Skip to main content

How is UCRS and/or TCP-1 pension cpi adjustment calculated?

A question about the UCRS and/or TCP-1 pension cpi adjustment calculation. How is it done? I vaguely remember that it averages the BLS all-urban CPI data for LA and SF from Feb to Feb and that it is applied to pensions adjusted the following July. But I can't get the 2012 numbers to work. After recent Rogoff's Excel fiasco, I figured I should verify simple matters for myself. My 2012 adjustment was 1.8% in July 2012. The BLS all-urban seasonally-adjusted all-item deflators for the period are listed as; for LA Feb 2011 229.729 Feb 2012 234.537 Feb 2013 239.753 LA(2012/2011) = 234.5/229.7 = 1.0209 For Sf Feb 2011 229.981 Feb 2012 236.88 Feb 2013 242.677 SF(2012/2011)= 236.88/229.98 = 1.03 Therefore the average of the CPI increase in LA and SF from 2011 t0 2012 is (.03+.0209/2 = 2.54% not 1.8%. Do you know what the difference is from? By the way using current data the new CPI adjustment in July should be 2.3% Thanks in advance. Parney if you are reading, help out here.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Both UC and TCP1 do not provide a COLA when CPI is between 2% and 4%.

They match it up to 2% and when it exceeds 4% they match 75% of that inflation maxing out at 6%.

Between 2% and 4%, well that's what that your 403B/401k was for.
Anonymous said…
That doesn't explain why they gave 1.8% when they should have given the maxed out 2%.
Anonymous said…
Can anybody provide a pointer to where this approach is actually written down? I'm not familiar with this part of TCP-1.
Anonymous said…
[April 29, 2013]

University of California Retirement Plan (UCRP) and UC-PERS Plus 5 Plan benefit recipients will receive a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) effective July 1, 2013. The increase will appear in benefit checks paid at the end of July.

The July 1, 2013 COLA rates will be as follows:

Retirement Date COLA
On or before July 1, 2006 2.00%
July 2, 2006 – July 1, 2008 2.34%
July 2, 2008 – July 1, 2012 2.00%
The COLA applies to all UCRP benefits recipients, including those receiving survivor and UCRP disability income. The COLA formula for the UC-PERS Plus 5 Plan is the same as that used for UCRP.


How the COLA is calculated

The 2013 COLA is based on the 2.34 percent average increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) measured February 2012 to February 2013 for the Los Angeles and San Francisco metropolitan areas.

The COLA formula generally matches the cumulative increase in the CPI up to 2 percent annually. This year members who retired between July 2, 2006 and July 1, 2008 will receive slightly larger than 2 percent COLAs. The larger COLAs help those benefit recipients retain more of their purchasing power by partially making up for earlier years when the CPI increases were less than 2 percent.

Anonymous said…
[April 29, 2013]

University of California Retirement Plan (UCRP) and UC-PERS Plus 5 Plan benefit recipients will receive a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) effective July 1, 2013. The increase will appear in benefit checks paid at the end of July.

The July 1, 2013 COLA rates will be as follows:

Retirement Date COLA
On or before July 1, 2006 2.00%
July 2, 2006 – July 1, 2008 2.34%
July 2, 2008 – July 1, 2012 2.00%
The COLA applies to all UCRP benefits recipients, including those receiving survivor and UCRP disability income. The COLA formula for the UC-PERS Plus 5 Plan is the same as that used for UCRP.


How the COLA is calculated

The 2013 COLA is based on the 2.34 percent average increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) measured February 2012 to February 2013 for the Los Angeles and San Francisco metropolitan areas.

The COLA formula generally matches the cumulative increase in the CPI up to 2 percent annually. This year members who retired between July 2, 2006 and July 1, 2008 will receive slightly larger than 2 percent COLAs. The larger COLAs help those benefit recipients retain more of their purchasing power by partially making up for earlier years when the CPI increases were less than 2 percent.

Anonymous said…
Very clear. Thanks. Typical UC. Clear, thorough, fast, employee oriented.

Let's see if either Charlie or Parney have someone answer the question for LLNL and LANL TCP-1.

This is a typical example of the superiority of UC management vs. the LLCs. LLCs are lazy, mediocre and unwelcome compared to the dynamism of UC.

Bodman, Pryzbylek and D'Agostino made the wrong decision and strangled the labs.
Anonymous said…
Yes, the worst difference between being managed by LLNS vs. UC is the way LLNS treats employees.

LLNS learned mismanaging employees from Bechtel, whose brilliant personnel policies drove their designers into unions 30 years ago. Both Russo and Soderstrom were/are brutally bad leaders.
Vernell said…
This is cool!

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

LLNL un-diversity

Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!