tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post2040957944586725609..comments2023-08-27T06:53:36.768-06:00Comments on LANL: The Rest of the Story: Listen, Learn, ReactFrank Younghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02134775226991383924noreply@blogger.comBlogger235125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-52675291838327266142007-07-22T12:45:00.000-06:002007-07-22T12:45:00.000-06:00We investment savvy baby boomers too young to reti...We investment savvy baby boomers too young to retire, would elect TCP2, but we're concerned about having to "compete" for our own jobs.<BR/><BR/>You do not have to compete for your job as long as you do not retire before Oct 1st.<BR/><BR/>If you cash out you had better make sure you roll it over tax free and do not take any withdraws before you are 59.5 years old, only the principle.<BR/><BR/>If you buy an annuity with it, which BTW will yield more than what LLNL is going to pay you make sure it is guaranteed, for your life and your spouse and realize you are on your own when it comes to medical. <BR/><BR/>I believe that the cash out and get medical access only has been reneged effective a few days ago.<BR/><BR/>Check the LLNS,LLC web site. Need more info about LLNL go to their web page and inquire. There a quite a few links there for you to read that should be an eye opener for all of you that have been sleeping.<BR/><BR/>http://llnl-the-corporate-story.blogspot.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-31943817040103807892007-07-18T15:36:00.000-06:002007-07-18T15:36:00.000-06:00Having just received offers of employment, LLNL's ...Having just received offers of employment, LLNL's inquiring minds want to know. We investment savvy baby boomers too young to retire, would elect TCP2, but we're concerned about having to "compete" for our own jobs.<BR/>1. In terms of strategy, is it worthwhile to freeze UCRP retirement, accept the LLNS offer, and then cash out within 120 days?<BR/>2. What's been the experience at LANL, of having to apply for and compete for your own job? If we elect TCP-2, are we cutting our own throats?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-13739372567660603952007-07-13T22:33:00.000-06:002007-07-13T22:33:00.000-06:00http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regm...<A HREF="http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regmeet/may06/8cattach.pdf" REL="nofollow">http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regmeet/may06/8cattach.pdf</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-52008928508608240012007-07-09T18:40:00.000-06:002007-07-09T18:40:00.000-06:00It's time to meet the new boss and decide. Facts a...It's time to meet the new boss and decide. Facts are Facts and power comes in numbers. It's your call.<BR/><BR/>http://llnl-the-corporate-story.blogspot.com/2007/07/tcp-1-or-tcp-2-that-is-question.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-70305301703803018142007-07-08T13:09:00.000-06:002007-07-08T13:09:00.000-06:00More 401K and pension plan newshttp://www.yourwaya...More 401K and pension plan news<BR/><BR/>http://www.yourwayahead.com/blog/_archives/2005/5/10/669213.html#post_comment<BR/><BR/>Will the downfall never end?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-80040298102356035792007-07-08T10:44:00.000-06:002007-07-08T10:44:00.000-06:00Anonymous said... Here is why_you_ are going to ha...Anonymous said... <BR/><BR/>Here is why_you_ are going to have to make up the difference with your 5%+ pay check contributions, if you don't want the actuary tables to change.<BR/><BR/>CHUCK JAFFE<BR/>Dark clouds in forecast<BR/><BR/>Your long-term market assumptions may be all wet<BR/><BR/>By Chuck Jaffe, MarketWatch<BR/>Last Update: 12:01 AM ET Jul 1, 2007<BR/><BR/>CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- Everything you know about your financial future could be wrong. That's not a statement on listening to predictions of a dire market crash or following some new theory of the "best" way to invest. It's about what you think you know about stock market returns and how you have planned for them in the future<BR/><BR/>Paul McCulley, managing director at Pimco and author of the new book "Your Financial Edge," says that investors need to reshape their portfolios to reflect the returns they should realistically expect from the stock market for the next 25 years. Focus on funds, ETFs <BR/><BR/>MarketWatch offers complete coverage of mutual funds and exchange-traded funds. Highlights:<BR/><BR/>Quarterly Review & Outlook <BR/>• Large-caps assert leadership <BR/>• International run continues <BR/>• Bond funds hit rate bumps <BR/>• Top funds make bad buys<BR/>• Video: Top sectors<BR/><BR/>Get our free Mutual Funds weekly <BR/><BR/>It's not the first time someone has suggested that market gains will be lower over the long haul, it's just the rare occasion when someone with so much influence in the industry and such a long track record of being correct as an economist has called for such a dramatic shift. <BR/><BR/>Most investors and advisers believe that stocks will deliver an annualized average return of about 10% over the long haul, with small-company stocks doing slightly better. They believe this mostly because of the widespread acceptance of research by Roger Ibbotson of Ibbotson Associates. <BR/><BR/>A few years back, however, Ibbotson started suggesting that the first 75 years worth of research would not be a good indicator of the next 25 years. Instead of 10% on large-cap stocks, Ibbotson said the next quarter century would see the market deliver somewhere in the 8% to 9% range, on average, most likely in the high end of the range.. <BR/><BR/>McCulley, however, is saying that the last 25 years -- a period he described as "a long journey of disinflation" and "irrelevant" to the next quarter-century -- will have no bearing on the future. <BR/><BR/>McCulley went well past Ibbotson, forecasting a rate of growth in the range of 6% to 8% annually, and said that investors should "remember that it could be at the bottom of that range." <BR/><BR/>Rest assured that plenty of investment advisers and pros will suggest that McCulley is way off base. They'll say it because to do anything else blows a huge hole in their financial planning. <BR/><BR/>While it certainly is possible that McCulley is wrong, consider what happens if he is right. <BR/>The big matter of a few percentage points<BR/><BR/>Say your expectation has been set at 10% returns, on average, per year. Using a rough compounding formula, that means your current nest egg -- without any further contributions -- would double three times and be halfway to a fourth over the next quarter century. A nest egg of $100,000 at that rate of growth would be just under $1.2 million in 25 years. <BR/><BR/>Now cut those returns down to McCulley's predicted range. At 8%, the money doubles three times; at 6%, it doubles just twice. That same $100,000 in savings would be worth somewhere between $400,000 and $800,000. And living on that retirement nest egg would be one heck of a lot harder. <BR/><BR/>If you believe the studies which suggest that Americans are not saving sufficiently to fund the retirement they are planning on, and pile on the idea that returns on the money they are saving will come in below their expectations, you've got a major problem. <BR/>"You can't simply plan to get a 10% return because that's the number you need," McCulley said. "You must plan based on what you expect to happen in the market, and what you should expect is that the next 25 years won't be anything like the last 25." <BR/><BR/>That leaves consumers with some choices that McCulley acknowledged are ugly. <BR/><BR/>No good options<BR/><BR/>Some people will be forced to work longer in order to amass the money needed to get them through retirement. Others will be forced to reduce their expectations and downsize their retirement, giving up some of the comfort, hopes and dreams they could have if the market simply grew faster and did more work. <BR/><BR/>Finally, people can save more of their current income, which in McCulley's world moves from the "always good advice" category into the "can't live without it" column. <BR/><BR/>For consumers, McCulley's forecast should be a call to action, even if it doesn't automatically spur one of those results. It should prompt investors to review the assumptions they have made about retirement savings, to adjust their hoped-for returns downward and to see how the future looks if the market is muted for 25 years. <BR/><BR/>For investors who have a collection of funds, rather than a plan and a realistic expectation of growth for their investments, it's a call to set expectations reasonably and to then react to them by changing financial habits. <BR/><BR/>Nobody is going to like the message that returns are shrinking and that lifestyle changes -- sooner or later -- are coming, McCulley said, "but if you can't avoid it -- and I don't think you can -- you had better plan for it and react to it." <BR/><BR/>End of Story <BR/><BR/>July 8, 2007 8:42 AMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-58714819201423306792007-07-07T08:32:00.000-06:002007-07-07T08:32:00.000-06:00In case any of you in the near future or during yo...In case any of you in the near future or during your incarceration at LLNL / LLNS decide that you want to express your opinion, feel abused or wnat to seek legal help please keep the addresses in mind.<BR/><BR/>Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer<BR/>1999 HARRISON ST.<BR/>SUITE 1600<BR/>OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA<BR/>94612<BR/>510-832-5411<BR/>510-832-1918 FAX<BR/>E-mail:Sandy Jonas ( sjonas@giccb.com )<BR/>Web Site :webinfo@GICCB.com<BR/><BR/>llnlemployeebenefits@doeal.gov<BR/>michael.telis@mail.house.gov, - ( congresswomen )<BR/>Thomas.Dagostino@nnsa.doe. gov,<BR/>The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov,<BR/>lseaver@llnsllc.com,<BR/>customer.service@ucop.eduAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-44504411050908780632007-07-06T18:00:00.000-06:002007-07-06T18:00:00.000-06:00TCP1 vs TCP2 blog site sounds appealing, but you h...TCP1 vs TCP2 blog site sounds appealing, but you have to realize that this is just yet another Eric Fairfield site. <BR/><BR/>I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.<BR/><BR/>I'll pass on Eric's site.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-78284119808679376582007-07-06T15:15:00.000-06:002007-07-06T15:15:00.000-06:00Maybe it time to get some advise from other then t...Maybe it time to get some advise from other then those who think they know what they are talking about. try this site http://llnl-the-corporate-story.blogspot.com/2007/07/tcp-1-verses-tcp-2-just-facts.html<BR/><BR/>As the owner says, not open to anything other than the facts and all else will not be tolerated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-55575066785567421972007-07-06T10:56:00.000-06:002007-07-06T10:56:00.000-06:00Okay LLNL and LANL strut your stuff. It's time to ...Okay LLNL and LANL strut your stuff. It's time to see who has a brain and who doesn't. Go to http://llnl-the-corporate-story.blogspot.com/ and anser the question at the poll.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-5281519145086776012007-07-06T10:33:00.000-06:002007-07-06T10:33:00.000-06:00So again I am hearing that it's better to freeze y...So again I am hearing that it's better to freeze your UC retirement and go TCP-2, where you have two choices. You can freeze your retirement until a later date where it will grow by 2% a years and then start drawing your pension, or you can start drawing your pension on Oct 2nd and put it into <BR/>a 401k where it will grow at 6% and possibly 5% more. You could also use it to pay off bills in preparations for the RIF that coming due to Bechtel's out-sourcing and salary realignment scheme, all to show that they are in fact making a profit. I wonder if that's how they are going to fulfill they contractual obligation to fund any short falls of TCP-1 in accordance with the RFP. See ( answer from llnlllc Q&A ) @ http://llnl-the-corporate-story.blogspot.com/2007/07/cut-paste-i-still-have-question.html<BR/><BR/>This question has been asked to LLNS,LLC and they have yet to address it. Could it be because they would have to admit this fact, or could it be that all the shortfalls even though specified will be honored by the employer will in fact be passed on to the employees by means of a 5% -16% contribution from each paycheck to keep those who have retired with a roof over their heads and on vacation. Oh I know, your investing in your future, I promise. Anyone who tells you that you are only contributing to your future when the funds are not going into your own personal account is selling you a bridge 100 west of San Francisco. <BR/><BR/>This new and improved TCP-1 is only as good as the people that stand behind it and as you can see, they didn't blink an eye at screwing approximately 16,000 employees at two national labs out of 50% of their livelihood. Want to bet they'll do it again at the drop of a hat? <BR/><BR/>Look people, your UCRP is gone and the labs have now joined the ranks of corporate America. What corporate America does, LLNS and LANS will do. The only ones who will make out are the goons at the top who will slice your throat in a micro-second. For today enjoy that 6% on your 401k that you are getting because it's soon going away . Please visit http://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/07/pensionfreeze.asp <BR/><BR/>The sad part about the transition of the two labs is that I have not seen where it' a win-wins situation for anyone except those at the top,but then again this is how corporate America works. Enron set the pace and now everyone is jumping on the train. How wonderful.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Can anyone see why TCP-1 is to be avoided at any cost regardless of your age.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-87039013138797050892007-07-06T08:09:00.000-06:002007-07-06T08:09:00.000-06:00Under the recent DOE UCRP agreement, a segment of ...Under the recent DOE UCRP agreement, a segment of UCRP is now designated as UCRP-LANL, and DOE has agreed to keep that segment 100% funded, under the new 7-year funding provisions, until the last annuitant dies, at which time they recapture any remaining funds. The funding transfer from UCRP to LANS TCP1 was done to ensure that UCRP-LANL is already today 100% funded, even though the rest of UCRP is projected to be under-funded, as is TCP1.<BR/><BR/>So while the rest of the UCRP continues underfunded, with the state and the union negotiating on who will pay what portion, the inactives and retirees in UCRP-LANL are sitting pretty. Meanwhile, LANS TCP1 has yet to calculate its true funding status, and LLNL TCP1 is still conceptual.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-77327980692992832962007-07-05T11:49:00.000-06:002007-07-05T11:49:00.000-06:00Gee could this deplete the pot even faster? They h...Gee could this deplete the pot even faster? <BR/><BR/>They have union strikes and political battles coming soon for the bulk of their plan, as detailed in the other links. So DOE has finally seized the opportunity to control its own future pension costs, but I think UC in general has much bigger problems.<BR/><BR/>I'd say it's an opportune time to get what is yours and move on. If you wait to long there may not be anything for you to obtain.<BR/><BR/>Folks, it's time to move on. You have been given a warning and a peek into what the future has to bring. It isn't bright, and if you continue to think that the government is going to bail you out when it comes time for a shortfall, think again. That is reserved for illegal aliens and non US citizens who never paid a dime into the system and sure as hell have no loyalty to the country or concern for your welfare. These are the parasites that the current administration worships, as it has been for many administrations before GWB. Someday, these will be the people that take on jobs such as the gardener, custodial services, plant engineering and security just a few. Why? Because by doing so there a tremendous cost savings in overhead and employee cost. I guarantee you it's only a matter of time, and that time is long before the next revision of the contract comes about. If you get lucky LLNS and LANS may let those who are in the system stay until they retire, but I wouldn't bank on it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-66439615099836947612007-07-05T11:20:00.000-06:002007-07-05T11:20:00.000-06:00Chipping Away At The Pension Freeze TrendIf that b...Chipping Away At The Pension Freeze Trend<BR/><BR/>If that be the case then I'd much rather have my donations in a savings account that makes nothing than to give it to LLNS or LANS TCP-1 program. This tells me that having my money is a Fidelity 2010 plan is still better than depending on an employers 6% contribution. How much simplier can it be put. You must make your own nest egg. For now it will be TCP-2 invested where you want it to be. When that's gone which may be in a few years, oh well, its gone; but in the meantime you control your investments. If you are going to retire within the next five to six years I'd suggest that you do not play the risky stocks. I'd put it in a much more conservative plan so that Fidelity thinks you are going to retire very soon and leave it there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-25720044681533900512007-07-05T11:05:00.000-06:002007-07-05T11:05:00.000-06:00They were told and did it anyway. Are we now suppo...They were told and did it anyway. Are we now supposed to take it in the shorts for their failure or in my mind something a lot more involved? TCP-2 and call it good my friends. That is where it is all heading anyway. Get use to it now and it won't be so painful in the future.<BR/><BR/>http://llnl-the-corporate-story.blogspot.com/2007/07/mercer-report.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-40016932863472525272007-07-05T10:16:00.000-06:002007-07-05T10:16:00.000-06:00See the links in the (click here) post above. Whil...See the links in the <A HREF="http://lanl-the-rest-of-the-story.blogspot.com/2007/06/listen-learn-react.html#comment-4795464263613094318" REL="nofollow">(click here)</A> post above. While I enjoy a good evil theory, the real reasons and approaches are much simpler. DOE wanted the excess pension funding as a refund, and they wanted more control over the future, as stated in the 1996 Inspector General memo. It just took them 11 years to get it.<BR/><BR/>In the meantime, UC ran into it's own problems, as detailed in the Parsky's Party posts. LANL is only $4B of what was once a $60B fund, and now something closer to $40B. They have union strikes and political battles coming soon for the bulk of their plan, as detailed in the other links. So DOE has finally seized the opportunity to contol its own future pension costs, but I think UC in general has much bigger problems.<BR/><BR/>I don't follow the logic of (7/3/07 9:04 PM) above. Just look at the UNM example posted above. They need 22% of payroll to stay afloat, and the employer is only pitching in 14%. UCRS is already battling the same problem: They need 16% of payroll, and California is balking at paying even 11% of it. Whatever the employer won't cover, i.e. "allowable costs," the employee has to make up. If neither employee nor employer contributes enough, the plan will be remain underfunded.<BR/><BR/>That's the big open question for TCP1 at both LANS and LLNL, how much will the employee be asked to contribute. For the moment, DOE has pledged to mimic UCRS's requirements (which are currently none), simply as a courtesy to the TCP1 employees. <BR/><BR/>But under ERISA and the enhanced provisions of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, starting in 2008 employers will have only 7 years to ensure that their pensions are 100% funded. See for instance <A HREF="http://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/07/pensionfreeze.asp" REL="nofollow">(click here)</A> for articles on how the PPA will actually accelerate the freezing of Defined Benefit Plans. So expect our Benval group to trend even lower even faster. And ERISA gives DOE a much better club to knock TCP1 costs down fast in the very near future.<BR/><BR/>This is not thinking "outside the box." This is the box.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-36150954654795177902007-07-05T09:58:00.000-06:002007-07-05T09:58:00.000-06:00http://llnl-the-corporate-story.blogspot.com/ Not ...http://llnl-the-corporate-story.blogspot.com/ Not much there but it could be if more than 5% of the people at LLNL cared. Oh well, you get what you allow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-63031261242242932352007-07-05T08:57:00.000-06:002007-07-05T08:57:00.000-06:00Having seen all that has transpired over the last ...Having seen all that has transpired over the last few years at LANL and viewing the substandard package offered to LLNL in conjunction with understanding that most of the pension plans in the United States require contributions from their employees, I'd say that TCP-2 is the only way to go. <BR/><BR/>A perfect example of what will happen at both LLNS and LANS after Oct 1st, 2007 can be found at another post ( http://lanl-the-rest-of-the-story.blogspot.com/2007/06/listen-learn-react.html#comment-3382190731880544063 ).<BR/><BR/>Lets face it people there were a few objectives here that resulted in the transition of the labs. One was political pressure from the Whitehouse on down, making DOE and NNSA nothing more than puppets on a string, whose mission was to see that GWB's friends were to make money off the labs for decades to come. In the thick of things UC saw an opportunity to ease the burden on their pension plan and could see that if the people between ages 52-60 were to stay employed for the next five to six years they were going to have to make good on some promisees. So in the back rooms and never to be found in print, DOE & NNSA cut a deal with UC to where they all came out a winner, including the Whitehouse; avoiding any possibility of an age discrimination law suite. Here is how I suspect it went down.<BR/><BR/>The Whitehouse makes good for their business buddies before his tern is up, both in the USA and Iraq<BR/>DOE and NNSA bring the UCRP pension plan down to their standards so that the jealously will subside and to show us whose boss.<BR/>UC is relieved of all current and future obligations, saving billion of dollars from this day forward and never having to dole out a dime more, for any new hires, therefore reserving their precious pension plan for the PhD and above only. Soon, a two tier system will immerge whereby all Phd will be under the umbrella of UC having an entirely different pay scale and benefits package than the lowly MS, BS, or technical who will after attrition takes its course will become supplemental labor only.<BR/><BR/>So again I will ask you. Do you trust the SOB's that concocted this attack on your livelihood well enough to once again put your money into their TCP-1 so that for the second time and for some other drummed up reason, you will once again never get what you were promised, or would it be better to give yourself a 5% to 16% contribution into your 401K with 6% matching funds and possibly 5% on top of that over the remaining course of your employment.<BR/><BR/>I want you to think real hard on this one, please.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-13139996029590803502007-07-05T07:07:00.000-06:002007-07-05T07:07:00.000-06:00I think the question should have been, "I understa...I think the question should have been, "I understand most LANL folks took the LANS TCP1 during the LANS transition in 2006. If you had to make the same choice today and understand that LLNS and LANS do mirror UCRP, which will soon require their employees to pay the 5% of the 16% required to keep the pension plan funded at 80%, would you still take TCP1?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-43041300168564744342007-07-04T22:45:00.000-06:002007-07-04T22:45:00.000-06:008:51 says: Could someone please interpret 9:31’s p...8:51 says: Could someone please interpret 9:31’s post for me? I think he meant to insult me, but I think the booze spoke first. <BR/><BR/>And 9:41, thank you for agreeing with me that the 5% has not been discussed as a LLNS issue. We do disagree about the possibilities that you suggest post 10/1/07. Hasn’t happened at LANS and no rumors that I have heard even suggest that it might. By the way, I am hardly a “dman fool.” <BR/><BR/>I hope everyone had a sober and safe 4th of July holiday.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-80528521199493408102007-07-04T21:17:00.000-06:002007-07-04T21:17:00.000-06:00I understand most LANL folks took the LANS TCP1 du...I understand most LANL folks took the LANS TCP1 during the LANS transition in 2006. If you had to make the same choice today would you still take TCP1? Hopefully there's more information about these plans now. <BR/><BR/>Some message boards have a polling feature. Not sure if this one has such feature but it would be interesting to do a poll like that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-46073553358005027532007-07-03T21:41:00.000-06:002007-07-03T21:41:00.000-06:00Anonymous said... 8:51 There never was a 5% LLNS T...Anonymous said... <BR/>8:51 There never was a 5% LLNS TCP-1 contribution issue. That is a UCRP issue/possibility. <BR/><BR/>7/3/07 8:56 PM <BR/><BR/>Oh I forgot. It doesn't exist for now but you wait until after Oct 1st, 2007 and watch that promise or should I say factual information of the day vanish before your eyes. There is nothing in writing that says those promises will be good by tomorrow. But you keep the faith, brother. I surely will not and again I will say I am not in the market of taking any pay cuts or donations to plans that I may never get a dime out of. That is a wrong answer now, and wrong answer for the future; unless you're a sadomasochist or just a dman fool.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-29179942308323908492007-07-03T21:31:00.000-06:002007-07-03T21:31:00.000-06:00Anonymous said... 8:51 There never was a 5% LLNS T...Anonymous said... <BR/>8:51 There never was a 5% LLNS TCP-1 contribution issue. That is a UCRP issue/possibility.<BR/><BR/>You sir have your butt where the sun doesn't shine and must be one of those guppies talked about earlier. When that bait comes by you make sure you bite on that one ott hook rear hard and right after they set the hook I want to to learn how to say ouch. Say it again, ouch !!<BR/><BR/>Hey bonehead. LLNS and LANS are to mirror UCRP, so have fun bozo.Do you need any more information.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-79911254703807719112007-07-03T21:04:00.000-06:002007-07-03T21:04:00.000-06:00Not as simple as "DOE declaring that costs past "x...Not as simple as "DOE declaring that costs past "x%" are not allowable." Why work so hard at painting such gloomy pictures that are not about to happen, when we have the real here-and-now 105% to deal with? I give you credit for "thinking outside the box", but see UCRP running into trouble before TCP-1 doing so. The Feds have a lot more red tape to get through to do anything that dumb. Also, since I am not an ERISA expert, I would bet such an attempt would run afoul of that bit of legality.<BR/><BR/>"ERISA was enacted to protect interstate commerce and the interests of participants in employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries, by requiring the disclosure and reporting to participants and beneficiaries of financial and other information with respect thereto, by establishing standards of conduct, responsibility, and obligation for fiduciaries of employee benefit plans, and by providing for appropriate remedies, sanctions, and ready access to the Federal courts."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-7668923347776139262007-07-03T20:56:00.000-06:002007-07-03T20:56:00.000-06:008:51 There never was a 5% LLNS TCP-1 contribution ...8:51 There never was a 5% LLNS TCP-1 contribution issue. That is a UCRP issue/possibility.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com