Thread regarding Chevron Corp. layoffs

It is obvious from many of the posts in this thread that the people who favor the annuity are settled, wealthy, have an appreciable nest egg, and are well-traveled, educated, financially astute and have won the game of life. They can afford the annuity. The other group likes to stalk posters, hurl insults, and have no argument in favor of taking the lump sum other than fear of losing something and being green with envy at others who can afford to choose either one.

Popcorn, and her countless VPN faces, has, I fear, taken the joint annuity and now is experiencing some sleepless nights trying to figure out how to live largely on SS at age 70 and up. We will now doubt hear about how Popcorn has a fabulous Houston house with a two-car garage, bay window and custom wall paper, tens of millions of savings from decades of savvy investing and a plan to live $3500 month from the annuity until SS kicks in "because he can".

Agree with Sljs, I have personally done that with tremendous success. Dont know what gold bullion stashing nut-job popcorn boy calling snxc is trying to push or what o---ids he's on but not someone who's advice id take.

Hey @Rulo, You go by the handle “Certified Fiduciary”. That’s the joke of the century. I laughed so hard, I think I snapped a rib.

I am the REAL POPCORN BOY! Do not DARE to impersonate me! lol.

Rtwo, I am retired, quite wealthy and living large, with my Act II MOVIE THEATER BUTTER!!!!!

LMAO at pathetic clueless losers like you arguing with numerous others that you incorrectly think are the REAL POPCORN BOY about pension plans! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

Keep it up, don't stop while you're behind, I'm enjoying the clown show! .

“I posted facts below“...really popcorn boy? I failed to notice any at all. As to the folks who do no understand the link between the lump (or annuity) payout and Soc Security discussed below, it would be a good idea to read about it in your retirement paperwork from Chevron if you’re still an employee (for those already retired, don’t worry about it, party on).

@Qeby, Please don’t offer advise or opinion on subjects you know too little about. Ask questions instead and learn before speaking. It’s obvious you’ve impressed yourself, but it’s not working on anyone else. Word!

You are 100% correct on that one, Qeby, When comparing the lump sum vs pension annuity the former is in no way shape or form somehow superior. It is quite inferior, unless you are CVX or are a major shareholder..

Whoever is learning from their celebrated Financial Advisor that, when comparing the lump sum vs pension that the former is somehow superior because of Social Security is failing the test of Logically Correct Reasoning. Time to recycle to Phase 2. Your SS benefits are the same either way. The only way I can imagine SS coming into the picture is that SS, like the pension, is a forced monthly income which can lead to adverse tax consequences. Lumpers have 100% control on how the lump is converted to income and can control their taxes as a result. Lumpers can optimize around SS and RMDs and even manage Roth conversions if needed to lower taxes further. Pensioners have no options.

Who the heck is "popcorn boy"? I posted facts below then all of a sudden I become "popcorn boy" because someone doesn't like the facts? Since you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Got it. Typical lack of rebuttal - name-calling from someone with no clue.

In any event - Happy Easter everyone.

I think what I’m about to say has already been brought up on this thread, but certainly was discussed in a thread of its own— Social Security Offset. When you are about to retire from Chevron, forcibly or on your own, please don’t overlook an important factor on how your pension (annuity or lump sum) is calculated. The social security offset that is ASSUMED and used by Chevron could be reducing your total benefit. Look into this and decided if it’s in your best interest to provide Chevron with your actual SS earnings. Look up and resurrect the old thread or create a new one to continue the discussion. I’ll only say that over 95% of Chevron employees with less than 20 years of service will profit from handing your SS Statement over to the retirement people in HR.

-Qcdx: there are so many wrong statements in your last post it is not even worth replying popcorn boy. Have a great Easter and stop kidding the dog.

Qjab, I think that you may be lost and are on the wrong website. This is not the open -mouth guys , and people exposing themselves website. That's the other one, you know, the one that you always look at all day.

Who's popcorn boy? Are you guys now trying to equate life insurance, which you only collect pennies on after someone dies, with the annuity, either one, which you collect on every single day that you're alive? Wow. that's a reach.

@Qncv, there you go, exposing yourself. Better to remain quiet and to be thought foolish than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

What happened. Popcorn boy’s brain explode?

I looked into this too. Adding insult to injury, the insurance companies embellish the annuity scam on the joint survivorship terms. It's like selling you an extended warranty on a microwave oven. The joint option reduces your monthly payment irreversibly. If your spouse dies early, you are SOL. If you die first, your spouse collects your life insurance. If you don't have life insurance, you can purchase it for way less than the difference between the monthly single and joint annuity payments.

Qncv, Yes, many of us have grown up to be real men and women. What happened to you? You Shillary voters, after failing and losing miserably, will never be "quite". We understand that you have nothing left to lose so you approach everything foolishly and nonsensical, so bitter and vengeful. You are whining like pathetic little stuck pigs and continue to do so. You are now aware of the cliff that your corrupt pantsuit leader led you over.

@Qdve, No, it’s not reasonable and I’m not dense either. That sounds like the s-u-c-k-e-r bets the Vegas c-sinos love you to make. Take the joint survivor annuity if you have a spouse. If your spouse is near your own age, the reduced amount compared with the single life annuity won’t be that much. You and your spouse have only one life to live. Don’t try to game the outcome or place silly bets against yourself. Live your retirement with peace of mind and with as little risk as possible.

-Qdls: Are you really that dense? The idea is to get the single (rather than joint) annuity and take life insurance out on yourself. If you die first, the annuity payments stop but the income for your spouse is replaced by the life insurance pay out. I have no idea if Pswn is correct that this would be a cheaper option, but it sounds reasonable.

@Pswn, quit stirring the pot. Your trolling to irritate is abundantly clear. Comparing the annuity to life insurance shows your immaturity. First off, it’s obvious the life insurance only pays out (to someone else) after you’re dead. The annuity has a real benefit to the annuitant every month that they live. The joint survivor annuity provides peace of mind as the amount is not reduced and continues on for the spouse to benefit from. In all cases, that is really how the math works out.

@Pswn, I did the math. Your math is so wrong that it's laughable, but continue to post desperate bs, it's entertaining - lol!

The annuity is dubious enough on its own but taking the 100% joint makes even less sense. The annual "cost" vs the sole annuity is 3x what it could cost to get the equivalent with life insurance, at least in my case that is how the math works out. If you already have life insurance, it makes even less sense.

Ptqv, We are sincerely sorry to read that you are being soon parted with some of your assets. Perhaps you should have made better financial decisions earlier in life instead of waiting until pension option time.

Indeed. Listen to -Oahe. He knows his $hit. Meanwhile, I need to get a little more salt for this Marg.

Beautiful sunset today!

@Opqt, You are so confused that you are your own worst enemy. Everyone who knows enough about annuities understands it doesn’t pay a return. It is what it is. Now when you compare the lump sum conversion to the annuity, the difference in value (key word) can be related to an Internal Rate of Return (IRR). You just need to use your statistical mortality and an average market investment return consensus. The Society of Actuaries is the best gauge to go by.

Whoever promised you a 6% return on the annuity was blowing smoke up your trousers. The only rate relevant to an annuity is inflation and it is a negative rate compounded over time. It can be expected to range from -2 to -11% per annum based on the last couple decades experience.

“if your annuity is greater than 6% initial then it's a good deal”...your logic eludes me, since it is a fixed dollar amount that declines in value over time whereas a mortgage it a fixed interest rate. Maybe you should follow your own advice and check out some of the retirement chat sites. Either that, or if you are all well off as you claim, and therefore have no interest in maximizing your returns, find a nice beach and have that margarita... no worries.

Otth, No it is not that complicated at all. There are many good books available that you can read if you need a few tips. You may want to try some. Check out the retirement websites, they are a wealth of info. I try to help people like you all the time and they usually turn their lives around, at least many do. Don't be afraid to learn.

Yes, good example, If the mortgage was less than that 5 % interest, continue to pay the notes. just like they say that if your annuity is greater than 6% initial then it's a good deal. And since mine is well over 6% it is an exceptional deal. Therefore, maybe not for everyone, but for me it was a good choice with no regrets. And yes, it's great to have money that I can literally "throw away" if I want, but I am not doing that, unlike a few on this thread who don't understand annuities. And to the poster below who stated "must be nice" - Yes it is, it is Very nice, thanks for asking!

@Obsz, “That must be nice” or should you be saying “That is nice”? You said the former, so that indicates to me you don’t know firsthand. Just my observation.

Yes. thanks for agreeing with me. Ohnp, It's all about fear. Those timid souls with too much "fear" and few assets have many fears and in many cases they fear running out of money so they need to keep it in play in the market as a lump sum. The comfortable wealthy folks can lay back take the annuity and watch the cash roll in. They can also afford to risk plenty in the market with no fear. They do not fear about finances since they planned well. That must be nice!

-Oeob: I agree with your analysis. It really comes down to just how much one fears market fluctuations of your personal wealth vs fears long-term erosion of the value of ones saving. Those that accumulated huge retirement savings can make either choice without much worry, and those with less will be more impacted by their “luck” with either choice. Such is life.

Oeob That's a colorful and amusing analysis except that in many, if not most cases it is completely wrong. I am not frugal, not in the least, I buy what I want, eat out all the time at nice places. I am quite wealthy and I travel, vacation, spend freely and live in a $750k house, have a summer home own a nice boat, and several nice vehicles. I have done well in the stock market, extremely well, I have high 7 figures invested. I am a professional and have done very well with my career, as have many still at Chevron there and retired, I am not ashamed of it nor of treating myself to a good life.

I draw down from my brokerage accounts freely and annually, although I must admit it's more than I can spend no matter how hard I try, but as they say, you can't take it with you. My wife and I are happily enjoying the 100% joint survivor annuity which will remain until we both die. This describes many of our close friends colleagues as well. although maybe not with identical assets. I know a few people who took the lump sum as well, but it's not as common and it's usually people who had to pay off debt because quite the contrary, they did not do well throughout their lives with investing and made poor financial decisions.

Reading this thread, everyone is talking past each other in typical Chevron style. Lumpers are pointing out that the lump choice is financially superior by every measure including taxes. Pensioners are saying that is irrelevant because they want the security of the annuity and that those who are on it already are happy with the income the first few years or retirement. They don't want or need more money (and don't mind paying more taxes) because the modest annuity payment is enough to live on for their frugal lifestyle. When it runs out they hope to supplement with SS or with other savings. They are frugal and reluctant to live in drawdown mode spending their savings. In other words, they have other ways to make up for coming shortfall from the annuity and they are willing to do that because they like a secure monthly payment at the start of retirement. Different strokes for different folks. This is normal and common, especially among people who have not had good luck in stocks. The pensioners need to accept they are trading dollars for short term security. The lumpers need to accept they have less short term security as their portfolio could gyrate wildly with the stock market and that this could induce sleepless nights, even if it has no impact on their income. They will come out ahead in every scenario but a rollercoaster may be involved.

Yees I like cheerys. Please look into your crystal ball for me, I will plan thanks!

@Oymk, Delaying your social security start date to 70 is wise if you are still working. But if you are no longer producing taxable income, it’s better to start your benefits asap. That way you are collecting monthly benefits from an earlier date. One never knows when they will die or when the government will change the rules.

Thank you so much, "rich or poor" poster, for giving the one person's on this entire thread's view of the "unpopular" ever-lumper opinion in the last 2 posts by the same poster, you, as you have posted continuously on this thread previously.

It is not the assertion of the men and women who have enough saved to live until death and have much left over after with the annuity and Social Security together, a Cola'd (cost of living, inflation protected) financial plan to have to prove, it is simply personal experience being revealed. Not to mention portfolio's which can remain in play , in the market , growing, growing and growing without being touched.

You are the one presenting the argument opposing the verified, clearly presented, well-documented, tested and experienced data. It is not for the annuitants to prove why what is being successfully done works so fruitfully and successfully. It is for you, who poses the counter argument, to provide evidence for your position, which you apparently have none. We'll continue to wait for a reasonable explanation, but won't hold our breath.

By the way, because during some year in a recovery from a recession, you happened to earn 20% or whatever investing so you feel that you can do that every year, is not valid. Most of us are older and wiser than that. Try again.

As you may have read in the HBR, annuities which are not inflation-adjusted are not worth the paper they are printed on. Those that are inflation-adjusted are generally very expensive. If insurers were less spooked about inflation I guess they would be cheaper.