Anonymously contributed:
I ran across these on the Director's Office "Topics and Questions" website on the internal LLNL website, and thought they might be of interest.
-----
Q: I heard rumors that NNSA may raid our TCP1 fund to help fund other sites’ defined benefit plans? Is this true and is it legal?
A: No, NNSA cannot touch the LLNS Defined Benefit Retirement Plan (TCP1) funds. The plan is governed by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which means that all of the plan’s assets must remain in the plan (that is, the plan’s assets cannot be “raided”). Regarding the status of the other NNSA sites’ defined benefit plans, NNSA is looking for funds throughout the complex to make contributions to under-funded plans. These other funds could be operating funds from all sites in the complex, which could affect our Laboratory’s operating budget — but not the LLNS Defined Benefit Retirement Plan (TCP1).
Q: Will employees in TCP1 have to start making contributions to the plan?
A: At the present time, LLNS does not anticipate the need to initiate employee contributions to the LLNS Defined Benefit Plan (TCP1). The plan was funded at approximately 150 percent as of Jan. 1, 2009, which is a very healthy level compared to other defined benefit plans. The next valuation will be performed using plan information as of Jan. 1, 2010 — this process is under way.
I ran across these on the Director's Office "Topics and Questions" website on the internal LLNL website, and thought they might be of interest.
-----
Q: I heard rumors that NNSA may raid our TCP1 fund to help fund other sites’ defined benefit plans? Is this true and is it legal?
A: No, NNSA cannot touch the LLNS Defined Benefit Retirement Plan (TCP1) funds. The plan is governed by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which means that all of the plan’s assets must remain in the plan (that is, the plan’s assets cannot be “raided”). Regarding the status of the other NNSA sites’ defined benefit plans, NNSA is looking for funds throughout the complex to make contributions to under-funded plans. These other funds could be operating funds from all sites in the complex, which could affect our Laboratory’s operating budget — but not the LLNS Defined Benefit Retirement Plan (TCP1).
Q: Will employees in TCP1 have to start making contributions to the plan?
A: At the present time, LLNS does not anticipate the need to initiate employee contributions to the LLNS Defined Benefit Plan (TCP1). The plan was funded at approximately 150 percent as of Jan. 1, 2009, which is a very healthy level compared to other defined benefit plans. The next valuation will be performed using plan information as of Jan. 1, 2010 — this process is under way.
Comments
For some strange reason, the LLNL pension got far more money from UC than the LANL pension during the transition to the LLCs. That is the primary reason that LANL's pension appears to be facing funding problems.
Personally, I have little trust that either LLNS or LANS will be there supporting full pension payouts for the long term. The NNSA's "substantially equivalent" verbal promise cannot be trusted.
Maybe a letter to the State of California Governors office can help relieve that bloated TCP-1fund to help others who're in need. Click here please Looking for Funding Resources
Anyone want to help their cause?
Governor's Office:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160 ( new number )
If TCP1 under-funded,
then $ comes out of 'operating budget', resulting in budget shortfall, which means ISPing a few more employees.
Sooooo the trade off is
reduced pension OR layoff
(or worst case, both).
No body is responsible; you cannot sue anyone. That is why LLNS is an LLC. You are not working for Bechtel, you are working for LLNS whose responsibilities are limited. Wake up!
Be confident in your choice, whatever it was. People will only know the "right" answer in long hindsight.
Don't worry, TCP_2 will give will give you what's on this Chart. You just have to make up your mind you're going to work until you are 65.
Remember, projects are more important than people and TCP-1's lack of funding is going to come from operating funds. So what do you think will go first? Maybe you'll get lucky and they'll start asking for 2%, 6%, 10% and then 16% which was discussed many moons ago during the transition as a possibility. Of course everyone was in denial.
"If TCP1 becomes underfunded then NNSA is responsible for making up the difference."
When Ellen Tauscher was at the lab, the question was asked was the TCP1 benefit guaranteed by the govt. She said No. I made my decision to go TCP2 for several reasons:
My understanding was that NNSA was on the hook for propping up what ever shortfall there was on the portion of the UC pension that covered lab employees, but signed no such agreement for TCP1.
But as what as was pointed out already, it's all said and done. We made our choices and we get to dance with the partners we chose. I chose TCP2 but I don't wish TCP1 to fail to prove that I made a correct decision. I have too many friends who chose TCP1 and their pain will not make me feel any better.
Depressions tend to unfold very slowly and persists for a long time. Japan has been in and out depression for over 20 years now.
Unfortunately, this long downturn directly conflicts with the fact that most pensions generally need 8% returns on investments to fulfill pension "promises". Given the horrid state of the world economy, this rate of return is unlikely to happen over this next decade.
Near the end of this crisis, when US deficits are clearly so large as to be un-payable to lenders, expect our government to begin a move to seize lucrative pension assets in various ways to bail out the country. Argentina did this just last year by grabbing their citizens' pension assets and ruling that these assets must be invested in worthless Argentinian bonds!
Think it can't happen here? Then perhaps you should read this article below by AEI. Plans are already being made for grabbing 401K assets...
-
Class Warfare's Next Target: 401(k) Savings (AEI, Feb 18, 2010)
www.aei.org/article/101672
-
People are way too complacent about the enormous risks to their pensions and 401Ks. And don't even get me started on the future risks to Social Security payouts! The infamous "lock box" doesn't exist. It doesn't contain assets like US Treasury bills. Instead, it holds paper promises based on worthless IOUs!
Wake up and study what is going on around you, then prepare as best you can. This present economic crisis will be long and extremely difficult for almost everyone.... and it's only just begun.
Per LLNS, TCP1 (Defined Benefit Pension) summary notice
"Funding Target Attainment Percentage" table the plan was at 209.62% of its funding target - $1.65 Billion in assets and $790 Million in liabilities.
Now how is it that the same pot of $ under ucrp is at funding level of approx. 100%, and at a different funding level of 209% under tcp1 ?????????????
Answer:
" The actuarial accrued
liability for the benefits of members electing to participate in the LLNS Plan, as
determined under the LLNS Plan provisions and the actuarial assumptions and methods
used by the LLNS Plan’s actuary, will almost certainly be different from the UCRP
liability associated with these former UCRP members, because the LLNS Plan is subject
to different legal requirements established in the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA) that apply to the defined benefit plans of private sector employers."
Another word:
The " actuarial accrued liability" computation for UCRP vs LLNS/TCP1 are completely different. Future liabilities are computed based on assumption. Not only are there different methods used, the assumptions used in computation are different between private vs public. UCRP have stated using very 'conservative' assumption/method in their computation, provided publish quarterly reports (http://www.ucop.edu/treasurer/invinfo/archive.html) and have planned accordingly.
Bottom line, beware of the stats, 'facts' presented ... need to read the fine print
Knowing NNSA, they probably view the idea of a pension freeze-out as a great way to save money and force expensive research staff to leave the labs. The future of the NNSA labs is in production efforts, and not science. That's the prime reason that Bechtel and BWXT were brought aboard the LLCs.
The freezing will be done just as it was done at LANL, you'll get bonus checks from now on that don't count towards the base pay your retirement is calculated on therefore you can calculate your TCP-1 retirement right now and know what you'll have to live on. Of course you have to watch ULM's wages go through the roof while yours stays FLAT, FLAT, FLA