I was offended by the article "The courts: PwC sued over cash balance, 401(k)" (Feb. 21, page 3).
I am a PwC professional (not a partner) who participates in both of the plans mentioned. The article is misleading at best, erroneous in fact at worst. I am disappointed that an article would be published where the author did not take the time to verify the information included. I understand that certain internal information is not readily available, but in those situations it should be omitted.
Additionally, the article implies that the poor employees were duped by the complexity of the plans and the creativity of the partners, including not understanding that the investments include those of the management company. We audit these types of plans on a regular basis. The firm provides us with all financial information required by law, and if employees chose to read it, they would find all appropriate disclosures. Our employees are certainly of the caliber that we could look at the financial statements and see if they were not in line with the plan documents provided.
The discussion regarding how the established retirement age is beneficial to the partners completely disregards the fact that all "rank-and-file" employees also have the ability to take advantage of the same opportunities. Additionally, the 200% match discussed is, once again, available to those same employees. I personally took advantage of it my first year by saving up all year and contributing my entire salary for the month of September to get the match.
Finally, it is not required that the firm offer the generous benefits that it does to begin with. We are provided a fair retirement package that is designed to encourage professionals to remain at the firm, and rewards us for our tenure. When publishing an article critical of a company's retirement package, those employees affected by it should be interviewed as well in order to gain a balanced viewpoint.