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.
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.
Comments
By requiring contributions to TCP1, they are only honoring that promise, arent they?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Right off the TCP1 site.
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.
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
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.
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.
(Four Letter Acronym): PBGC
Thanks!
PBGC=Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
. . . at least that's what Google says.