’t actually “work with” those numbers, right? They were absurd on their face. And what were the actual actuarial assumptions? Here in IL they still insist on using about 8% returns for public pension asspns. But that’s the government. I know of no private enterprise using that rate of return.
Hey, it’s not like corporations don’t do the same thing.
—
The SEC takes issue with that. Your comment is a bit cavalier.
I saw what I saw, and worked on what I worked on: internal projections in 2008 that were projecting a 4.5% GDP growth rate for 2008, and a 5% GDP growth rate for the years 2009-2012. Those numbers were used to try and generate what baseline interest there would be in going to various branches of the business in the future, and that would help determine projected EE headcounts and so forth and so on.
Now, how close were those numbers to what actually happened? That’s what I saw and worked with. And yes, told them that those numbers were impossible to meet. The bosses didn’t want to hear it, because their bosses didn’t want to hear it, all the way up to the guys at the very top.
There were some really funny assumptions in there about interest rates to be used computing actuarial obligations to the pension funds. Those were HIDEOUSLY wrong, as I saw that in statements my mother got about her pension. But to be fair, those numbers were on the actuaries that had been hired to do the projections.
But please, feel free to tell me that what I saw and worked on wasn’t what I saw and worked on, and that you, brilliant business man that you are, can tell me that it was something completely different. I mean, you’re going to anyway.
—
Settle down. I’m the King of Empiricism, and respect that far more than professors and their “studies.” Sometimes electronic communication distorts or does not fully convey.
But I do have some questions. Who in their right mind would even take those GDP assumptions seriously without belly laughing? Was this a public or private entity? You didn’t actually “work with” those numbers, right? They were absurd on their face. And what were the actual actuarial assumptions? Here in IL they still insist on using about 8% returns for public pension asspns. But that’s the government. I know of no private enterprise using that rate of return.
They would get sued.