Anonymously contributed:
Just received a notice from UC that they will be requiring contributions to the retirement system in the range of 18 to 20 percent with UC picking up the lions share of that contribution.
Since TCP1 was structured to mirror what UC does with respect to contributions one would assume contribution will be required from TCP1 participants shortly
That's the way the cookie crumbles.
27 comments:
LLNS have promised substantially equivalent benefits in the aggregate, remember?
By requiring contributions to TCP1, they are only honoring that promise, arent they?
Just because UC is finding the need to require contributions does not mean LLNS will follow suit.
It's all good. I guess TCP-1 will mean a 6-16% cut in take home pay very soon. Actually I heard a 18-20% contributing is not out of the question, but maybe they'll be easy on you the first year and only ask for 6% and then a 2% increase for every years after that until the economy rebounds, which is about 10-14 years away after inflation takes over in 6 years. Why he-ll, that's just in time for the late retirees to start drawing. LLNS wins. You pay for 10 years into TCO-1 and they give you your own money back. Some retirement plan wouldn't you say old chap.
Weasel words, nothing more.
They will be no TPC1 contributions anytime soon, if ever.
UCRP is an open plan that continues to grow as new UC employees are hired by the UC system. Its a huge plan with lots of liabilities and needs money coming from the state to stay afloat. It is also paying out to thousands and thousands of current UC retirees.
TPC1 at LLNL is a closed plan that was well funded from the beginning by UC. It started off 2008 with $1.6 Billion for 3927 participants.
TPC1's assets are considerably greater than its liabilities, even in this down market. And because there are so few actually drawing retirement under TPC1 - unlike UCRP - from a long term investment strategy standpoint there's more than enough time for the plan to recover losses.
TPC1 at LLNL is well overfunded for what is required under federal law for pension plans, so there is no reason for employee contributions.
Now if you are at LANL, this is a different story. TPC1 there was not funded as well by UC. It began 2008 with $1.5 Billion for 6334 participants. Look at the summary sheet on their website http://www.lanl.gov/worklife/benefits/reports.shtml
The LANL and LLNL summaries for 2008 have not yet been submitted to DOL. But looking at the 2007 LANL summary, you can get a hint at why LLNL TPC1 is in okay shape. At LANL TPC1 began 2007 with $1.3 Billion in assets then paid out $660,370 in benefits to retirees plus had $6.3 Million in administrative costs, and still ended the year increasing to $1.5 Billion in assets.
Considering that the LLNL TPC1 has more assets and less participants (future retirees) than the LANL TPC1, I would expect our TPC1 to remain in good shape.
January 31, 2009 2:58 PM
I hope you're wrong and TCP-1 goes to PBGC sooner than you think, especially since most of ULM took it. Nothing could make my day better than to see GM and FR bite the dust big time.
I hope you are right. You are either some very well informed or a wishful thinker. Too bad, ULM does not publicly reassure TCPers that everything will e ok.
January 31, 2009 7:41 PM
TPC1 participants did receive a letter from LLNS (Chairman of the Benefits & Investment Committee) on November 25, 2008 stating TPC1 was healthy and safe.
He wrote - "Even though the financial markets have declined substantially in 2008, the LLNS Plan's [TPC1] assets remain considerably greater than its liabilities, and should continue to be sufficient to protect against future adverse economic conditions. Currently, the LLNS Plan's over-funded position makes it exempt from any contributions for the foreseeable future."
TPC1 employees also received the summary on the 2007 report that went to DOL. It stated the plan started 2007 with $1,657,376,087 in it for 3,927 participants.
Employees in TPC2 did not receive these letters, so this may explain why some in TPC2 have a different perspective on the financial condition of TPC1 and potential for contributions.
ULM at LANS has their own pension plan. Often an equivalent buy back into the UC pension to make them whle again. This was posted in UC Reagents meetings with their 1st year salaries, bonus, and perks.
January 31, 2009 2:58 PM
My guess would be that all ULM that took TCP1 will NEVER have to pay into it (part of their contract) even if everyone else has to.
Nothing could make my day better than to see GM and FR bite the dust big time. (4:16 PM)
GM got the same executive deal as Mike Anastasio at LANL. The Directors of the lab LLCs have been setup with special pension insurance that ensures they will never see a loss on their future retiree payouts. Therefore, GM is sleeping soundly.
January 31, 2009 2:58 PM
There are probably quite a few TCP-1 folks that would never want it to go to PBGC - for higher paid staff with many years of service, the PBGC benefits could well be a fraction of TCP-1 benefits. This is because PBGC caps benefits based on age at time the plan goes to PBGC - it doesn't matter what your HAPC is or how many years of service you have.
January 31, 2009 2:58 PM wrote: "I hope you're wrong and TCP-1 goes to PBGC sooner than you think..."
Wow, you'd wish such difficulty on several thousand co-workers? Unbelievable. I hope you're a better colleague than that day-too-day with your immediate team members.
TCP-1 and TCP-2 relative performance is not some contest. Different people made different choices to fit different life circumstances. I hope each person meets their ojbectives.
TCP1 or TCP2 - we are all screwed!
"TPC1 employees also received the summary on the 2007 report that went to DOL. It stated the plan started 2007 with $1,657,376,087 in it for 3,927 participants."
What's in it today? That is the big question. I have heard it has lost more than 30% of it's value. And it is TCP1 not TPC1.
According to its management contract, LLNS is required to consider amending the TCP1 pension plan consistent with changes to the UCRP.
"The TCP1 DBP plan provides for future employee contributions, if required, in a manner similar to the UCRP."
Right off the TCP1 site.
February 2, 2009 5:23 AM
If TCP1 lost 30% since Jan 08 then there's still over $1.1 Billion in it for 3927 (or less) participants.
You can trust TCP1. It is being managed by LLNS. Would they ever do you wrong?
If TCP1 lost 30% since Jan 08 then there's still over $1.1 Billion in it for 3927 (or less) participants.
So your retirement (on average ) is only worth a little over 280,000.00? I hope you have other investments.
February 3, 2009 12:25 PM
Considering a person needs about $1M a piece to draw a good wage for the rest of your life I wish you all well. Don't worry LLNL will soon be DOD and that'll be GS and WG grade that can go to PBGC at time uncle sam wants to save big bucks
2:58, thank you for your post. I remain confident I made the right decision with TCP1, especially now. But I can't understand why a select few who chose TCP2 come on here and bash those who took TCP1, hoping for failure. It's sad. It's the same bitter folks who hope the lab dies a quick death, leaving all the remaining employees out in the cold.
February 6, 2009 1:04 AM
And I hope you all go down in a ball of flames big time and could be there to watch you burn. Come on PBGC.
February 7, 2009 6:50 AM wrote: "And I hope you all go down in a ball of flames big time and could be there to watch you burn."
Again, why wish this on anyone, particularly coworkers? Or does the "could" mean you already bailed? Or got forced out by all the transition upheaval, in which case I can acknowledge the source of venom. For those of us still there, I don't know how to separate LLNS success from LLNL success. If LLNS fails, we're all nailed to the wall.
Please spell out. What is this FLA?
(Four Letter Acronym): PBGC
Thanks!
FLA=Fair Labor Association
PBGC=Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
. . . at least that's what Google says.
You 50-year-olds who took TCP1 are probably in good shape. You 30-year-olds should start worrying who will even remember to what "substantially equivalent" referred.
Post a Comment