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...
Comments
The real and perceived failures at Los Alamos prompted the contract change for them and Livermore. LANL had their contract changed a year before Livermore so those in California can get a view of the boulder coming down the hill before it hits them.
And face it, most of the drama and juicy gossip happens at LANL. There were many a time when I was looking at the old LANL blog and I would say "You've got to be kidding me." When it comes to office back stabbing, security failures and technical boondoggles, I tip my hat to the folks in New Mexico. Livermore sure isn't an innocent in these matters but LANL is the expert.
April 10, 2018 at 4:33 PM
To be fair to LANL, a lot of this has to do with it being in New Mexico. Sandia also has some crazy stuff as well, it is just the nature of the state.
April 10, 2018 at 8:45 PM
Agree!!!
Agreed, the natives (a large majority) have no business working at Nuclear Weapons Labs ...give New Mexico back to Mexico.
At least it checks the box for diversity.
April 12, 2018 at 2:16 PM
LANL needs a competent, scientifically respected, politically attuned, personally well-adjusted new Director. Unruly, uncontrolled egos (i.e., "Tomas" - why does everyone call him by his first name? It is kind of a creepy homophilia) are not qualified. Just be normal psychologically, stable in denmeanor, well-spoken, and calm in crises. No such people exist in the national labs' retinue? That is very sad and frightening.
April 18, 2018 at 8:06 PM
They do still exist (Bob Webster for example) but the director position is now a political position if you haven't noticed so you must be a sociopath as a pre-qualification.