Conference 7.286::digital

    Right now DEC administers the funds itself.  The plan is to outsource
    this function to another company that specializes in administering
    these plans.  Who?? Possibly Fidelity, or Vangard, or a number of other
    firms that make this a "core competency".
    
    In a meeting a few months ago this information was shared and we were
    also led to believe that the new firms administering the plan will have
    more incvestment options and more flexibility, ie, changing
    contribution rates at any time as opposed to twice a year, etc...
    
    I do not expect any matching contributions or a change to the 8%
    contribution rate.

I wouldn't expect matching contributions.  I haven't even seen
raises yet, and that's a "benifit" we *used* to have, as opposed
to some new one that also costs the company $$ when its not making
a profit yet.

(Doesn't mean I wouldn't like it!)

Charlie

    What about past rumors of buying out, or converting our current pension
    fund into the 401K? Any chance that is part of this?
    
    Does anyone that understands the finance side of this know if its in
    DECs interest to convert the pensions? I am assuming they would not do
    it because of employee benefit, but surely if it benefits DEC it will
    happen.

From Reader's Choice mail received yesterday, 1 December 1994:

> As of April 10, 1995, Digital will enhance the SAVE Plan in several
> ways, offering more investment choices and making the plan considerably
> more flexible and accessible to you.  YOU'LL RECEIVE A BROCHURE AT HOME
> WITHIN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS DETAILING THESE CHANGES.
>
> If you're thinking of enrolling in SAVE or making contribution or
> investment changes during the current quarter to be effective January
> 1, 1995, you may want to consider the new investment choices described
> in the brochure.  THE DEADLINE FOR MAKING SUCH CHANGES IS DECEMBER 15.

(Emphasis added)

How many people will be getting the brochure in time to meet the 12/15
deadline?  How many won't?

- tom]

    re .4, .5
    
    I think you are getting over-excited. The way I read the announcement
    any SAVE changes you can make up to Dec 15 th are the normal types of
    changes you can make within the context of the existing plan. From what
    the announcement said there will be a major open enrollment period in
    March when the new plan is available.
    
    Furthermore, from the fact that new Fund A money is going into money
    market funds until the new SAVE plan choices are available would seem
    to indicate that you are going to be pretty free to move your money
    around when the new plan is implemented.
    
    Lyndon

    Can someone explain to me WHY I can't take my SAVE money out and roll
    it into another IRA until I am no longer a DEC employee?

    Federal Law

    re: .3
    I believe the question of whether or not it is in Digital's interest 
    to convert the pension plan to 401K with a percentage match really
    depends upon whether or not the current pension fund is over-funded.
    
    When they convert it over they get to keep any over-funding.  
    
    As best I can tell (I read through our annual report and 10k with
    a friend) it looks like the pension fund is over-funded by roughly
    150 million.  This means that $150 million could flow to the bottom
    line when the conversion occurs.  These figures are based on our
    interpretation of the numbers and I wouldn't bet much on that.
    
    Another benefit for the corporation would be that today they must
    plan pensions for all employees.  With a 401K and matching they might
    make out because not everyone puts money into the 401K plan.  For each
    employee that does not participate in the plan,  they essentially don't
    have to spend anything.
    
    I for one look forward to a more flexible 401K with more investment
    options.  It would be real nice if Digital would start matching some
    portion.
    
    Ken
   

    
    	The overfunding of the plan is a reality only if Digital is
    using a "current accounts" method of pension planning; ie. everyone
    eligible is "cashed" out today. Most companies do not use this method.
    They base pension payout on actuarial tables at age 65 for each vested
    employee by wage scale and fund growth. Be interesting if anyone
    reading our musings has any *real* information, otherwise we are just
    speculating.
    
    	Personally, I like having more 401 (k) choices than the losers we
    have today (note the last time ANY fund grew more than 14% in one
    year), hopefully we have some funds that understand agressive growth,
    international exposure, and growth/income investing. It would also be
    nice if we could put more than the paltry 8% in our 401(k) also so we
    could at least max the current legal limit ($9,240 for 1994).
    
    		the Greyhawk

Well, despite my concerns in .4, my own flyer came over the weekend.
Still, the timing of the message and the flyer are not optimal.
Consider:

> If you're thinking of enrolling in SAVE or making contribution or
> investment changes during the current quarter to be effective January
> 1, 1995, you may want to consider the new investment choices described
> in the brochure.  The deadline for making such changes is December 15.

says that you may want to consider the changes in the brochure and 
sign up before December 15th.  Still cutting the suggestion pretty close, eh?

- tom]

> If you're thinking of enrolling in SAVE or making contribution or
> investment changes during the current quarter to be effective January
> 1, 1995, you may want to consider the new investment choices described
> in the brochure.  The deadline for making such changes is December 15.

The investment choices described in the brochure do not take effect until
March.  Between now and then, more info will be coming out.  The brochure said
that we may want to make changes in the *current* plan by December 15th in
*anticipation* of the changes, based on how things might roll over, etc.  Note
that ALL of the current funds are soon to be history.

						Brian

    
    	Have just received my SAVE plan brochure for the *new* investment
    options. I now wish to correct my previous statements. This plan is
    terrible at best. The new funds replacing our existing funds are
    middle of the pack performers with much higher risk ratios than I
    prefer in 401 (k) investments. And several of them are pure dogs.
    	Who is responsible for this, and to whom do I voice my concern?
    If this is the best Digital can do - we are in serious trouble here.
    No self-respecting investment advisor would put a client's long-term
    401 (k) funds in Putnam Voyager or Templeton Foreign Fund, and the
    Neuberger & Berman Guardian TRUST fund is brand new with no track
    record. This is nuts.
    	If you invested in any of these funds this year you got hammered.
    At least the Windsor Fund was positive for 1994 (true only 1.4%, but
    that beats a 2.8% LOSS in the N-B fund).
    	I think we better rattle some people's cages here, but quick.
    
    		the Greyhawk

See note 330 in NYOSS1::digital_investing for a lot of discussion regarding
the 401K changes.  I agree totally with you that the 401k reorg is terrible
and everyone should speak up!

There is mention in the other notes file of a person to contact in 
investor services.  Her name is Barbara Rufo @MSO

gary

    I received the new enchanced SAVE plan brochure yesterday. I was 
    totally dissapointed by the choices.. We had 5 choices before and now
    we have 6 choices.. For this we spent all the time and energy !!!
    I am totally dissapointed  (Like many others) by the new choices. 
    Some of the funds in the new choices are unknown or losing money..
    When the time comes to do the transfer, we are going to get screwed big
    time. Investor services will force us to dump the Vanguard and
    other funds in one day and thus forcing us to sell low and make the
    pruchases of new funds on the same day making us to buy the new funds
    at a premium...
     
    I understand from the Digital_investing notes file, Barbara Rufo @ MSO 
    is forwarding the comments to the appropriate folks at corporate benefits 
    for a response.
    
    I would suggest that everyone express their support or dissatisfaction
    regarding the 401k changes as the case may be !!! 
    
    Jay

    Investor Services states on page 2 of its recent brochure mailed to
    investors' homes that "the SAVE Plan should support personal
    responsibility."  This is not the philosophy which Investor Services
    is actually pursuing, however.  The new announcement states that
    those of us who are satisfied with our current investments must roll
    over all previously-invested funds into a new fund, not simply start
    investing in the new funds.  I have been pleased with my investments
    in the Vanguard Windsor Fund.  Forbes magazine has written year
    after year (most recently in its August 27, 1994 issue) that the
    Windsor Fund would be listed on its honor roll if the fund were not
    closed to new investors.  Forbes grades the Windsor Fund "A" in an
    up market and "B" in a down market.  Annual expenses are $0.47 per
    $100.  Compare these statistics to the newly-chosen Neuberger &
    Berman Guardian Fund, which received grades of "A" and "C" in up and
    down markets, and has annual expenses of $0.81 per $100.  The
    importance of these "grades" is further explained by Forbes:  "It's
    one thing to have a great run during a bull market, quite another to
    hang on to capital when stocks are falling.  Never forget: If a fund
    doubles in a bull market, then proceeds to lose 50% in the ensuing
    bear market, it ends up not earning a dime for its holders."

    It is one thing for Investor Services to change its fund offerings
    and require employees to make future investments in one or more of
    the future offerings.  It is quite another thing to force employees
    to roll over previously-invested funds to a new fund.  Employees
    should be allowed the choice of rolling over previously-invested
    money or leaving previously-invested money in the current fund.  In
    a phone conversation with a representative of Vanguard Group of
    Investment Cos., the company which offers the Windsor Fund, Investor
    Services can allow employees to do just that.  If they really
    believe that employees should be personally responsible, they should
    offer that choice.
    

    What puzzles me is that Investor services which should have worked out
    all details by now is not giving out many details, which make me wonder
    as to what they are hiding or trying  to hide. If they have not nothing
    to hide,Why not send one brochure or E-Mail with all the information 
    before Dec 15, so that we can change funds suitably now. 
    
    Brochure talks about taking responsibility.. It is my view that
    Investor Services is the one which has prevented us all these days
    from taking responsibility by putting too many conditions regarding fund
    movement, limited investment options etc etc.
           

    what puzzles me is that given our company places so much emphasis on
    "benchmarking" to determine our worth in life as employees--it appears
    that we did not benchmark our new 401k against best in class in the
    high tech sector.  I can understand about not matching contributions at
    this time because of our financial situation--but the rest of it is
    very mediocre as has been expressed earlier   

re: .21

You don't understand.  "Benchmarking" is only cited when it can be used to
justify *lowering* a benefit.

Ray

    RE .14

>    No self-respecting investment advisor would put a client's long-term
>    401 (k) funds in Putnam Voyager or Templeton Foreign Fund, 

    Grayhawk,

    I think you say a lot of correct things when it comes to Digital,
    but it looks like it's a good thing you are not an investment advisor.
    These are exactly the types of funds that belong in a 401K plan.
    (At least for those of us with a long way to go 'till retirement).
    Sure, they're high risk, but over time they should outperform the
    market. As money put in a 401K plan is there for a long time, we
    should be able to ride out the short term risks.

    Yes, many people will find these investments risky, but many of
    us want this type of investment, and many investment advisors will
    suggest this type of investment for at least part of a long term
    portfolio.

    Don't get me wrong....I don't like the new SAVE, but I think you
    went a little overboard with some of your criticism.

    					Ed

    
    	re:23
    
    	Agreed with long-term orientation for you younger folks. But many
    of us are in our late 40s and early 50s and have no business taking
    a 10-year "flyer" on our retirement funds.
    	My major complaint is the way the funds are weighted. Templeton
    Foreign for example is 90% (that's right - 90 PERCENT) weighted in
    technology stocks with a average fund P/E ratio of 63. The S&P average
    P/E ratio is 20. We are not talking small risk here. And it gets better
    as you dig into this. The fund has a 6.1% Sales load and 1.45% annual
    fees. Since 1983 (the funds inception), the fund has only out-performed
    the S&P 500 Index by 4% over that time period. However it has an
    historically low beta (only.4 compared to S&P at 1.0) and a "safety"
    rating of 8.0 (10 being cash). It is rated four stars (five is best).
    	The Putnam Voyager gets even more interesting. It is weighted
    37% technology, 23% services, and 13% finance. It has an average P/E
    of 26 with a 1.33 beta (this baby WILL keep you awake at night).
    It also has a 6.1% sales load (somebody somewhere is going to make out
    like a bandit when our multimillions gets transferred) with 1.37%
    annual fees. It has only out-performed the S&P 500 Index by 1% since
    1981 - big deal.
    	I can go on with all the picks we've been given, but this is
    enough.
    	When one thinks we could have access to ALL the Fidelity funds,
    or even funds like Mutual Beacon, or Lindner Dividend, or Oakmark;
    I want to really get into someone's face. The truth is - we've been
    had.
    
    
    		the Grayhawk

    I'll add another vote of disappointment to the switching of the
    funds.  While I'm "young" enough to ride-out a long-term fund,
    the shuffling around with no obvious benefit seems like waste of
    money to me...
    
    				-John

    I think Waisting Money seems to be what this company is all about! :-)

    
    I agree....this new save plan really "smells" bad but...
    
    ...given that this is what we have to work with which plan seems to be
    
    the best in invest into....long term...?

    New to the 401K compared to most I'm wondering...can we roll our 401K's
    over to someone else and have the investment portfolio remain as is? 
    Kind of like the option employees have when they leave DEC, they roll
    it over into either CD, or someone else to take care of the portfolio
    for them, etc
    
    Is that an option?
    
    btw:  I am young but this is my financial future...risks yes, folly, no
    
    
    

I sure fall on the other side of this argument.  I think they've done a very
good job at selecting these funds.  Matter of fact, three of them are funds 
where I have or have had personal money.

I invest in fund managers as a general rule.  Kent Simons (Guardian) is as
sharp as they come.  Bill Gross of PIMCO has a good track record (despite
the fact that I hate PIMCO).  John Templeton also has a spectacular
reputation and a superlative track record.

These complaints sound like complaints for complaining's sake.  The choices
are much better than the atrocities that we had before (Windsor fund?!?  Do
people really like investing in that dinosaur?).

Also don't understand the rap about Templeton being so heavily in technology
stocks.  Their primary holdings include Bayer, Barclays, Nestle, some
foreign telephone companies.

Another misconception here is that most companies offer more than our 6
choices.  Actually, we're on the high end.  The average is 4 or 5 choices.
It's rare to see more offered (I'm sure one of our Oracle folks will pipe
in, but that's a very unusual offering).  Certainly no one is offered ALL
of Fidelity's offerings to choose from, Grayhawk.  And when was the last
time you looked closely at Oakmark?  Robert Sandborn is a great fund manager 
but the fund is a definite sell these days.  The days of Oakmark's automatic 
double-digit returns are over for now and the fund has been doing a steady
decline for at least the last 3 months.

I know you can't please all of the people all of the time but I certainly don't
see anything in these changes that would produce 100% negative response.
I urge everyone who is going to send off a complaint to at least look closely
at the new choices first.

j.

    re .29
    
    > Matter of fact, three of them are funds where I have or have had 
    > personal money.
    
    Your mileage may vary.. But as a general rule most of these funds are
    a best medium type funds.. Just because you are investing your money
    does not mean these are great funds.. See the numbers !!!
    
    > I invest in fund managers as a general rule..
    
    In my opinion this alone should not be the criteria for decisions.read
    the notes in Digital - Investing and you will find that some of these
    funds are nothing but risky middle of the road funds..
    
    > These complaints sound like complaints for complaining's sake.
      
    This may be your opinion .. Personally I have no time for complaining
    for complaining sake.. Most of us have better things to do other than
    just complaining. I am complaining because Digital is screwing around
    with MY money and providing insufficient information. They have NO 
    business to dicatate terms on what I should invest or when I should 
    transfer. If you are offering additional funds -- fine- But donot tell 
    me that I have to trasfer my money to new funds.
    
    > The choices are much better than the atrocities that we had before 
    (Windsor fund?!? 
    
    I think many  feel that Windsor is better fund than other new funds
    Digital has offfered us. At least Windsor's track record is better than
    the alternate funds ofered to us.
    
    >Another misconception here is that most companies offer more than our 6
    >choices.  Actually, we're on the high end.  The average is 4 or 5
    >choices.
    
    
    This is NOT the case for many companies I have come across ..I think
    The average is some thing like 9-10 for companies with the size like
    Digital. If you include companies like Joe's Mom & Pop repair shop, 
    the average may be 5. Since when we started doing the industry average
    thing.. if this is case the industry average is atleast 35% matching
    contributions.. Are we getting this ?
    
    >I urge everyone who is going to send off a complaint to at least look
    >closely at the new choices first.
    
    I have studied these funds closely. My view is that the track record 
    for some of the funds are not an impressive one!! If IS is confident
    that they have selected the best funds for us, It will be helpful if 
    IS can give us some details as to why they selected these fund over 
    others ?  Lack of sufficient information makes suspect that IS is
    trying to hide some thing. Personally I donot buy the , "we have done
    extensive research etc" argument. I also suspect whether the people who
    selected these funds for us knew what are doing and whether they are
    successful investors.. 
                  
    In my opinion IS should have provided all details now so that we can 
    make some decisons on transfers. Also it would have been helpful if IS
    has come out and said why they think tha the new funds are better than
    the existing ones ( kind of comaparison chart ) 
    
    In my opinion IS should have given us the option to keep the money in 
    the old funds if an employee chooses to do so. After all it is our money..
    Digital did not contribute a dime and so they donot dictate terms as to 
    how I should invest my money and when I should change it and move it to
    another fund.
    
    
    
          

THe only problem is that the Templeton funds were bought (By Burger, can't
remember who off hand), and John Templeton has retired.  This all happened about
a year ago.

�   <<< Note 3539.29 by PLUGH::needle "Money talks. Mine says "Good-Bye!"" >>>

�It's rare to see more offered (I'm sure one of our Oracle folks will pipe
�in, but that's a very unusual offering).  Certainly no one is offered ALL
�of Fidelity's offerings to choose from, Grayhawk.  And when was the last

Since you asked :)

Oracle offers a choice of 12 places to distribute your 401(k).  Funds are 
all offered through Fidelity.

	Retirement Money Market Portfolio
	Managed Income Portfolio
	Intermediate Bond Fund
	Balanced Fund
	Equity Income Fund
	Growth and Income Portfolio
	International Growth and Income Fund
	Disciplined Equity Fund
	Contrafund
	Growth Company Fund
	Magellan Fund
	Oracle Stock Investment Option (in addition to ESPP)

Nice with the choices but if you like diversification, you're limited to 
funds controlled by a single company (Fidelity) although the fund managers 
will be different for the different funds.  Oracle offers no pension but 
does provide matching funds on the 401(k)

�THe only problem is that the Templeton funds were bought (By Burger, can't
�remember who off hand), and John Templeton has retired.  This all happened about
�a year ago.

Yeah, Mark Holowesko is the fund manager now.

Re: .30, Jay - you're really not the type of person my diatribe was aimed
at.  It's so easy to start the snowball rolling downhill, though, that I
was just hoping people would step out of the way of it and look at things
objectively.

Re: .32

Yes, Oracle offers 12.  Find me another company.  I haven't found any yet.

j.

    
    	re.29 -
    
    	I have done extensive due diligence in these *new* 401 (k) funds
    to be "offered" to us by Investor Services. Let me make some points
    in addition to the fine ones by .30 and .31.
    
    	The Putnam, Neuberger & Berman, and Templeton funds are not an
    acceptable choice for employees with shorter time horizons until
    age 59.5. All three funds preform poorly in down markets, and have
    poor recover time frames. As a matter of fact, the Putnam fund after
    the October 1987 crash took 73 MONTHS to recover to its previous
    level. This was nearly double the average of most mutual funds.
    
    	The Guardian fund is NOT the standard Cuardian fund, but Guardian
    TRUST fund, a new entry with a 10 MONTH track record. Not exactly
    a definable low-risk investment. 
    
    	The Templeton Foreign fund is often confused with the Templeton
    World fund (an excellent vehicle) and it shouldn't be. Foreign is
    nearly 90% technology stocks heavily weighted in Europe with a fund
    Price/Earnings ratio of 63. The S&P 500 has a P/E ratio of 20. Wanna
    bet which way this fund goes if we have another recession? And it will
    be FAST.
    
    	Digital employees span a wide range of ages. Most of these funds
    appear to be focused on employees between 25-35 years old. For us
    older types around 50, these funds are unacceptable. Period. We
    simply do not have the time left to us to recover our assets should
    any of these funds tank. And all funds tank sooner or later. Their
    ability to recover is the safety factor.
    
    	Sorry, but I stand exactly where I started. These are unsuitable
    investments for a 401 (k).
    
    		the Greyhawk

�    	The Templeton Foreign fund is often confused with the Templeton
�    World fund (an excellent vehicle) and it shouldn't be. Foreign is
�    nearly 90% technology stocks heavily weighted in Europe with a fund
�    Price/Earnings ratio of 63. The S&P 500 has a P/E ratio of 20. Wanna
�    bet which way this fund goes if we have another recession? And it will
�    be FAST.

Templeton Foreign Fund (TEMFX, as opposed to TEMWX):

Fund Portfolio
Largest Holdings
Report Date 11/30/94

BAYER			2.0%
BARCLAYS		1.9%
TELE. DE MEX.		1.8%
NESTLE			1.7%
NAT. AUSTRALIA		1.6%
TELE. DE ESPANA		1.6%
NORSK HYDRO		1.6%
SHELL TRANSPORT		1.5%
CANADIAN  PACIFIC	1.4%
BRITISH AIR		1.4%

(information courtesy of Morningstar, entered without permission - so sue me).

j.

    
    	.35
    
    	Thanks, and I rest my case. This is just 16.5% of Templeton World's
    entire fund holdings. Normally a fund's top 10 stocks constitute 21-25%
    of the entire assets. And several of these holdings are at their
    historical stock highs. As I said before, not a lot of upside from
    their top 10 stocks.
    
    		the Greyhawk

    Are any of the new funds index funds?  Personally, I don't believe
    Digital, or anyone, can consistently choose good stocks or good funds. 
    Thus, I'd rather go for average (and suffer less friction in the way of
    yearly fees and commissions).  Unfortunately, I threw out my mailing
    information and so can't check myself.  (Anyway to pick up an extra
    copy of the mailing?)
    
                                        August G. Reinig

    I was part of the focus group conducted a few months ago.  We were told
    by the consulting company, Towers Perrin, that the number of funds
    offered by DEC was low compared to other companies.  They said that 7-8
    was more typical in the market.
    
    They also stated that a rather large number of people, I think it as
    something like 65%, had their money in Funds A&B, definitely not an
    agressive group .

I don't particularly like the fund choices, but what the heck....

A couple of comments, though.

re: .31 and Templeton vs. Holowesko

Templeton funds haven't been bought by Berger.  John Templeton
retired and Mark Holowesko took over as lead manager.  He has
been with the fund since 1/87.  You might be thinking about the
Linder funds, which are now managed by Eric Ryback and his
management company. 

re: .34 and N&B Trust shares

N&B converted all of their funds from individual funds to 
"series" of the (something or other) "Trust".  From what I read 
in the prospectus, it looks like the fund entities just got 
"rolled over" into another administrative entity.  Same managers, 
same strategies, etc.  Doesn't seem like a big deal.

re: .34 and Templeton Foreign portfolio

Most portfolios strategies change.  They'd better, otherwise
you've got a sector or index fund.  What you see in the
Morningstar report may have changed.  The Morningstar report I
have (8/94) shows a portfolio mix of 22.6% cyclicals, 22.3%
financials, 12.1 consumer durables, 11.2% utilities, 10.0% in
services and single digits in 5 other sectors. 

The P/E was listed at 21.1 in the 8/94 Morningstar.

My 2� worth,

If you're counting on SAVE to save you taxes, you must think that politians
are people of intelligence and integrity.  Do you also believe that there is
NO INFLATION as Clinton and crew have claimed?  Assuming that the margin tax
rate on $100K of income in 30 years (that's when you're 80 if 50 today) will
be lower than the higher real value $50K a year today is taking a big risk,
in my opinion.

    RE: .34
    
>    As a matter of fact, the Putnam fund after
>    the October 1987 crash took 73 MONTHS to recover to its previous
>    level. This was nearly double the average of most mutual funds.

    I'm not sure you are correct.  I am looking at page 24 of Morningstar.
    The graphs shows that the Putnam Voyager fund regain it's previous
    level in about 15-18 months after October 1987 crash. 

>    	The Guardian fund is NOT the standard Cuardian fund, but Guardian
>    TRUST fund, a new entry with a 10 MONTH track record. Not exactly
>    a definable low-risk investment. 

    I called Neuberger & Berman (1-800-877-9700). The Guardian and Guardian
    Trust have identical portfolios. Differences in legal entities have
    nothing to do with investment styles.

>    	The Templeton Foreign fund is often confused with the Templeton
>    World fund (an excellent vehicle) and it shouldn't be. Foreign is
>    nearly 90% technology stocks heavily weighted in Europe with a fund
>    Price/Earnings ratio of 63. 

    I am looking at page 727 of Morningstar.  It gives a PE of 21.1.
    Furthermore, it states that: "...position stems from mgmt's
    value-oriented approach. Manager Mark Holowesko constructs the fund's
    portfolio from a list of companies that Templeton's team of analysts
    determine to be the world's cheapeast, either relative to their assests
    or long-term earnings.... This foresight and eye for value are
    responsible for the fund's exceptional longer term risk reward
    profile." 

    Could you please cite your source of information?  I would certainly
    like to understand why your data and Morningstar's are different. 

    Gim

    

    I looked up those funds I could in Quicken's "Mutual Fund Selector",
    which includes Morningstar info and historical data.  I was also able
    to plot performance compared to standard indexes.  From my perspective,
    the funds look ok for 401K choices - the PIMco fund has been a
    consistently strong performer overall.  I couldn't find the Wells
    Fargo fund.
    
    All of the funds I found had four or five star ratings.
    
    While I've been happy with Windsor fund, and feel that the new choices
    are hardly an enhancement, they don't seem worse to me overall.  I will
    note that I am by no means an expert in such things.
    
    					Steve

    .41
    
    	Info comes from Mutual Funds magazine, Waterhouse Securities
    Monthly compelation of mutual funds holdings, ratings, and risk
    ratios. Fortune Magazine, and Business Week quarterly Mutual Funds
    guide.
    	While Morningstar does an adequate job, it seems to give "gold"
    stars to a lot of mediocre funds. My contention is not how the fund
    has preformed the past decade, that is ancient history and during one
    of the great bull runs in world stock market history, but how it is
    positioned if the market turns into a great bear.
    	Windsor has argueably one of the finest track records in bear
    markets. And as a believer that nothing goes up forever, I want my
    downside covered. None of the *new* funds has shown any capability
    to weather a down market without its investors paying a substantial
    penalty.
    
    		the Greyhawk

    I've been on the road all last week.  When I got home late Friday, I
    found the SAVE brochur in my mail and read (with some disgust) that
    these changes must be implemented by the 15th.
    
    I'm on the road again all next week.  How the hell am I supposed to
    find time to "do the right thing"??  
    
    This really pisses me off.  I'm just 10 months away from retirement age
    and I sure as hell don't want to upset the apple cart now!
    
    tony

>>    I've been on the road all last week.  When I got home late Friday, I
>>    found the SAVE brochur in my mail and read (with some disgust) that
>>    these changes must be implemented by the 15th.

Read the brochure again.  The fund switches will happen in March.  They are
giving you some advance warning in case you want to move some money around now,
in anticipation of the fund switch.

FWIW, I like the breadth of the new funds, and I like the idea that they are
going to provide some "portfolio" options, at least for guidance.

There was a timely article in this morning's Colorado Springs Gazette
Telegraph by Susan Tompor of the Detroit News, titled:

FIDELITY OFFERS GM WORKERS MYRIAD OPTIONS TO INVEST 401(K) RETIREMENT MONEY

The article goes on to say "General Motors Corp. is loading up the options
on its 401(k) plan.  Beginning next month, ... workers will be able to
invest their money in 38 Fidelity funds - on top of other non-mutual fund
options, including company stock.  salaried workers, for example, will
have 44 options in all.   ...  employees have no choice but to take a more
active role in retirement planning ... their "old money...already...in
their 401(k) plans wont't be shifted until March."

"The GM changeover ...mirrors an overall trend in the 401(k) business .  give
employees more freedom- and more responsibility - concerning their retirement
dollars."

    Templeton Funds were bought by the Franklin Group not Berger.
    
    In the more bad news dept: I read that buried in GATT was legislation
    which will restrain the amount of money that can be contributed to 401
    K's and legislation that will reduce the value of lump sum distribution
    taken from traditional pension. These changes wre needed to "pay" for
    the Federal Govt revenue losses from GATT. This type of thinking shows
    why the Republican idea of "dynamic scoring" has merit as long as it is
    done responsibly.
    
    

    
> If you're counting on SAVE to save you taxes, you must think that politians
> are people of intelligence and integrity.  Do you also believe that there is
> NO INFLATION as Clinton and crew have claimed?  Assuming that the margin tax
> rate on $100K of income in 30 years (that's when you're 80 if 50 today) will
> be lower than the higher real value $50K a year today is taking a big risk,
> in my opinion.
    
    You have to come up with some very-very pessimistic assumptions to make
    paying taxes early look good.
    
    
    Here's a simple case.  Invest $100 today.  The Federal Rate Income Tax
    Rate climbs 1% per year for the next 20 years (pretty pessimistic). 
    You're getting 10% on your money before taxes (about the average for
    the stock market).  Your marginal rate is 30% today (50% in 20 years). 
     
    In this case you have over 50% more money by taking part in the 401k.                                                       
    
    Greg
    
                                               
    

    Return  >==>       10.00%

              |          401k                |       No 401k               |
Yr   Tax Rate   1/1 Bal   Inc    12/31 Bal     1/1 Bal    Inc    12/31 Bal
 0    30.00%     $100.00  $10.00  $110.00       $70.00   $4.90   $74.90
 1    31.00%     $110.00  $11.00  $121.00       $74.90   $5.17   $80.07
 2    32.00%     $121.00  $12.10  $133.10       $80.07   $5.44   $85.51
 3    33.00%     $133.10  $13.31  $146.41       $85.51   $5.73   $91.24
 4    34.00%     $146.41  $14.64  $161.05       $91.24   $6.02   $97.26
 5    35.00%     $161.05  $16.11  $177.16       $97.26   $6.32  $103.59
 6    36.00%     $177.16  $17.72  $194.87      $103.59   $6.63  $110.22
 7    37.00%     $194.87  $19.49  $214.36      $110.22   $6.94  $117.16
 8    38.00%     $214.36  $21.44  $235.79      $117.16   $7.26  $124.42
 9    39.00%     $235.79  $23.58  $259.37      $124.42   $7.59  $132.01
10    40.00%     $259.37  $25.94  $285.31      $132.01   $7.92  $139.93
11    41.00%     $285.31  $28.53  $313.84      $139.93   $8.26  $148.19
12    42.00%     $313.84  $31.38  $345.23      $148.19   $8.60  $156.78
13    43.00%     $345.23  $34.52  $379.75      $156.78   $8.94  $165.72
14    44.00%     $379.75  $37.97  $417.72      $165.72   $9.28  $175.00
15    45.00%     $417.72  $41.77  $459.50      $175.00   $9.63  $184.63
16    46.00%     $459.50  $45.95  $505.45      $184.63   $9.97  $194.60
17    47.00%     $505.45  $50.54  $555.99      $194.60  $10.31  $204.91
18    48.00%     $555.99  $55.60  $611.59      $204.91  $10.66  $215.57
19    49.00%     $611.59  $61.16  $672.75      $215.57  $10.99  $226.56
                                $343.10                       $226.56
                                               51.44%

Posted with permission of author, who asked to remove their name/header.  Contact
IS directly for more info.

	- mark

From:	""	12-Dec-1994 1149" 12-DEC-1994 11:51:50.48
To:	STAR::BUDA
CC:	
Subj:	YOUR RECENT MAIL ABOUT SAVE

Over the past few days, you sent a message to SAVE @MSO asking for some
clarification and/or expressing some concerns over various items that were
presented in the recent SAVE brochure.  

There will be considerable information given to all employees in January and
February that will support the employee decision making process.  

I have compiled a list of generic questions to date, and will attempt to
answer each of them here.  If you feel I missed one of your questions or if you
need additional clarification, please feel free to contact investor services.

				---Xxxx



Question 1--

What criteria was used to choose the new SAVE funds?

In determining the funds that the SAVE program would use, the existing SAVE
Investment Policy was utilized.  Under this Policy asset classes are delineated
and a general criteria for fund selection is established.  There is some
flexibility in the Policy to allow for the tailoring of criteria for each asset
class.  Detailed screening criteria were developed for the fund selection
process for each asset class.

Once the policy is used to determine fund classes and a determination of
potential funds are winnowed out, a much more critical evaluation of funds is
developed for each asset class.

As the decision to formulate the best mix of investment choices was undertaken,
the determination was made to select the best overall fund from within each
asset class.  This approach effectively minimized the likelihood of choosing a
single family of funds since it is usually beyond the scope of a fund family to
be the best in all asset classes.  This approach also does not preclude our
ability to choose a particular fund within any family.

Without going into exhaustive detail as to why the management group that chose
the new funds made all of their decisions, there were many factors considered. 
Some of the specific decision criteria that all of the funds had to meet are; 

	The net assets in the total fund; 
	Morningstar ratings; 
	the performance rating over time vs the appropriate benchmark (for
	    example 5 years); 
	the standard deviation from the benchmark; 
	the cash on hand as a percentage of the fund; 
	expenses and loads

There were other criteria, however these were primary in choosing
semi-finalists and finalists.


As an example the decision criteria for choosing the Neuberger & Berman
Guardian Trust fund that will replace the Windsor Fund is:

Market Cap: Only securities in companies with a Market Capitalization in excess
of $4 Billion.

Net Assets: Must exceed $2 Billion

Morningstar Rating: 4 stars or better with an average of more than 3.5 stars

Performance rating over time vs Benchmark:  Must exceed the S&P 500 Index

Five Year standard deviation: Must be below 20%

Cash on hand: Should not represent more than 20% of the fund

Expenses:  Should be reasonable and not exceed 1.50% of assets

Based on this criteria 16 semi-finalists were chosen and subject to additional
criteria including the consistency of long term performance against peers and
the S&P 500 index, sector loading, etc. The Neuberger & Berman Guardian Trust
Fund was chosen as the best of the finalists.  This fund was generally the best
fund with respect to all of the criteria.  In addition an evaluation of their
research methodology and interviews with each fund manager confirmed the
selection.

The Guardian Trust has identical investment objectives and policies and invests
in the same portfolio as the Newberger & Berman Guardian which was introduced
in 1950.  The long term track record of this fund is quite superior to its
benchmark, the S&P 500.  The trust version allows large institutional plan
participants to enjoy a more favorable expense structure (currently 25 basis
points less than the retail Guardian fund).

The Vanguard Windsor fund was eliminated in the initial selection process.  The
Morningstar ratings indicate that this fund is rated 3 stars (currently and
when the decision was made) and the average was under 3.5 stars.  In addition
the five year return vs the S&P 500 index show that the fund has significantly
underperformed its benchmark over the past 5 years.




Question 2--

Why did we choose funds with sales/transaction loads?

There are NO loads for any of the funds we have chosen.  ALL fund loads have
been waived for the SAVE plan.  

To the extent that management fees are higher than the fund being replaced, the
expected increase in the rate of return on the new fund was deemed (via the
criteria discussed above) to outweigh the management expenses.  It should be
noted that the selection of the Wells Fargo Nikko Equity Index Fund was mainly
due to a more favorable expense ratio than the current Vanguard Index Fund. 
Both have similarly tight tracking records to the S&P 500 Index.




Question 3--

Other companies offer more funds, why don't we?

Some companies offer more funds and some offer less.  While researching the
number of funds that we wanted to offer, we found that 4-8 funds is where most
companies fell.  We also ran a series of employee focus groups.  The results of
this study indicated that most employees felt we had about the right number of
funds (at 5) but that they would like to see more diversified choices.  There
was also a strong sentiment in the focus groups that most employees did not
want too many fund choices.  When we decided on the number of plan funds, we
tried to strike a balance between what competitors are doing, what employees
felt they needed, and the number of funds necessary to offer diversified
choices per our Investment Policy.  




Question 4--

Why aren't we increasing the maximum deferral percentage to something over 8%?

There are some very specific legal reasons as to why Digital has been forced to
limit deferral percentages to the plan.  The Federal government imposes strict
discrimination rules that all 401(k) plans have to follow.  The the rules
produce results that are different from company to company based upon
enrollment in the 401(k) plan.  It is the result of these rules that limits our
deferral percentage.

The latitude that Digital has within these Federal parameters is limited.  More
information will be forthcoming about this in January.




Question 5--

How can I get daily results for each of these funds?  Some of them are not
listed in any consistent publication.

Four of the 6 funds will have their net asset value's (NAV's) listed in daily
publications. The transition to Hewitt Associates includes the implementation
of a SAVE Benefits Center that any employee can use to get the NAV of any fund. 
Feel free to call as often as you wish on virtually a 24 hour per day basis.




Question 6--

What steps are you taking to ensure that there is no significant loss of funds
when we 'sell-off' the assets from our existing funds?

All of the stock fund managers have already been notified that we will be
taking our money out of their funds.  They will be prepared to have the
available cash when we migrate out of the funds.  Because of this preparation,
if you have $15,000 in the fund before the migration to the new funds, you will
have $15,000 following the migration.  As a matter of scale, the amount of
money in the Digital funds is not all that significant to the total fund and
even without the preparation, there would probably not be a large share price
decrease if we went in and asked for our money.  

The money that is in the S&P 500 Indexed fund is being transferred directly. 
There will be no sell and then buy scenario with this fund at all.




Question 7--

Why not use the notesfile to answer these questions?

Experience.  We find that responding in notesfiles is not the most effective
way to reach a wide audience.  In addition, some questions require a thoughtful
response (that is typically reviewed by several people).  Notesfiles also have
a tendency to digress and move in various directions making it a difficult tool
to use for concise discussion.  That's not to say we don't participate in a
read-only mode.




Question 8-- 

Am I required to transfer my money to the new funds or can I effect a
'rollover' into another fund?

Because the SAVE program is a retirement fund that is qualified under IRS code
and ERISA, you do not have the option to take your money out (except for
hardship or attaining age 59.5) and roll the proceeds into another qualified
vehicle.  You will be required to transfer the money into your choice of at
least one of the funds offered.  There are default mechanisms in place should
an employee not make a positive elections.

If we do, then $100,000 per year will be a marginal income in 20 years.

The analysis in .49 is valid, but misleading, if we assume that inflation
follows the same pattern as the past 10-20 years.  The reason that it works
is that the deferred taxes are paid with devalued money.  Instead of paying
$30 in year one, in year 20 you pay the equivalent of $10.  What isn't shown
is the hidden tax of inflation.  It also assumes that Democrats continue to
argue that capital gains is the same as real income.  In other words, that
a house purchased in 1974 for $100,000 that is sold today for $350,000 
represents an income of $250,000, when in fact the value of both transactions
is identical.  Of course, someone who bought a $100,000 house 20 years ago
was likely rather rich, while today $350,000 is merely upper middle class,
which hints at why people feel that they are worse off today than 20 years ago.

One might argue that the incentive to inflate is too strong for government
to resist, but that ignores the nearly universal indexing applied to taxes
and benefits.  The only major item not indexed is capital gains and there
is increasing pressure to do something about that.

The other assumption is that the increased tax will apply to all income.
It is more likely to be targeted at specific kinds of income.  In particular,
I would expect that income, rather than wealth, will be used to means test
social security, and that the "tax rate" will be a 30 to 50% reduction in
social security benefit based on other sources of income.

All in all, there is a good bit of uncertainty about the future and when you
lock money away in a 401K, you are limited by more than the investment options.
As always, its wise to diversify, and a 401K is one of the better inflation
hedges.  If it had been possible to invest in them over the past 20 years,
you might have broken even which is better than people on the whole did.

    .51> If we do, then $100,000 per year will be a marginal income in 20 years.
    
    And therein lies the power of inflation. Here's an excellent example
    that I saw a few years ago:
    
    In 1970, a fully loaded Chevrolet Caprice cost about $4,400.
    In 1990, a fully loaded Chevrolet Caprice cost about $22,000.
    
    If inflation averages about the same percentage over the next 20 years
    then it's safe to extrapolate that:
    
    In 2010, a fully loaded Chevrolet Caprice will cost about $110,000.
    
    At that rate, it won't be long before Millionaires are just middle
    class folks. :-)
    
    Harry
    

Re: .52

It looks like there must have been no inflation to speak of between 1963 and
1970.

>>>	In 1970, a fully loaded Chevrolet Caprice cost about $4,400.

In 1963, an acquaintance bought a fully loaded Chevrolet Impala, 425 hp 409, 4
on the floor, convertible for $4,300.  An average of .3% inflation per year for
that 7 year period.

    I'm confused. Several people in this note have commented on the fact
    that they think its terrible we are getting such short notice (dec. 15)
    for changing our fund choices. The reason I'm confused is this:
    
    1. Dec. 15 has always been one of the cut-off dates for fund changes,
    nothing new here.
    
    2. According to the SAVE brochure I received, the time to choose which
    of the new funds we want to participate in is Mar. 1-24. 
    
    3. If you elect NOT to make a choice during this open enrollment
    period, then your existing funds will be moved to the default new fund
    which replaces the old fund.
    
    No where does it say anything about "if you don't move your money
    around by Dec. 15, you're stuck with what we give you"!
    
    Did everyone else get a different brochure than I did. I've read thru
    it at least 4 times (especially since all the uproar in this
    conference), so did I miss something??
    
    Debbie
    

What the folks have missed detailing about the Dec 15 deadline is that it 
is only for making changes to your existing 401K.  IMO, this was clearly 
stated/understood in/from the document.  So If you want to move everything 
to Fund A because you believe Fund B,C, etc. will hit nosedive then do it 
before Dec 15.

    Serious question here... I really would like a quick answer if
    possible, because I am really confused, and time is short.
    
    Suppose 50,000 DEC employees are participating in the present FUND C. 
    Investor services decides to not use that fund any more, and in March,
    they force all 50,000 employees shares in the fund to be sold back to
    the fund.  They then buy into some new, replacement fund on behalf of
    those same employees...
    
    Would not the massive selling of shares back to FUND C cause the price
    for each share to drop, devaluing the employee's shares?  And would not
    the subsequent massive purchase into some other fund inflate the cost
    of THOSE shares?  
    
    How can I avoid taking this shot to the gut?  Should I (like TOMORROW)
    transfer everything from FUND C to FUND A and then wait 'till after the
    smoke clears to transfer back into some replacement equity fund?
    
    I have a considerable amount of money (for me) tied up in "C" and I
    am afraid as hell that if I don't do SOMETHING, I'll take a big hit!
    
    CAn someone advise me (off line a ICS::BEAN preferabley...) or tell me
    that what I fear is more or less a likely result of doing nothing right
    now?
    
    
    thanks
    
    tony
    (who's been on the road for the last two weeks and can't get the time
    to check all this out)
    
    

    I would imagine that the total assets from Digital's 401k plan is in
    the noise level (<1%) of Windsor's total assets.  Remember that
    Investor Servcies claims that 60% of us are in A or B, thus making
    50,000 in Windsor impossible (unless everybody switches in the next
    24 hours).  kb

>    Investor Servcies claims that 60% of us are in A or B, thus making

60% of the save investors, not 60% of the money.  If I have 10% in A and
90% in Windsor, I'm still counted as being "in" A.

Al

>> >    Investor Servcies claims that 60% of us are in A or B, thus making
>> 
>> 60% of the save investors, not 60% of the money.  If I have 10% in A and
>> 90% in Windsor, I'm still counted as being "in" A.

Are you sure that's what was meant?  I blithely assumed that it meant 60% of
the investors were ONLY putting money into A or B.

						Brian

>Are you sure that's what was meant?  I blithely assumed that it meant 60% of
>the investors were ONLY putting money into A or B.

I'm not sure of anything, but it seems consistent wording.

al

    
        I was at BOEING last week and happen to ask some people there about
        BOEINGs 401K. Besides more investment options the maximum
        contribution is: 8% with 50% matching, 12% maximum or a total of
        16% with matching !!!!!
    
       

    so... can anyone tell me WHY DEC has never matched any part of the SAVE
    plan?
    
    t.

    Because you have a pension plan?
    
    ed

    
    Ed:
    
    wrong answer...others that match also have pension plans.
    
    the right answers are that Digital is A) not profitable and B) prolly
    wouldn't like an idea that compensate the IC like it would the SLT.

    The answer is not that Digital is not profitable.  When Digital was
    wildly profitable, it didn't match SAVE contributions.  I guess that
    leaves...
    
                                            August G. Reinig

    Has anyone tried to get into the SAVE plan from the Investor Services
    lately? I tried yesterday and today. The synthetic voice comes on and
    asks my employee number, then states "system not available". Anyone
    know what's up?

> Anyone know what's up?

Apparently not the SAVE system...

    Its up now. Patience pays off.

Galt Technologies, Inc. has a plethora of information for the financial
data hound.  More than I would care to see. ;-)  You need to register
for and account which I received in ~5 days.  In the meantime, I was
given a temporary username so I could access the system.  Attached is the
mail I received informing me of my registration.

Dave
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

We thank you for registering with us on NETworth: The Internet Resource
for Individual Investors!  Your participation ensures that you are
accessing the most comprehensive, up-to-date online resource for
detailed mutual fund information available to the masses.  

We have recently introduced a high-function database search of
over 5000 mutual funds.  Now you can search funds based upon 
investment objective, performance results, Morningstar rating, 
minimum investment - whatever you may require, and its all free to 
NETworth registered users! Just access 
http://networth.galt.com/cgi-bin/getdb
via your forms compliant web browser .

For those without Web access, we  have also introduced "FUNDmail" 
which will allow NETworth users to have portfolio's NAVs and  
profile information e-mailed directly on a daily or weekly basis. 
Details are available by sending email to [email protected]

In the end, this service is your service, so please let us know your
thoughts on our performance.  We invite you to come back often, as
changes are made daily.  As we progress to the day when you can actually
invest in your mutual fund and manage your accounts online, we
encourage you to turn to NETworth when you're making your investment
decisions.

Email contacts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected]
	Send questions or comments about NETworth and related products
	here.

[email protected]
	Send administrative questions and comments concerning 
        GALT Technologies,inc. This is read everyday by a real human.

[email protected]
	Send technical questions concerning the NETworth server here.

[email protected]
	Send mail with "INFO" in the subject line to utilize our FUNDmail
	services.

Address and Phone
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GALT Technologies, Inc.
4618 Henry Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15213

voice 1-412-681-6100
fax   1-412-681-6936

    too many scrooges in here before Christmas... 

    On why Digital hasn't had matching contributions to our 401(k), I've
    heard it suggested that we have the ESPP instead.  Now, of course, we
    don't value that as highly as in the days when the stock seemed to be
    monotonically increasing.
    
    Sometime this past fall, Robert Palmer spoke to us in LKG - it was
    right about the time that the stock started to turn around (he talked
    briefly about the investor that bought a large chunk of stock). 
    Anyways, at that time, he suggested that once Digital was profitable,
    we'd see some benefits improvements.  He specifically said that it was
    crazy that we did not have 401(k) matching contributions.
    
    Maybe someone else remembers what other benefits he might have
    mentioned ?  (no point in starting a wish list here !)  This was NOT
    the most recent time that he spoke in LKG, which was on DVN.
    
    \chuck

Well, we do have a company-paid pension plan - many companies which match
401Ks don't.

				Steve

    .72
    
    GET REAL.

    Well, we don't have daily beatings, like many Ugandan companies....
    
    								:^]
    
    (Apologies in advance to the "Idi Amin Population Control Center and
    Cafeteria")

    Do they have sporks in the "Idi Amin Population Control Center and
                                Cafeteria"??

"Get real"?  What I said was true.  In no way do I consider that a defense
of Digital not matching 401K contributions, but it is an additional benefit
which many companies do not offer.  My wife's employer does match 401K
contributions on a rather minimal basis but has no pension plan.

				Steve

    
    	My wife's former company (annual sales less than $200MM) had a
    50% match for first six percent 401 (k) contribution, pension plan,
    FREE medical, in-house daycare, and salary INCREASES annually for
    good performers.
    
    	Meanwhile....
    
    
    		the Greyhawk

    .76
    
    I also know many that contribute on top of a pension.
    
    Get real, again.

>    Do they have sporks in the "Idi Amin Population Control Center and
>                                Cafeteria"??
    
    Sporks, spives, foons, even nasser's Soup Spoon!  Please note that this
    item is *not* carried in company cafeterias within Digital, prompting
    huge exoduses of wonderful talent such as nasser.
    
    
    More meaningful comparative company analyses:
    
      Many companies in the world don't provide flush toilets.  Digital does!
    
      Many companies force their workers to handle toxic waste
      (particularly those in New Jersey).  Digital does not do this.
    
      My friend works for American Airlines.  They force him to fly a plane. 
      I know of no one at Digital that has been pressured to fly a plane.
    
    								Tex

    Re: .78
    
    You can tell Digital to "get real" if you want.  I agree that
    Digital's lack of a benefit in this area is pitiful.
    
    				Steve

    .80
    That's all I'm trying to say, Steve. Nothing is directed towards you.
    

    
    How about another example...
    
    Eastman Kodak Co
    About the same size as Digital around... $13B\80,000 employees
    
    Company-paid pension plan - Yes
    
    ESPP - Yes. As one of the investment options of the 401K ( no
    discounts )
    
    401K  - 8% contribution with 50% matching, Maximum contribution 15%
    or 19% WITH MATCHING !!!!!!
    
    Also you can move money, change investments monthly...
     
    
    

    re: .82
    
    >    ESPP - Yes. As one of the investment options of the 401K ( no
    >    discounts )
    
    And EK stock even pays a dividend.
    
    	Steve

    perhaps a bit cynical, but, it seems to me that if Digital is really
    trying to downsize its workforce, why should it bother improving
    benefits which might entice a few to stay?
    
    tony

    What happens if all the good ones leave for Jobs with better benefits.
    
    And the bad ones stay because they can not get jobs elsewhere.
    
    

    My wife's company does not match their 401k plan and does not
    have a pension plan.  It is a very small company.
    
    ed

    Can anyone shed some light on the connection between the N & B
    Guardian Trust and the Guardian Fund?
    
    MR

    SAVE plan users alert!!!

    1.  To borrow your own money in the future against your SAVE 
    	account and repay in weekly installments will now cost 
    	you a flat fee of $75 a shot!

    2.  You will now be able to have 1 - 12 % of your salary 
    	invested weekly in SAVE if you make under $66k.


    The booklet arrived in yesterday's mail.  The next mailing
    will contain a floppy for a PC and a video presentation.  
    There are indications that we might be easing out of a 
    company-sponsored retirement fund in order for Digital to
    receive monies invested over and above the quota needed.  

    

    	RE .88
    
>    There are indications that we might be easing out of a 
>    company-sponsored retirement fund in order for Digital to
>    receive monies invested over and above the quota needed.  

    	I must have missed these. Could you point them out to me?
    
    				Thanks,
    
    				Ed
    
    					
    

    
    Lets see, should I ask DEC to cut my pay 1 cent PA ...
    
    
    If I make $65,999.99 and put away 12% I would be allowed to save $ 7,920.00
    pre-tax dollars.
                                                           
    BUT if I make $66,000.00 and can put away only 8% I would be allowed to
    save only $ 5,280.00 pre-tax dollars.
    
    UNLESS I make over $ 120,000.00 THEN I can save the federal 401 maximum 
    of $ 9,6??.00 pre-tax dollars.
    
    

>    UNLESS I make over $ 120,000.00 THEN I can save the federal 401 maximum 
>    of $ 9,6??.00 pre-tax dollars.
    
    And if you make enough over $120,000.00 you can't be affected by
    participation cut offs since you'll have reached your maximum
    contribution before the cut offs start.
    
    It seems to me the best way to do this is to have a weekly maximum you
    can put away.  (Fed max/52).  For non-highly compensated employees this
    never changes.  For highly compensated employees it changes 
    periodically to ensure that the plan doesn't run afoul of federal
    guidelines.  It can never go higher than Fed max/52 but may go lower.
    
                                    August G. Reinig

    Is there any way to exit SAVE and roll the existing balance elsewhere
    without penalty (apart from being TFSO'd, of course)? Haven't found
    any documentation on this.
    
    bk

�       <<< Note 3539.92 by SSDEVO::KELSEY "Lies, damn lies, and DVNs" >>>
�                       -< financial acumen of a turnip >-

�    Is there any way to exit SAVE and roll the existing balance elsewhere
�    without penalty (apart from being TFSO'd, of course)? Haven't found
�    any documentation on this.
    
You can voluntarily leave :).  I believe the current policy is that the
401(k) funds must stay in the 401(k) until you are no longer employeed by
Digital. At that time, if you have more than $3K invested you can leave the
funds in Digital's 401(k) plan to manage or you can roll them into your new
employer's 401(k) (if this option is available) or roll them into an IRA. 

        The Save kit I received at home which included a video tape
        refered to PC based software that employees could acquire some how.

        I didn't find any reference to it in the booklet. 
        How do employees receive this?

Dan

    I found multiple references to it in the stuff that I read.  It will be
    shipped to your home in early March with *something else* . ... can't
    remember what that something was!
    
    

> It will be shipped to your home in early March with *something else*.
> ... can't remember what that something was!

  A PC to run it on?  We have nothing but Macs at home.

                                   Atlant

    
    
    << Note 3539.96 by ATLANT::SCHMIDT "E&RT -- Embedded and RealTime
    Engineering"
    
    > It will be shipped to your home in early March with *something else*.
    > ... can't remember what that something was!
    
    
    I believe it will be mailed with your annual pension statement...
    
    /Charlie
                                         

    
    I did not see this mentioned. 
    
    How about if my wife or myself left Digital.  Could we roll our 401k
    money into the other spouses account?
    
    
    Don
    
    
    

No - the IRS won't allow that.  If there is more than $3500 (I think), you
can leave it in the account, can roll it into an IRA or into a future employer's
"qualified retirement plan".

			Steve

    
    
    	I was thinking that it's too bad they don't offer the option of 
    	switching to a money-market account for when the market hits a
    	slump and us nervous types want a safe haven for the short term!

    Question:
    
    I called the SAVE hotline. A very nice lady gave me some information I
    asked for. When I asked about the New equivalent to Fund A (which is a
    combination of Fund A + B) I was informed that the PRINCIPLE was no
    longer guaranteed. My memory says that Fund A had GUARANTEED principle.
    If I am correct I can not get a new save plan fund exactly equal to
    FUND A in the no risk to what I have accrued. Presently once I earn a $
    or put in a $ I can not lose it. My only risk is how much interest I
    make on my guaranteed principle plus contribution. I am at the stage
    where I want no risk at all with my accumulated principle. Not a good
    deal for those people who do not have time to recoup any losses. Ido
    not like this aspect of the forced new plan.
    
    ANYONE ELSE getting put in this situation?
    
    SAVE PLAN ADMINISTRATION ARE YOU THERE     HELLO

Fund A used to be FDIC insured, but no more.
    
        <<< NYOSS1::DISK$LIB:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL_INVESTING.NOTE;1 >>>
                             -< Digital Investing >-
================================================================================
Note 11.71                            SAVE                             71 of 354
IAMOK::SCHMALZ                                       33 lines  22-MAY-1992 16:18
                            -< Fund A Information >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
...
    
    " In the past, we have accepted bids 
from AA-rated banks with FDIC insurance.  Congress eliminated FDIC 
insurance on these contracts effective in 1993, but existing contracts will 
retain FDIC coverage."

    Fund A used to be called the "Guaranteed Income Fund" up until 
    1991, when it became known as the "Fixed Interest Fund".
    
    Fund A was originally described as "fund assets are invested
    with an insurance company under a contract which specifies
    both the principal and interest are guaranteed by the insurance
    company for a particular period of time".  This was somewhat
    misleading, as nobody guaranteed the insurance company wouldn't
    default or go out of business.
    
    BTW, it's principal, not principle.
    KB

>>          <<< Note 3539.103 by PCBUOA::KRATZ >>>

>>    Fund A was originally described as "fund assets are invested
>>    with an insurance company under a contract which specifies
>>    both the principal and interest are guaranteed by the insurance
>>    company for a particular period of time".  This was somewhat

    Except that digital lied even about this.  When lots of
    people took SERP, they dumped money into the fund, and
    the 'guaranteed' rate changed in the middle of the period.

    To me, that exemplified Digital's integrity.  It's
    guaranteed, unless we decide it isn't.

    ...subject to broad employee intrepretation.

    Its both the money and the ethics.
    
    I did use the incorrect spelling, only came up with the pun when I got
    Caught.
    
    Lee - your - right - and - I'm - sorry

>> >>    Fund A was originally described as "fund assets are invested
>> >>    with an insurance company under a contract which specifies
>> >>    both the principal and interest are guaranteed by the insurance
>> >>    company for a particular period of time".  This was somewhat
>> 
>>     Except that digital lied even about this.  When lots of
>>     people took SERP, they dumped money into the fund, and
>>     the 'guaranteed' rate changed in the middle of the period.

I would assume the phrase "both the principal and interest are guaranteed" to
mean that the funds are guaranteed, not the interest rate.  In other words,
once you have it, you can't lose it if the fund goes out of business or
something.

re: 104

The fund A rate is just a blend rate of existing contracts and new 
contracts.  When SERP occurred, interest rates were dropping. Therefore
new monies were invested at lower rates resulting in the drop.

If rates were increasing, the result were have been a higher rate.
I do not view it as being "Lied" to.

Gim

    re: .106 and .107

>> >>    with an insurance company under a contract which specifies
>> >>    both the principal and interest are guaranteed by the insurance
>> >>    company for a particular period of time".  This was somewhat
>> 

>I would assume the phrase "both the principal and interest are guaranteed" to
>mean that the funds are guaranteed, not the interest rate.  In other words,
>once you have it, you can't lose it if the fund goes out of business or
>something.

    If the interest rate can change, what is the meaning of
    guaranteed in the phrase 'both the principal and interest are
    guaranteed'?  If it changes, it isn't guaranteed.

    At one time, the interest rate for fund A only changed at the
    beginning of a period. (Which I think was quarterly.)  The
    rate was 'guaranteed' for that quarter.  If you wanted to 
    take advantage of prevailing rates, you could of course, use
    the money market fund or one of the others.

    During SERP, the 'guaranteed rate' changed in the middle of
    the period.  This was not allowed by the save rules, but it
    happened anyway.  Thus, the value of digital's 'guarantee'
    was zero.  Digital 'guaranteed' that the rate would not
    change during a period, and it did.  Therefore they lied.

    It's truly pathetic when a company NEEDS an ethics office.

>>    If the interest rate can change, what is the meaning of
>>    guaranteed in the phrase 'both the principal and interest are
>>    guaranteed'?  If it changes, it isn't guaranteed.

If you put $1000 into a fund, and earn $100 interest during some period, and
the fund turns sour:

  - if nothing is guaranteed, you may get nothing;
  - if the principal is guaranteed, you get at least $1000;
  - if both principal and interest are guaranteed, you get the full $1100.

That is, the accumulated interest is guaranteed, not the rate at which you get
interest.

Again, this is how I would interpret it.  When I see something that says "both
the principal and the interest," I assume it refers to the amount of money, not
the interest rate.  I do not know if Digital did, in fact, make statements that
guaranteed the rate of return, but I would not interpret the quoted phrase that
way.

						Brian

Digital has been using the term estimated blended interest rate for
some time now to avoid the misintpretations. Regardless of what people
say, only taxes and death are guaranteed.


         <<< HUMANE::DISK$CONFERENCES:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< The Digital way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 2028.0              SERP causes SAVE rate to fall?                2 replies
MRKTNG::SILVERBERG "Mark Silverberg DTN 264-2269 TTB1-5/B3"  24 lines 
31-JUL-1992 08:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Digital - Interest rate revised on SAVE Plan's Fixed Interest Fund
	{Livewire, U.S. News, 30-Jul-92}
   Previously, Digital communicated that the estimated blended interest rate 
 for Digital Equipment Corporation Savings and Investment (SAVE) Plan's Fixed
 Interest Fund (Fund A) would be 8.13% for the period April 1, 1992 through
 September 30, 1992. However, because of the Special Early Retirement Program
 (SERP), an unusually large sum of money was transferred into the SAVE Plan on
 July 1. As a consequence, Digital was required to negotiate a new contract in
 which to invest this sum. The new contract resulted in a revised blended rate
 of 7.99% for the period July 1 through September 30, 1992. 
   The SAVE Plan's Fund A is comprised of several insurance investment 
 contracts (IICs) and bank investment contracts (BICs). To obtain these 
 investment contracts, Digital solicits bids from insurance companies, banks,
 and other financial institutions whose credit rating is AAA or from banks 
 whose credit rating is AA- or better and offer FDIC insurance on our
 investments. While these investment contracts mature over varying time
 periods, the average maturity of the entire fund is three years.
   New rates for Fund A will take effect on October 1, 1992. To receive Fund A
 interest rate information, enroll in the plan, or make contribution changes, 
 employees may use the Touch Tone (TM) System by dialing DTN 223-6000. The 
 next deadline for any SAVE transactions is September 15, 1992.
 ---       
 Touch-Tone is a trademark of AT&T.

��                       <<< Note 3539.110 by SLOAN::HOM >>>
��                                 -< old note >-

��Digital has been using the term estimated blended interest rate for
��some time now to avoid the misintpretations. Regardless of what people
��say, only taxes and death are guaranteed.
    Yes, digital changed the term, when they changed the
    guarantee.   It was only after digital stuck it to
    employees that they started calling it blended.

    I have in my hand, some of the original save literature, the
    stuff with the eggs and nest on the cover, circa 1991:

    For Fund A, it says:

    	Guaranteed Income Fund -- Fund A:
    	Both principal and interest are guaranteed for a
    	specific period of time.

    For Fund B, it says:
    	Prime Portfolio--Fund B
    	A money market fund designed to provide a return that
    	stays in tune with current interest rates.


    Initially, Fund A provide a fixed interest rate for (either
    3 or 6 month--I can't remember) periods.  Before the
    beginning of each period, this rate was announced.  So,
    for six months, the rate would be fixed at some amount,
    and then for the next six months, it would be fixed at
    some other amount, etc.

    As you've shown with your livewire announcement, digital
    changed this 'fixed' rate in the middle of the period.
    The 'fluff' plan documentation claimed that the rate was
    fixed for the period, and yet it wasn't.  That's my point.

    Sorry if this has been discussed, but 111 replies over the modem is not
    easy to do. 
    
    Questions:
    
    When someone leaves DEC, does he/she get the full accumulated value of
    the 401k plan to date, or just the amount put in?
    
    Does the money have to be rolled into another plan?
    
    What is the penalty if you don't?
    
    Is this penalty deducted, or is it due at tax time?
    
    I'm asking here because I got no answer and put on forever hold trying
    to get this information before.
    
    Thanks

    It is my understanding that you get the full accumulated value.
    If it is not rolled over within a specified amount of time (60 days)
    they take twenty percent off the top and tax you on it also.
    
    Do not take this as gospel except the rolling it over!!
    
    Dennis

��                       <<< Note 3539.110 by SLOAN::HOM >>>
��                                 -< old note >-

��Digital has been using the term estimated blended interest rate for
��some time now to avoid the misintpretations. Regardless of what people
��say, only taxes and death are guaranteed.

    I found a second piece of SAVE propaganda, undated, from
    sometime in early 1991.  In the description of funds, it
    says:

    	Fixed Interest Fund (Fund A).  The current estimated
    	interest rate effective for the six month period beginning
    	April 1, 1991, will be 8.87%.  A new estimated blended rate
    	for this fund takes effect every October 1 and April 1.

    I don't know what this could be interpreted to mean, other
    than the interest rate is fixed for each six month period.

    The text then mention that the interest and principal are
    guaranteed by the banks and insurance companies which issue
    the contracts to the SAVE plan.

    So, it seems pretty clear to me.  You put in $X at the
    beginning of the six-month period, and Digital promises that
    you are guaranteed ~$X*(1+(int/2)) at the end of the period.

    For SERP digital changed the rules in the middle of the
    period.  Thus, they lied when they made the initial promise.

    But, don't worry Mr. Death and Taxes, I expect very little
    from Digital, and their lying certainly lived down to my
    expectations.

re: -1

1. The key word here is "estimated."  "Estimate"  according to
the American Dictionary, means to "make a judgement on the likely 
approximate cost, quantity ..."   From my reply in .110, the Fund A
rate went from 8.13% to 7.99%.  Readers can decide if that is in
the relm of an estimate or  "lying".

2. Interest calculations are more complex than most people realize.
Your formula would not give an answer that's exact to the second
decimal.  For more details, read Stephen Kellison's text:  "The 
Theory of Interest".

Gim

>    When someone leaves DEC, does he/she get the full accumulated value of
>    the 401k plan to date, or just the amount put in?

The full accumulated value. If you contributed $9000 and the value of your SAVE
funds is now (actually, at the moment the cashout occurs) $10000, you "get"
$10000. You have the option to leave the funds with SAVE (if over $3500),
transfer the funds to an IRA, transfer the funds to new employer's 401(k), or
receive a distribution (check made out to you).
    
>    Does the money have to be rolled into another plan?

No - see above. If you take the distribution (check made out to you), whether or
not you plan to roll that over into some other plan within 60 days, SAVE is
required (by IRS) to withhold 20% (or thereabouts) of the distribution amount.
If you then move the funds into a new plan within 60 days, you'll also have to
come up with an amount equal to that 20% else the 20% shortfall is treated as a
distribution, subject to penalty (see below). Assuming you do roll over the
funds, including that 20% you came up with, within 60 days, you'll probably get
most of the withheld 20% back as a refund on next year's tax return.
    
>    What is the penalty if you don't?

10% of the amount of the distribution. If the distribution amount is $10000, the
*penalty* is $1000. Note that this is the penalty. There is *also* an income tax
on the amount distributed. Assuming you're in the 28% tax bracket, the federal
income tax on the $10000 distribution would be $2800. There is also a state
income tax on the distribution, where applicable. In MA, that would be $595 on
your $10000 distribution. So, total tax plus penalties on a $10000 distribution
ought to be (in MA) in the neighborhood of $4395 (approx 44% of the amount
distributed). Just for fun, be sure to take a SAVE distribution in the same year
that you sell lots of Digital ESPP stock at a profit.
    
>    Is this penalty deducted, or is it due at tax time?

The penalty is due at tax time. At least part of the federal tax *will* be
withheld whether you like it or not - I think you can also arrange for state
withholding. Whatever balance might be due (or even a refund if you're in the
15% tax bracket) is settled at tax time.

> 2. Interest calculations are more complex than most people realize.

But not that complex.  For example.  I have always been able to calculate
my mortgage balance to the penny with the following:

    1. Divided the yearly interest rate by 12.  This is the monthly interest
       rate.  

    2. Multiply the outstanding balance by the monthly interest rate, round
       to the nearest penny.  This is the current month's interest payment.

    3. Subtract the month's interest payment from the monthly payment you
       make to the mortgage company.  This is your month's principal repayment.

    4. Subtract the month's principal repayment and any additional
       prepayment you are making from the outstanding balance.  This is
       the new outstanding balance.

To apply this to the save plan guaranteed income fund, you have to know
when interest and additional contributions are made.  Assuming no
additional contributions and monthly interest credits, you convert the
yearly interest rate to a monthly interest rate by dividing my twelve.
Then:

    1. Multply balance by monthly interest and round to the nearest penny.
       This the this month's interest.

    2. Add this month's interest and new contributions to get the new
       monthly balance.

Repeat for as many months you want. 

                                        August G. Reinig

    
    	August -
    
    	Thank you. I now know why God invented computers. And computer
    programmers. ;-)
    
    
    		the Greyhawk

And spread sheets.

                            August

re estimated rate, guaranteed interest, and lies:

take a close look at the dates. this is not guaranteed, but i think you will
find the estimated rate was published before the cutoff time for changes.
then the cutoff time occurred. the fund managers then had a very good estimate
of how much money would be flowing in from employees. then the rate was set
and published. when you decided to be in the guaranteed interest fund, you 
did not have a guarantee of the rate, just a guarantee that it would
not change during the next period.  

the sudden influx of serp money violated the assumptions. in some sense
it was fair to change the rules since the game had changed. philosophers
and theologians that study ethics have debated similar questions for
centuries.  many people that value their own reputation for honesty will
naturally summarize the change as a lie. i think so, too. this does not 
say anything about those that disagree.

re: .117

> But not that complex.  For example.  I have always been able to calculate
> my mortgage balance to the penny with the following:

You picked a fine example of calculations that are indeed simple.  Note the
following properties of mortgages:

1. it doesn't matter when you make your monthly payments as long as you
   make the payment before the due date.

2. the number of days in the month does NOT affect the interest paid.

In the financial markets, the interest is calculated to the day. If you
deposited money in a bank, would you expect the interested earned to be
same whether you took the money out on 15th or the end of the month?
(Savings bonds are an exception.)

Fund A (as it was) had some interesting twists:
1.  the money is pooled together and used to purchase interest paying
    instruments.
2.  unlike a bank, the rate you get is not fixed but the end
    result of these pooled instruments.
3.  when plan members take out money because of terminations or loans,
    money is take out of the existing contracts on pro-rata basis. This
    impacts the rate.
4.  when mony comes in, new contracts/instruments are purchased. This
    also impacts the interest rate.
    
In short, the interest rate received is a function of our collective
actions and can be calculated only after the fact.

Gim
 
    

��                       <<< Note 3539.121 by SLOAN::HOM >>>

��In short, the interest rate received is a function of our collective
��actions and can be calculated only after the fact.

    Regardless of how complex this is to you, the intent of Fund
    A before 1991 was that the interest rate would be fixed and
    known before the beginning of the period.

    To me, this whole thing is like going to a bank and buying
    a 6 month CD.  Regardless of how complex interest rates are,
    this would yield a know return for the six months.  Part way
    through the six months, the bank calls you up and says 

    	'gee, we've had some bad business loans, and we're going to
    	lower the rate on your cd'.

    I would say, "the terms and conditions don't allow this"

    Based on your comments, you would say "interest rates are so
    complex, you must have to do this."

    This issue is not about the complexity of interest rates,
    it's about integrity.

    When you were looking up 'estimate' in your dictionary, did you
    check on integrity?   Or, perhaps it was a digital issued
    dictionary...

    The initial comment about Fund A which I made is
    
    The Save Plan Administration's Liturature stated "The Principal Is
    Guaranteed"
    
    This means to me that one a dollar is in my account it is mine, It will
    not shrink (as an equity share would if the price goes down)
    
    The interest was estimated for the next 6 month period, ok.
    
    Now the statement is "Nothing is Garanteed because the new Fund (A+B)
    has a component which can shrink in value therefor your value per share
    can shrink and thus the total of you holding can be less than it was.
    
    So I can no longer be assured that what I have is the least I will have
    until I terminate the holding.
    
    What they have done is forced me into a choice of more risk or more
    risk will be chosen for me.
    
    Any Questions?

    I just spoke to Cecelia at the 800#.  According to whoever she spoke
    to, the original Fund A principle was never guaranteed. We didn't see
    any loss because the Fund participants did not suffer any losses.
    
    I have Fund A because I am a NO RISK person with my retirement monies
    and had for years bought US Savings bonds for just that reason. Now I'm
    being told that my retirement money was/is at risk. Does this mean I 
    now have to spend time watching (WHAT?) to see if I need to move my 
    money around every month or quarter????
    
    I am not having a good morning.  I'm PO!

You think you're a "no risk" person but instead you're almost guaranteed that
your retirement savings won't amount to a hill of beans.  Why not stuff the
money under a mattress - your principal will be guaranteed, though it will
drop in value because of inflation (did you watch the video?)

Unless you're within 5-10 years of retirement, it's risky NOT to assume a bit
of risk in order to get higher returns.

				Steve

    re .last
    well, I'm within 5 years of retirement (I'm 54 and plan to retire at
    59)... and I'm in a quandry about which plan to get into.  
    
    at present I'm contributing the max allowed, and plan to increase to
    the new max... I'm currently deviding my contributions 80/20 between
    plan C and plan B... I've been in these two plans since the git-go in
    '85 or 86 (whenever it started) but only started out contributing 3%,
    then I upped to 4% (rough years) and finally to 8%.  In other words,
    I've got a big chunk in "value" but, not wildly big (and, of course, I
    wish it were bigger)... 
    
    I've played with the new software, and according to it, if I retire at
    59, I'll be able to survive about five minutes.  Not exactly what I was
    hoping to see....  
    
    So, I need to be a bit more aggressive... I'm thinking of putting all
    12% into portfolio B.  
    
    However, I think that the software is erroneous in this respect: It
    assumes too much about my future needs.  It clearly states that "most
    economists" consider adequate retirement income to be approx. 70% of
    current income.  I dispute this (for me only!)... for these reasons: 
    I've already built my retirement home and paid it off.  therefore I'll
    not have any mortgage.  It also does not allow for moving to a less
    costly place to live (different state, Vermont...)... It also doesn't
    seem to have the capacity to include any future income from seperate
    sources... like the equity from the sale of my current abode.  
    
    so, my feeling is that the program is a fun piece of software to look
    at, but certainly not something to bet your life on.
    
    tony

    -1
    
    yes, true, yet it doesn't take into account the college bills for the
    kids either.  

My recollection of the software is that there is a section where you CAN 
input all this information.  It was the last section I got to as I went 
thru the software (I distinctly remember changing my % of current income to 
see how living on less would effect how much longer the money would last).  
Take another look at the program.

Jilly

    The comment about return, have you looked at some of the riskier funds
    which went negative during the early 90's. Fund A never lost.
    
    When its over its over (Thanks Yogi).
    
    No time to recoup, don't want to lose what I have accumulated,
    
    Return high dure to high risk, been there did that, now keep the money
    until I can run.
    
    Baby boomers shut up on this one, If you are not 55+ you do not know
    what I am talking about.
    
    Ponzi paid high return - to some - took the money and ran for the rest
    
    Some being a very few - the rest all the greedy ones.
    
    

As I said, if you're nearing retirement, you indeed don't want to take
risk.  If you are looking 20 or more years out, then NOT taking some degree
of risk means that your "savings" will be worth very little when you
retire.

					Steve

>    Baby boomers shut up on this one, If you are not 55+ you do not know
>    what I am talking about.

Of course, at the rate things are going, the younger you are the less likely
it looks like there will be much, if any "safety net" (e.g. Social Security)
at retirement.  Things for people retiring after 2010 look pretty bad
(not to mention 2030+ if the retirement age gradually increases to 70.)

    re .last
    I doubt if I'll get more than I put into the SS system.  My parents did
    (and are) ... but, by the time I can start drawing... age 62 at the
    earliest, I'll probably only draw for 10 years or so... what's that? 
    about 800 per month for 120 months equals $96000 total drawdown of SS
    benefits to me... Weigh that against 40+ years of contributing the
    maximum (except for the last 5 years, when the max was outta reach) by
    me AND my employer... lessee, distribute 96000 over 40 years equals
    2400 per year... i certainly believe that between me and my employer's
    contributions, that I've exceeded that sum by a goodly amount.
    
    tony

I would like to point out a potential pitfall in the transition to the new 
SAVE plan.

According to page 20 in the "Your SAVE Plan" brochure:

     In this SAVE kit is a beneficiary form with a return envelope...

     If you don't return the form, your spouse or the current beneficiary 
     Digital has on file for your SAVE account will receive your account
     in the event of your death.

"or"?  I worked this question up the management line at Hewitt Associates, who
were quite pleasant and genuinely helpful; and they realized that this
statement was misleading.  If you don't return the form, your spouse will 
become the beneficiary.  If you wish another individual or a trust to be the 
beneficiary, you must submit the form, properly notarized.

    
    
    "or"
    
    	Doesn't sound confusing to me - If you are married, its your
    spouse, if not - whoever you have listed currently.
    
    ed

    I must have lost my SAVE papers because I don't have a PIN number to
    sign up.
    
    Can I sign up later, if so when?
    

I never received the mailing with the PIN.  When I finally got through to
a human, she offered to mail it again, but I explained it would get to me too
late.  I'm already in SAVE for the max, and all I wanted to do was move
stuff around.  Since you can do this outside of open enrollment (once a month),
I'll just have a slight delay.  If you want to enroll or change your percent,
it may be more difficult.  Call the 800 number and pretend you don't have
touchtone.

	I talked to someone at the Express line and told her I wanted to
	enroll and didn't have a PIN. She's mailing me one and said I can
	enroll at any time.

							mike

I also did not get a PIN number and when I called Benefits Express I made
like I did not have a touchtone phone and got thru to a real human being
in less than 2 minutes.  I was told the existing funds will be put into 
the new funds which best match the old fund automatically.  After April 14th,
I should have received the PIN by then and will be able to change where the 
moneys are going to, etc.  

I'm kind of glad to know I wasn't the only one that didn't receive the PIN.

Judy

The PIN that was sent to me was wrong.  I called up, waited 20 minutes
for a real person to come on the line (Musack and an announcement every
40 seconds, Ugh!!), And they didnt understand why it didnt work, but made
the changes in any case.

	Anyone who was a SAVE participant with funds in the
Windsor Fund (old fund C) would find some interesting reading 
in the NYOS01::Digital_Investing conference.  Note 355.26 
discusses the Windsor Fund 2.5% gain of March.

	Note 355.38 discusses the SAVE plan expenses.  

	The plan was not implemented as advertised in the 
fancy brochures.

-Austin W

Subj:	Company to Contribute to SAVE Plan                                     2

From:	NAME: Robert B Palmer @MSO          
	FUNC: Office of the President         
	TEL:                                  <PRESIDENT@A1@SALES@AKO>
To:     See Below

  Company to Contribute to Employee 401(K) SAVE Plan
  
  I am pleased to announce that as of July 1, 1995 Digital will begin to 
  make contributions to your 401(K) SAVE plan.  The company 
  contribution, which can be as much as 2 percent of your salary, will 
  be equal to one-third of the first 6 percent of pay you set aside in 
  the plan.  
  
  Planning for financial security in retirement is, of course, an 
  individual responsibility.  But, I believe Digital can provide 
  incentive and assistance.  If you are already enrolled in the SAVE 
  plan, today's announcement can help you reach retirement goals sooner 
  and more easily.  If you are not enrolled, I hope this improvement 
  prompts you to consider doing so.
     
  Enhancements to employee benefit plans are not necessarily tied to 
  short-term company results, but sustained performance does make 
  improvements affordable.  Your hard work and dedication are turning 
  this great company around.  We are not yet declaring victory, but I am 
  confident that with your continued commitment Digital will achieve the 
  industry leadership goals we have set for ourselves.
  
  More details about this improvement to the 401(K) SAVE Plan will be 
  sent to the homes of US employees in early June.
  
  Regards,
  
  Robert B. Palmer
  
  
This message was delivered to you utilizing the Readers Choice delivery 
services.  You received this message because you are a U.S. employee. If you 
have questions regarding this message, please contact the author of the memo.



To Distribution List:

JOHN GARZA@PHX,
ALAUDIN HASHAM@PHX,
KATHY HILL@PHX,
JOSEPH HOLT@PHX,
PAUL HOSKINS@PHX,
JEROLD HOUSE@PHX,
DOUGLAS HUBBARD@PHX,
MICHAEL HUFFAKER@PHX,
PATRICIA HUTH@PHX,
KEVIN JAMES@PHX,
RICHARD KANE@PHX,
KRIS KIRBY@PHX,
TRACY KRAUSE@PHX,
BRENT LANGBEHN@PHX,
ARLAN LEEDS@PHX,
DAVID L LEWIS@PHX,
DANIEL MALINSKI@PHX,
DEBORAH MARQUARDT@PHX,
BRUCE MAY@PHX,
KENT MEAGHER@PHX,
DAVID MINICK@PHX,
MICHAEL MOLITORIS@PHX,
OKOI OKOI@PHX,
DANIEL PANGALLO@PHX,
DONNA PATRICK@PHX,
MICHAEL POIANI@PHX,
EVAN PORTER@PHX,
BRIAN POWERS@PHX,
MARY QUICK@PHX,
HOLLY ROBERT@PHX,
DALE ROBERTS@PHX,
EDWARD ROCHA@PHX,
ALAN ROHRER@PHX,
DIANE SCHAUS@PHX,
MARY SCUDDER@PHX,
JESSE SEELEY@PHX,
DANIEL SHERMAN@PHX,
DEANNA STALLKNECHT@PHX,
CHALMER STAMPER@PHX,
ELIZABETH TAYLOR@PHX,
KAREN J TAYLOR@PHX,
JAMES TUBB@PHX,
JUDY UTTER@PHX,
RANDY WHISLER@PHX,
LAURIE WIESINGER@PHX,
RONALD WILLIS@PHX,
LEE WOLFE@PHX,
MARK ABBETT@PKO,
JUDITH ABRAHAMOVICH@PKO,
GEORGE ABRAHAMSON@PKO,
BRUCE ADAMS@PKO,
ROBERT ADAMS@PKO,
JOSEPH ADAMSKI@PKO,
STEVEN AGRAZ@PKO,
MICHAEL AHO@PKO,
KAMLAKAR AJGAONKAR@PKO,
POLLY ALDEN@PKO,
BRUCE ALFORD@PKO,
MICHAEL ALLEN@PKO,
ROGER ALLEN@PKO,
DOREEN ALONGI@PKO,
DONALD ALUSIC@PKO,
NED ANDERSON@PKO,
LISA ANDRELLOS@PKO,
MARCO ANNARATONE@PKO,
ALAN ARCHAMBEAULT@PKO,
RODOLFO ARCHBOLD@PKO,
JOHN ARDUINO@PKO,
ROBERT ARMSTRONG@PKO,
THOMAS ARNOLD@PKO,
DALE ARSENAULT@PKO,
EDWARD ARTHUR@PKO,
RANGASWAMY ARUMUGHAM@PKO,
VINCENT ASBRIDGE@PKO,
BARBARA ASKETH@PKO,
ROBERT ASTAPOVEH@PKO,
JOSEPH ASTONE@PKO,
JOHN AUDINO@PKO,
STEPHEN AUKSTIKALNIS@PKO,
ALBERT AVERY@PKO,
TERRY AYER@PKO,
BRENDA BAER@PKO,
ARMEN BAGHDOYAN@PKO,
JOHN BAGLEY@PKO,
CARLA BAIRD@PKO,
DENNIS BAK@PKO,
ROBERT BAKER@PKO,
STEVEN BAKER@PKO,
JIM BALSON@PKO,
PATRICK BARBADORO@PKO,
ARMANDO BARBOSA@PKO,
EDWARD BARKER@PKO,
STEVEN BARKER@PKO,
VIRGINIA BARKER@PKO,
CHRISTOPHER BARRY@PKO,
SHEILA BARRY@PKO,
KAREN BASHAW@PKO,
JEAN BASMAJI@PKO,
DANIEL BASS@PKO,
ROSS BAUERNFEIND@PKO

    
    	Use words like fabulous, wonderful, finally, and great.
    
    	I, for one, have nothing but praise and gratitute.
    
    
    		Thanks for listening, Bob -
    
    
    			the Greyhawk

    This is pretty impressive -- Bob just effectively gave the entire
    corporation a 2% raise.  I think this says something about his optimism
    about the turnaround.
    
    	Steve

    dido on .142 "Things are looking up" Thank you Digital

    Nothin' but good stuff to say about that one!

    
    
    Yup, this is great stuff.
    
    Mike

    
    re: .143
    
    Not whole Corporation, unless I'm mistaken 401K is US only, but then to
    many that is the whole corporation.
    
    

    re: .147
    
    Oops.  I stand corrected.  A 2% raise for the US-based employees of the
    corporation.  I hope they plan to extend a similar benefit to those
    outside the US as well.
    
    	Steve

    
    I'm not in save so I didn't get the 2% raise so don't include the whole
    U.S.
    
    But I may consider joining now..
    
    z

    
    
    Does this make it more likely that the company will no longer be
    investing in employee pension fund?????
    
    A buyout of pension $$$$ certainly would be good news.
    
    

Anyone know when the next sign-up period is?

Thanks,
Laura

    
      Good stuff. "The company helping you help yourself" is the way 
    of the future and it's not a bad thing. I have been in the plan for a
    few years, but if I wasn't enrolled I'd be considering it now. 
    
      Glad to hear it!
    

    RE: 151 ... I think you can sign up any time by calling the 800 number
    that was in the SAVE enrollment kit.
    
    

  I think the mail from Bob went to all U.S. employees but was wondering why
  this message didn't show up in LIVEWIRE.  I know that the U.S. menu option
  has been dropped but there is a message in Worldwide News reminding U.S.
  employees about paycheck distribution.

  	just_wondering

re: .154

When the U.S. option was removed from Livewire, the message said that Readers
Choice would be used for US specific information.

Elaine

    I am very excited about this.  It's a nice beginning.  Thanks to those
    who finally (lessee, SAVE started in '85, I seem to recall) brought DEC
    into line with many of the better offerings.  Not the best, but one
    hell of sight better than NO contributions.   
    
    
    Tony (who also thinks this is the first step to DEC dropping the
    corporate retirement plan for a 401K type offering.)
    
    

    I started in the 401k late in my career( working life) at age 55, just
    a year ago, at the max for my salary range. Better late than never, The
    dollars are adding up already. This projected added contribution from
    Digital for U.S. employees in SAVE is a good thing all around. Applause
    from this employee! 
    Just a small, but positive, nit--the contribution from Digital is
    actually a little higher than the face amount isn't it, since it is in
    pre-tax dollars?
    Bruce

    Re .157:
    
    > Just a small, but positive, nit--the contribution from Digital is
    > actually a little higher than the face amount isn't it, since it is in
    > pre-tax dollars?

    No, those dollars are dollars.  It is the regular wages Digital pays
    you that are actually 28% or more less than the face amount, since they
    are in taxed dollars.
    
    Actually, the SAVE dollars will be taxed too when you take them out,
    but they earn interest in the interim.  Of course, that's also taxed. 
    What you really get out of SAVE is the after-tax dollars that come from
    interest on the money that sits in your account that wouldn't have been
    there during those years if the IRS took it earlier.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    I set up my Reader's Choice profile when I found out that VTX LIVEWIRE
    was no longer going to have the US area news.  Now, I would just as
    soon get the sort of info that used to go into VTX in my mail anyhow,
    since VTX is a real nuisance to use.  But I have never, ever gotten a
    single piece of mail from the Reader's Choice thingie, even though it
    was definitely set up to mail to this account.  Obviously it works for
    some people since someone posts these annoucements here, but it would
    be nice to get news through the "official" channels, such as they are,
    rather than relying on happening to eat lunch in front of my
    workstation most days and find out important info in NOTES.  Any ideas
    what is wrong with my Reader's Choice profile?
    
    /Charlotte
              

    I don't think you need a profile at all to get these "US Employee"
    mailings.  You might want to check with "Human Resources" (or whatever
    the voicemail system calls itself nowadays).
    
    					Steve

re: .159

Typically, not receiving Reader's Choice mail means that your site message 
router entry is screwed-up or non-existent.

You can check this for yourself by sending yourself a test message.  If you 
use VAXMAIL, send yourself a message using the address 
	MTS$::"PKO::Charlotte Richardson"
(This assumes the MTS$ logical is properly set up on your system.)

Or have someone who has ALL-IN-1 send you mail at 
	Charlotte Richardson@PKO

This is how Reader's Choice is sending you mail.  If these fail, take it 
up with your site support people.

Ray

    You're right: it appears to be messed up (wonder how long that's been
    the case?) - if I send mail to myself via MTS$, it bounces with a
    string of junky errors.  I don't know anyone who uses ALLIN1, so I
    can't try that route, but I am sure it fails too - I'll have to go find
    the right person to fix it up.
    
    /Charlotte

You can query your local (or any) message router to see how a particular
name is stored and translated by sending a message to MRMAN @XXX, with
the subject COMMANDS and containing SHOW "LASTNAME", one per line.

For example,
===============================================================================
From:   AIMHI::TINIUS
To:     MTS$::"MKO::MRMAN"
Subj:   COMMANDS

SHOW "TINIUS"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and the answer I get back is
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:   AIMHI::MRGATE::"GRANIT::MRMAN"
To:     AIMHI::TINIUS
Subj:   RE: COMMANDS

To:     TINIUS@AIMHI@MRGATE@AIMHI

The results of your commands:
MRM> SHOW "TINIUS"
TINIUS,KONRAD             Replace=STEPHEN TINIUS
TINIUS,STEPHEN            Replace=TINIUS@AM@MKOTS3 
TINIUS,STEVE              Replace=STEPHEN TINIUS
===============================================================================

    Charlotte,
    
    I tried sending you mail and this is what I got:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From:   PONYEX::PONYEX::MRGATE
    To: AWECIM::MCMAHON
    CC:
    Subj:   Message Router delivery notification message
    
    
    RE  Message ID: 11427120505991/1326334@PONYEX
    UA  content ID: Test mail
    Generated by node: NEMTS
    
    
    Attempted delivery to:
    
        Userid                : CHARLOTTE RICHARDSON        <--
        Arrival date          :  2-MAY-1995 17:25
    
    This delivery failed. Failure reason was "unable to transfer".
    Diagnostic was "unrecognised recipient name".
    
    From:   NAME: MCMAHON <MCMAHON@AWECIM@MRGATE@PONYEX@HLO>
    Subject: Test mail
    To: Charlotte Richardson@PKO
    
    Charlotte,
    
    If you get this, it means that the MTS$ mail address is working for
    you.
    
    I sent this to: MTS$::"PKO::Charlotte Richardson"
    
    Hope it works.
    
    Pat McMahon
    fellow noter
    
    Date:   02-May-1995
    Posted-date: 02-May-1995
    
    VMSmail To information: MTS$::"PKO::Charlotte Richardson"
    VMSmail CC information: MCMAHON
    Sender's personal name: Patrick McMahon ~ DS CIM ~ HLO2-1/A11 ~
    225-5823
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Definitely looks like a problem.
    
    P@
    

    Yes, that's what I got too.  I just now got a mail message back from
    our official person who officially fixes this sort of stuff.  I guess
    he is fixing it - at least, it now has an official problem tracking
    number assigned to it.  Sure takes a lot of process to fix simple stuff
    anymore!
    
    I didn't know MTS could perform any useful tricks like telling you what
    it had for you - I just sent it mail asking it.  Ya learn something new
    every day...  Of course, it has probably been ten years since I last
    actually deliberately used MTS for anything anyhow.  I remember trying
    to track down a Chinese co-worker's MTS route for some reason or other
    (probably to send mail to Ivestor Service so he could sell off his DEC
    stock, or something like that).  His first name had a space in it.  We
    finally figured out after a lot of fooling around that he was in MTS,
    but with a hyphen in place of the space.
    
    The official person just called and said that it is being fixed (more
    process? Wow!).  Apparently it's been wrong for about a year and a
    half!
    
    Sorry about the rathole - at least I asked the right folks!  Thanks,
    everyone.
    
    /Charlotte

So, consider those of us that use Digital Unix (nee OSF/1), the system that
we've been advertising so heavily in the Wall Street Journal.  Assume an Alpha
running Unix, with TCP/IP and *NO* DECnet.  How do we check these nifty message
router parameters?

For that matter, is there a corporate approved answer to the question I've been
posing for a while:

	What "$" prompt?  I don't have a "$" prompt at which I can type "VTX".
	In fact, there is no official VTX for us Unix users. Yes, I've
	translated the ULTRIX version (I wrote the mx translator :-)), but my
	gripe is that the company has no "official" answer for me.

/Anton

    RE: .-1
    
    If you're asking about .163, send a message like the following:
    
    	To: [email protected]
    	Cc:
    	Subj: COMMANDS
    	---------------------------------------------------
    	SHOW "CHERNOFF"
    
    This assumes, of course, that your sendmail has been configured
    correctly to recognize "mts.dec.com" as the UMC pseudo-domain and that
    it relays either explicitly or via MX records to "mts.dec.com" (which
    is actually wrlmts.dec.com).
    
    To address properly registered ordinary mortals, the address is
    "[email protected]", and to address the person who fixes
    things, try [email protected] .
        
    -Tom