Skip to main content

UCRS

Why does UCRS not offer a simple ultra low cost SP500 index fund? It is the foremost, lowest fee, broadest, best characterized, most elementary of equity vehicles which offers the best understood risk/reward (sharpe ratio) of any equity. It is the foremost equity vehicle for equity weight in asset allocation. Yet it is absent. Why? LLNS offers it in the 401k plan.
Anonymous said...
Napolitano is too busy hawking 5000 freshman billets to Cal, UCLA and UCSD to rich foreigners to care about your investment choices. She's a big Cheese now.
Anonymous said...
Yep. President Kim Chee and Pasha Jihad kids sit from and center at UCLA, your Califonia slop smells cow paddies in Merced. Merced? Isnt that the crack capital of the central valley?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Let us begin a little history lesson. In 2007 the Lab went to LLNS and you moved into their retirement system, or froze with UC. Do you think anyone from UC is keeping an eye on the LLNS plans? UC washed their hands of retirement pay and health insurance hassle for the labbies AND got more money for their part in the LLNS debacle than they were pulling down when operating it on their own.

We only thought we were UC employees. We were actually red-headed step kids.
Anonymous said…
Of course, UC offers it's Domestic Equity fund. This is essentially a total (US) stock market fund (Russell 3000), which is somewhat more diversified than the S&P 500. But with an expense ratio of 15 basis points, it is marginally more expensive than the ~5 basis point funds offered by many S&P 500 and total stock market equivalents. For a $100K investment, the difference is an added cost of about $100/yr.

However, I think the theory is that there is no need to directly offer the lower cost index funds since there is a brokerage link option available with UC (and LLNS). The brokerage link can use it to purchase a low-cost ETF or even a Fidelity Spartan mutual fund (e.g., FUSVX is a Fidelity Spartan S&P 500 index fund with a 0.05 expense ratio).

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.

tcp1 looking good

I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...