GM Raids Pension Fund: $11.6b for Buyouts, VEBA

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

Sunday? Sunday! That’s the day The Detroit Free Press chose to tell the world that GM’s recent accounts contain a time bomb: the revelation that the company raided—sorry, “borrowed from”—its employee pension fund to buy out United Auto Workers employees and pay into their health care fund. Even though we’ve become used to gigantic numbers, the sums involved are staggering. “Details are emerging about how General Motors Corp.’s U.S. pension funds went from a $20-billion surplus at the end of 2007 to a $12.4-billion deficit 12 months later.” I make that a $32.4-billion swing. It’s also approximately $11.4 billion more than GM’s CFO estimated its pension deficit, as declared in The General’s December pre-bailout report.

The GM pension funds’ erosion last year included $11.3 billion in value because of investment losses; $2.9 billion for hourly and salaried attrition programs, and another $8.7 billion for increases in benefit payments as part of changes to retiree health care and a deal regarding Delphi’s bankruptcy . . .

GM said it used $2.3 billion from the hourly pension fund to pay for buyouts in its UAW special attrition program, which encouraged thousands of workers to voluntarily leave the company as a cost-cutting move. The company also used $2.7 billion for the retiree health care trust—called a VEBA, or voluntary employee beneficiary association. GM spent another $2.3 billion for Delphi’s hourly pension program.

Also, as part of GM’s decision to cut company health care benefits for salaried retirees 65 or older, it increased pension benefits to retirees at a cost of $3.7 billion. The company spent another $600 million on white-collar retirement incentives.

The rest of the pension funds’ declines were attributed to service and interest costs, as well as changes in the discount rate and actuarial assumptions ($2.2 billion because people are living longer than expected).

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. raised the red flag on GM’s pension funding last fall. And for good reason. And now union members (650k are “covered” by the fund) are scared shitless.

“They robbed it blind to pay off the people to get them to leave,” said Paul Heller, a GM salaried retiree from Washington, Mich. “I’ve got a retiree club that’s absolutely sick about it.”

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 32 comments
  • Geo. Levecque Geo. Levecque on Mar 02, 2009

    What's going to happen to Canadian GM workers in Ontario re there Pension, one of two things, the Premier who wants to continue to be elected will cave in and have the Taxpayers here take the hit or he will let the retired GM Workers carry the can more or less, after all they made good money while they worked, surely they were wise to put Money away for a rainy day eh? We should all know after the Budget comes down on the 26th of March!

  • Jennygoren Jennygoren on Jun 21, 2012

    On June 1, General Motors released information that they plan on reducing their pension plan liabilities by an expected 26 billion dollars. GM hopes to accomplish this by offering selected U.S. GM retirees an option to take a lump-sum payment, while other retirees may continue to collect monthly pension benefits. Additional plan details have been outlined as a guide at this website: http://www.gmpensionbuyout.net. Because of the plan complexities and the July 20, 2012 deadline, it is suggested that affected plan members seek advice from a qualified financial advisor.

  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh A prelude is a bad idea. There is already Acura with all the weird sport trims. This will not make back it's R&D money.
  • Analoggrotto I don't see a red car here, how blazing stupid are you people?
  • Redapple2 Love the wheels
  • Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
Next