/General/General%205.png?width=1280&height=853&name=General%205.png)
Healthcare Provider Update: Healthcare Provider for Conagra Brands: For Conagra Brands, the healthcare provider information is typically linked to their employment benefits and can vary based on the location and specific plans offered to employees. Generally, large companies like Conagra may partner with major insurers such as UnitedHealthcare, Anthem (Elevance Health), or Aetna to provide health insurance benefits to their employees. It is advisable for Enrolled members to refer to their HR department or employee benefit documentation for specific provider details. Potential Healthcare Cost Increases in 2026: As we look ahead to 2026, significant increases in healthcare costs are anticipated, largely influenced by the expiration of enhanced federal subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Reports indicate that premium rates for ACA marketplace plans could rise by over 60% in certain states due to higher medical expenses and market adjustments. Notably, a staggering 92% of policyholders may face a potential increase in their out-of-pocket premiums by more than 75%, reflecting the compounded effect of expiring subsidies and aggressive rate hikes from leading insurers. This perfect storm may lead to many consumers being priced out of essential healthcare coverage, forcing a reevaluation of their insurance options as financial pressures mount. Click here to learn more
We understand the importance of data driven research for Conagra Brands employees and retirees. Set out below are the results of two Fama and French backtests of the book value-to-market equity (the inverse of the PB ratio) data from 1926 to 2013. As of December 2013, there were 3,175 firms in the sample (Carlisle-PB, P2). The value decile contained the 459 stocks with the highest earnings yield, and the glamour decile contained the 404 stocks with the lowest earnings yield.
The average size of the glamour stocks is $7.48 billion and the value stocks are $2.54 billion. (Note that the average is heavily skewed by the biggest companies. For context, the 3,175th company has a market capitalization today of $404 million, which is smaller than the average, but still investable for most investors). Portfolios are formed on June 30 and rebalanced annually. When accounting for this backtest, Conagra Brands employees may recognize how two portfolios are weighted by market capitalization, which means that bigger firms contribute more to the performance of the portfolio, and smaller firms contribute less. Here, we can see that the value decile has comprehensively outperformed the glamour decile, returning 12.6 percent compounded (17.7 percent in the average year) over the full period versus 8.6 percent for the glamour decile (10.9 percent in the average year) (Carlisle-PB, P3).
These returns are considerably lower than the returns found for the price-to-earnings and cash-flow ratios discussed earlier. Despite the irregularity, Conagra Brands employees must be aware that the earnings and cash flow back tests ran back to only 1951, and the book value return data begins in 1926. The difference is due to the 1929 crash, which had an oversized impact on returns. The impact of the crash is visible on the chart; it took twenty years for the value decile to fully recover. Conagra Brands employees must also note how something similar has happened to the glamour decile since 2000; it hasn’t grown in 13 years. To make a comparison possible of the book value’s performance to the performance of earnings and cash flow over the same period, I also measured the returns beginning in 1951. Since 1951, the low P/B value decile has generated a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 15.0 percent and an average annual return (AAR) of 17.9 percent. Over the same period, the glamour decile returned a CAGR of 9.6 percent and an AAR of 12.6 percent (Carlisle-PB, P5). These returns are approximately the same as the returns generated by the low P/CF and P/E studies over the same period.
In their study, they found that the quintile of the lowest P/E stocks significantly outperformed the high P/E quintile. The portfolio containing the lowest P/E stock returned 11.61% annualized compared to 4.83% for the highest P/E portfolio and 7.55% for the used universe of stocks. The graph below shows how the cumulative returns compare (it’s not even close). Conagra Brands employees can utilize this information to avoid investing in underperforming assets and better predict economic trends that translate into higher ROI.
Articles you may find interesting:
- Corporate Employees: 8 Factors When Choosing a Mutual Fund
- Use of Escrow Accounts: Divorce
- Medicare Open Enrollment for Corporate Employees: Cost Changes in 2024!
- Stages of Retirement for Corporate Employees
- 7 Things to Consider Before Leaving Your Company
- How Are Workers Impacted by Inflation & Rising Interest Rates?
- Lump-Sum vs Annuity and Rising Interest Rates
- Internal Revenue Code Section 409A (Governing Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plans)
- Corporate Employees: Do NOT Believe These 6 Retirement Myths!
- 401K, Social Security, Pension – How to Maximize Your Options
- Have You Looked at Your 401(k) Plan Recently?
- 11 Questions You Should Ask Yourself When Planning for Retirement
- Worst Month of Layoffs In Over a Year!
- Corporate Employees: 8 Factors When Choosing a Mutual Fund
- Use of Escrow Accounts: Divorce
- Medicare Open Enrollment for Corporate Employees: Cost Changes in 2024!
- Stages of Retirement for Corporate Employees
- 7 Things to Consider Before Leaving Your Company
- How Are Workers Impacted by Inflation & Rising Interest Rates?
- Lump-Sum vs Annuity and Rising Interest Rates
- Internal Revenue Code Section 409A (Governing Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plans)
- Corporate Employees: Do NOT Believe These 6 Retirement Myths!
- 401K, Social Security, Pension – How to Maximize Your Options
- Have You Looked at Your 401(k) Plan Recently?
- 11 Questions You Should Ask Yourself When Planning for Retirement
- Worst Month of Layoffs In Over a Year!
It is important for employees and retirees of Conagra Brands to understand how market capitalization-weighted returns are useful for demonstrating that the outperformance of value over glamour is not due to the value portfolios containing smaller stocks. Unless you’re running an index (or hugging an index), they’re not really meaningful. The easiest portfolio weighting scheme is to simply equally weight each position. (If we’re prepared to put up with a little extra volatility for a little extra return, we can also Kelly weight our best ideas). Kelly Weighting is determined by the Kelly Criterion which is a formula used to determine what percentage of their capital should be used in each trade to maximize long-term growth. There are two key components to the formula (Kelly % = W- [(1 - W) / R]): the winning probability factor (W) and the win/loss ratio (R). The winning probability is the probability a trade will have a positive return. The win/loss ratio is equal to the total positive trade amounts divided by the total negative trading amounts. The result of the formula will tell investors what percentage of their total capital they should apply to each investment. By utilizing the Kelly Weighting, investors employed or retiring from Conagra Brands can have a better grasp of their exposure to each individual asset in their portfolio and make informed decisions regarding their asset allocation.
Conagra Brands employees should also account for the equal weight return statistics for book value. In the equal weight backtest, the value generated a 20.2 percent compounded return (27.3 percent on average), beating out glamour’s 6.3 percent compounded return (10.4 percent on average) (Carlisle-PB, P10). Since 1951 the equally weighted P/B value decile has generated a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 20.0 percent and an average annual return (AAR) of 25.4 percent (Carlisle-PB, P11).
Over the same period, the glamour decile returned a CAGR of 6.4 percent and an AAR of 10.8 percent. These returns are close to the same as the returns generated by the low P/CF and P/E studies over the same period. When accounting for this information, Conagra Brands employees must recognize that the value portfolios outperformed because they bought more book value per dollar invested than the glamour portfolios: 4.57x on average versus 0.25x in the glamour portfolios (Carlisle-PB, P12). In the equal-weight portfolios, value has significantly outperformed glamour since 1999, beating it by an extraordinary 15.9 percent compounded, and 16.1 percent in the average year (Carlisle-PB, P13).
Because we understand just how important data-driven solutions are for our Conagra Brands employees and retirees, we have provided another study, which discusses the P/CF ratio. In a Brandes Research Institute study, Exhibit 6 below illustrates the global all-cap findings across three price metrics.
The results confirmed a consistent value premium across all metrics. We will focus on the P/CF ratio and the outperformance in the decile 10 value stocks. The smallest outperformance between decile 1 glamour stocks and decile 10 value stocks can be observed with the P/B measurement, where the average outperformance was 7.1% (Brandes, p. 8).
How does Conagra Brands, Inc. ensure that employees understand their retirement benefits, particularly the nuances of the Conagra Foods Inc. Pension Plan and the historical obligations from the Beatrice Retirement Income Plan (BRIP)? Are there specific communication strategies or resources provided to employees to navigate their eligibility and benefits?
Conagra Brands has not provided consistent documentation of the Beatrice Retirement Income Plan (BRIP), as evidenced by a lost BRIP Plan document, which has created confusion among former Beatrice employees. Conagra relies on internal committees like the Conagra Brands Employee Benefits Administrative Committee to oversee the administration of the Conagra Foods Inc. Pension Plan and the historical obligations from BRIP. However, there are allegations in the class action that Conagra has failed to communicate certain benefit entitlements, particularly the age at which unreduced benefits should commence(Conagra_Brands_Inc_02-1…).
In light of regulatory compliance, what measures does Conagra Brands, Inc. take to maintain the integrity and security of pension plan documents, especially considering the historical loss of the BRIP Plan document? How do the missing documents impact employee knowledge of their benefits?
The loss of the BRIP Plan document represents a significant failure in document retention and regulatory compliance. Under ERISA, Conagra is required to maintain and distribute these documents upon request. The missing BRIP documents have caused discrepancies in the administration of retirement benefits, particularly regarding the age of eligibility for unreduced benefits. Conagra has been criticized for not informing employees that these documents were lost, leading to confusion and underpayment of benefits(Conagra_Brands_Inc_02-1…).
What resources does Conagra Brands, Inc. offer to its employees who have questions about their pension benefits or discrepancies that may arise from the transition from the Beatrice Retirement Income Plan to the Conagra Foods Inc. Pension Plan? How can employees best utilize these resources?
Conagra directs employees to contact the Plan service center for inquiries related to their pension benefits. However, based on the complaints filed in court, there have been issues with transparency and the accessibility of important plan documents, including the BRIP. Employees have had to appeal their benefit decisions and deal with insufficient guidance on navigating the discrepancies between the old BRIP and the Conagra Plan. Resources like benefit calculators and service centers have sometimes provided inaccurate or incomplete information(Conagra_Brands_Inc_02-1…).
How does Conagra Brands, Inc. handle the potential discrepancies regarding the pension benefits related to the age eligibility for receiving unreduced benefits in the context of both the Conagra Plan and the Beatrice plan? What steps have been taken to prevent similar issues in the future?
Conagra has been handling discrepancies poorly, particularly around the age at which participants in the BRIP are entitled to receive unreduced benefits. The company's adjustment of the eligibility age from 60 to 65 without properly consulting or notifying employees has led to underpayment of benefits. The ongoing class action lawsuit seeks to address these discrepancies and prevent future issues by clarifying benefit entitlements under the terms of both plans(Conagra_Brands_Inc_02-1…).
Can you elaborate on the process that Conagra Brands, Inc. utilizes to communicate with employees about plan amendments and to clarify their rights under the Conagra Foods Inc. Pension Plan? What specific improvements have been made to this communication strategy in recent years?
The communication process regarding plan amendments at Conagra has been criticized as insufficient, particularly concerning the transition from the BRIP to the Conagra Plan. Employees have filed complaints about not receiving adequate notice of important changes, such as the shift in eligibility age for unreduced benefits. Conagra has failed to provide clear documentation, leading to confusion among employees. There is no evidence of significant improvements in recent years(Conagra_Brands_Inc_02-1…).
How does Conagra Brands, Inc. ensure compliance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), especially regarding the fiduciary duties of the Conagra Brands Employee Benefits Administrative Committee? What protocols are in place to guarantee that employees’ rights are consistently protected?
Conagra's compliance with ERISA has been challenged in court, with allegations of fiduciary breaches related to the loss of critical plan documents like the BRIP. The Conagra Brands Employee Benefits Administrative Committee is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the pension plan, but the loss of documents and failure to notify employees of their rights raise questions about the adequacy of these protocols. The lawsuit highlights a need for improved oversight and adherence to ERISA's fiduciary requirements(Conagra_Brands_Inc_02-1…).
What options are currently available for former Beatrice employees and other participants in the Conagra Foods Inc. Pension Plan to claim benefits they believe they are entitled to? How does Conagra Brands, Inc. facilitate this process?
Former Beatrice employees can contact the Pension Service Center to inquire about their benefits and initiate claims. However, the process has been complicated by missing documentation and conflicting information about eligibility. Some employees have been forced to file legal claims to recover benefits owed to them, as in the case of the ongoing class action lawsuit. The lack of clear and accessible resources has made it difficult for employees to navigate the process effectively(Conagra_Brands_Inc_02-1…).
In what ways does Conagra Brands, Inc. provide support or guidance for employees approaching retirement, particularly in understanding the timelines and responsibilities associated with electing benefits from the Conagra Foods Inc. Pension Plan?
Conagra provides online calculators and service center assistance for employees approaching retirement, but these tools have proven unreliable for some participants. Employees have reported being unable to calculate their benefits accurately or being told they were ineligible for benefits before age 65, despite the terms of the BRIP allowing benefits to begin at age 60. The class action complaint highlights deficiencies in the guidance provided to employees regarding their benefits(Conagra_Brands_Inc_02-1…).
How can employees at Conagra Brands, Inc. contact the Employee Benefits Administrative Committee for inquiries related to their benefits? What are the most efficient avenues for addressing concerns about the Conagra Foods Inc. Pension Plan or the transitions from the Beatrice plan?
Employees can contact the Plan service center for inquiries related to their benefits, but accessing the Employee Benefits Administrative Committee directly appears to be more challenging. The lawsuit indicates that employees seeking to address discrepancies with their benefits have not received timely or effective communication from the committee, often requiring legal action to resolve their concerns(Conagra_Brands_Inc_02-1…).
How does Conagra Brands, Inc. evaluate its pension plan's performance and benefits offerings in relation to industry standards? What methods are used to ensure the company remains competitive while protecting employee benefits under the Conagra Foods Inc. Pension Plan?
There is little publicly available information regarding how Conagra evaluates its pension plan's performance against industry standards. The company's handling of historical pension obligations, particularly from the Beatrice acquisition, suggests that its methods for protecting employee benefits have been insufficient. Ongoing litigation regarding underpayment of benefits and loss of critical documents indicates that the company may need to improve its evaluation methods and compliance efforts to remain competitive(Conagra_Brands_Inc_02-1…).
-2.png?width=300&height=200&name=office-builing-main-lobby%20(52)-2.png)
.webp?width=300&height=200&name=office-builing-main-lobby%20(27).webp)
-2.png)
.webp)