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
Is this a LLNL manger?
2/07/2023 5:32 PM
Agreed but you have to admit this guy is what they are looking for in management. I bet anything that there is going to be pushback buy some higher ups who will see this setting a bad predicament for management recruitment.
Some Lab political figures will not lose their clearance for obvious transgressions while HOLDING a clearance. “Rules for thee but not for me”.
-Doug
2/10/2023 6:15 PM
If you have to ask, you are not the know. If you are in the know you do not have to ask. There are people that know and people that do not know.
Hello “Anonymous”, please identify yourself, your current and past positions at the Lab, along with their respective job classifications. Otherwise you might be a troll.
Right. So making a statement without support or evidence is just fine, but asking for support or evidence makes one a troll, or just means you are "not in the know" whatever the hell that means. What nonsense.Don't you people have actual lives?
2/11/2023 5:54 PM
Yes, that is why we are in know. Does that clear it up for you now.
A little sensitive? Would you only be convinced when a lab employee is caught red-handed on surveillance video, etc. in violation of “Guideline D: Sexual Behavior”, or some other security clearance guideline violation, or do you think the set of security clearance guidelines are essentially a farce, and never occur in real life? Haven’t security guidelines evolved to cover the most likely circumstances that could comprise security for a reason? Think about it.
Only saying that accusations and innuendo are cheap. Evidence is necessary. If you don't have or aren't willing to share the latter, you are just a troll.
What would be the value added of name disclosing evidence (and the scummy particulars), have for a blog discussion? When these events occur, and they do, either the LSO receives derogatory information about the individual, the individual is turned in anonymously to the LSO, or the DOE/IG. Or, the individual is shielded by management in one form or another. If the individual’s clearance is lost, that release of information is very limited, and most people will never know such an event even occurred unless the employee files an OHA appeal. Even then, the OHA does not name the “XXXX…(individual)”. Regarding innuendo being cheap, have a look see at how you are ranked in a closed meeting, where cheap unproven innuendos can be frequent and false, where “evidence” is not necessary, but such accusations stay securely off your printed annual performance appraisal for any form of rebuttal. With respect, one can’t have it both ways without being somewhat hypocritical. I understand your point, but it should be considered in the larger context thats all.
2/12/2023 8:01 PM
Hah! You are having it both ways without providing context. Pot, meet kettle.