tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post3799700773537552775..comments2023-08-27T06:53:36.768-06:00Comments on LANL: The Rest of the Story: Frank Younghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02134775226991383924noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-40448787901012944472007-06-22T17:31:00.000-06:002007-06-22T17:31:00.000-06:0012:01 Could it be that it either isn't true or tha...12:01 Could it be that it either isn't true or that no such decisions have yet been made?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-64030207236256441512007-06-22T12:01:00.000-06:002007-06-22T12:01:00.000-06:00We must assume that LANS TCP2 will be adjusted in ...We must assume that LANS TCP2 will be adjusted in the near future to match the lower LLNS amounts.<BR/><BR/>And LANS TCP1 participants should be prepared to start paying 5% of their paycheck into their plan.<BR/><BR/>Why do we find these things out second-hand, and not directly from Mike?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-57592106331981719722007-06-22T10:55:00.000-06:002007-06-22T10:55:00.000-06:00The packages for LLNL have been announced. TCP2 i...The packages for LLNL have been announced. TCP2 is *significantly* less at LLNL than at LANL.<BR/>http://www.llnsllc.com/file/Employeebriefing062007.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-6085980796736135512007-06-21T23:16:00.000-06:002007-06-21T23:16:00.000-06:00Hewitt and Mercer are leading us onward into the "...Hewitt and Mercer are leading us onward into the "one-world order". Better buy solid gold and bury it someplace.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-17496469862240490972007-06-21T22:42:00.000-06:002007-06-21T22:42:00.000-06:00From 11:20:PM to 1:20AM Duhhh! The point was that ...From 11:20:PM to 1:20AM Duhhh! The point was that Hewitt isn't just an "HR" firm as was being put forth by other posters. Most of us understand the differnces between a defined pension plan and a 401K or we wouldn't find this discussion so stimulating.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-78897382917046639902007-06-21T08:08:00.000-06:002007-06-21T08:08:00.000-06:00Have the funds actually arrived from UCRS to LANS ...Have the funds actually arrived from UCRS to LANS TCP1? The agreement as to the amount was signed off just a few months ago, and in that agreement was wording to the effect that the various authorities still had to approve the details. The $1.28B was as of last June 1, 2006, and the actual transfer amount would include investment returns since then.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, there's a good chance that TCP1 funds today are still in the hands of the dozens of the investment funds hired by Parsky in the last few years at UCRS.<BR/><BR/>Once the money is at LANS, and the full Plan Description has been filed (I think only a Summary Description has been filed for now), then we may finally see who the pension investment managers will be. From the above postings, it sounds to me like Hewitt will play the administrative role of gathering contributions and dispersing funds. <BR/><BR/>Parsky is also the Chair of LANS, so I would expect that he will direct the funds right back into the same (very poor) stable of investment managers he brought in to wreak havoc on UCRS (be sure to re-read "Parsky's Party" in this blog from May 18).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-73151005670456329442007-06-21T05:46:00.000-06:002007-06-21T05:46:00.000-06:00I would assume that all of those who went TCP_1 ha...I would assume that all of those who went TCP_1 have their money safely tied up in the UC Pension Plan where as all of those who went TCP-1 are now with Hewitt and their funds are on the global market with this Multinational Corporation who seems to be heavily invested in China, the next industrial national as we were at one time. I feel real warm and fuzzy about this economy. Note that they are specialist in outsourcing too. We are closing the books on hiring our own people to do the work in America. Corporate America knows no loyalty to anyone. All they care about are the profits shown at the end of the quarter to their stock holders..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-77526417670489932022007-06-21T01:20:00.000-06:002007-06-21T01:20:00.000-06:00A 401K is not the sameas a pension!In a 401K, each...A 401K is not the same<BR/>as a pension!<BR/>In a 401K, each employee<BR/>makes investment choices<BR/>from a given list of selections.<BR/><BR/>This is in contrast<BR/>to a pension plan which<BR/>is usually managed by an <BR/>investment team. A pension<BR/>has to meet future<BR/>objectives regarding <BR/>rates of return, whereas<BR/>a 401K does not.<BR/><BR/>Do a google on yale and<BR/>harvard pension management<BR/>teams to see the high rates<BR/>of return of good<BR/>management.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-48933795537954035902007-06-20T23:10:00.000-06:002007-06-20T23:10:00.000-06:00Take a breath folks. Hewitt has been successfully ...Take a breath folks. Hewitt has been successfully managing the SRS (Savannah River Site) 401K for years. Here's their sign in page: http://resources.hewitt.com/wsrc/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-24740653850496144442007-06-20T21:07:00.000-06:002007-06-20T21:07:00.000-06:00Okay people that was easy. I went here http://reso...Okay people that was easy. I went here http://resources.hewitt.com/clientsearch/ and typed in LANL. Guess what? Up came a URL that said Los Alamos national Lab. When you click on it, it will take you to another web page where you can establish a user name and password. Have fund people and let us know the results.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-33212272060270896702007-06-20T20:47:00.000-06:002007-06-20T20:47:00.000-06:00The only way you are going to get this information...The only way you are going to get this information is to request it in writing, yourself. Once you do please share it. ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-50530720507759348552007-06-20T20:39:00.000-06:002007-06-20T20:39:00.000-06:00The skills for HR areobviously not the sameas for ...The skills for HR are<BR/>obviously not the same<BR/>as for pension managent.<BR/>That is why university<BR/>HR depts do not manage<BR/>pensions but a staff of<BR/>experts in that area. <BR/>If Hewitt and<BR/>Assoc. is contracting out<BR/>the pension management<BR/>-- it should be made<BR/>known to whom and under<BR/>what performance criteria<BR/>was the selection made,<BR/>and the annual costs<BR/>involved.<BR/><BR/>Also, any delay in transferring<BR/>investments to like<BR/>investments could jeopardize<BR/>returns. The handling<BR/>of over $1B should not be<BR/>taken lightly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-42448335983371763432007-06-20T19:49:00.000-06:002007-06-20T19:49:00.000-06:00Still have any doubt as to who's handling your pen...Still have any doubt as to who's handling your pension plan?<BR/><BR/>Fact SheetOverviewFact SheetHewitt Associates (NYSE: HEW) is the world’s foremost provider of human resources outsourcing and consulting services. The company consults with more than 2,300 organizations and administers human resources, health care, payroll and retirement programs on behalf of more than 340 companies to millions of employees and retirees worldwide. <BR/> <BR/>Located in 35 countries around the world, Hewitt has offices across Asia Pacific, Europe and the Americas, and employs approximately 24,000 associates.<BR/><BR/>Founded in 1940, Hewitt is headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois. The company is led by Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Russell P. Fradin. <BR/><BR/>Key Facts<BR/><BR/>Achieved global revenue of approximately $2.8 billion in fiscal 2006. <BR/>Recognized as one of America's Most Admired Companies (Fortune, 2004, 2005, 2006). <BR/>Leads the HR Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) industry with the greatest market share (TPI, October 2006, based on contracts covering 10,000 employees or more, by number of clients). <BR/>Ranked as the 6th largest diversified outsourcing company in the U.S. (Fortune, 2006). <BR/>Named China's HR Outsourcing firm of the Year and Consulting Firm of the Year for Change Management (ChinaSTAFF Magazine, 2005). <BR/>Recognized as Outstanding HR Consulting Firm in China (SMART Fortune, 2004, 2005). <BR/>Featured as one of the 100 Best Places to Work for IT (Computerworld, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005).<BR/>For more information, contact Public Relations at 847-295-5000 or visit www.hewitt.com.<BR/><BR/> <BR/>< Back to Who We Are<BR/> <BR/> <BR/>email this page <BR/> <BR/>printer-friendly version <BR/> <BR/><BR/>What We Do <BR/>Our HR services help clients with important issues that affect the lives and performance of their people. learn about our services<BR/> <BR/>Meet Our Management Team <BR/>Learn more about our senior management. view info & bios<BR/> <BR/>Hewitt Around the World <BR/> With offices in 35 countries, we can help anywhere opportunities lead. Hewitt worldwide locations<BR/> office directoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-59226299276548208852007-06-20T19:17:00.000-06:002007-06-20T19:17:00.000-06:00Then you better read this again and call for yours...Then you better read this again and call for yourself.<BR/><BR/>Dear Mr. Sir,<BR/><BR/>Hewitt Associates is handling the LANL TCP 1 and medical, dental and legal coverage.<BR/><BR/>No decision has been made as to who the administrator will be for the LLNL plan yet. When a decision has been made it will be prominently posted ont he LLNL transition website.<BR/><BR/>Please let us know how we may further assist you.<BR/><BR/>UC Customer Service<BR/>1-800-888-8267 Option 4<BR/>Fax: 1-800-792-5178Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-60849604638681047742007-06-20T19:00:00.000-06:002007-06-20T19:00:00.000-06:00"Our focus is HR. Period."That's from the Hewittan..."Our focus is HR. Period."<BR/><BR/>That's from the Hewitt<BR/>and Assoc. web site.<BR/>Nowhere does it mention<BR/>pension management. <BR/><BR/>Nor does the mumbo-jumbo<BR/>regarding LANL mention<BR/>how it will invest the funds.<BR/><BR/>It looks like they handle<BR/>Human Resources (period).<BR/><BR/>Its like having the<BR/>HR dept. handle<BR/>your pension -- this is<BR/>not the way it should be done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-58757525213191743712007-06-20T18:22:00.000-06:002007-06-20T18:22:00.000-06:00Hewitt Associates . Anyone want to translate this ...Hewitt Associates . Anyone want to translate this for me into how much we will get if the LANS,LLC pension plan folds<BR/><BR/>PBGC Issues Proposed Variable Rate Premium Rules under PPA<BR/><BR/>2007-06-13<BR/>On May 31, 2007, the PBGC issued proposed rules for the calculation of variable rate premiums reflecting the requirements of the Pension Protection Act of 2006.<BR/><BR/>The proposed rules provide the requirements for calculation of unfunded vested benefits (UVBs), change premium due dates and penalties, and define "vested" benefits. In addition, these proposed rules provide additional audit and record keeping requirements to reflect current PBGC practice and provide additional information relating to electronic premium filing.<BR/><BR/>PPA Changes to the Variable Rate Premium<BR/><BR/>As a result of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA), the calculation of the PBGC variable rate premium will change. The variable rate premium will still be determined as .9% of the plan's UVBs. However, effective for plan years beginning after 2007, the PPA changed the calculation of unfunded vested benefits to conform with changes in the funding rules. As a result, UVBs will be determined as the excess (if any) of the funding target for the plan year, taking into account only vested benefits, over the fair market value of plan assets on the valuation date.<BR/><BR/>As defined in the PPA, the funding target for determining UVBs differs from the calculation for funding purposes:<BR/>It is determined using a "spot rate" version of the new segmented yield curve rates rather than being based on a 24-month average. (However, the PBGC has proposed an alternative calculation method that can reflect the funding rates, as described below.) <BR/>It includes only vested benefits. <BR/>The assets must be the market value of assets; an average cannot be used.<BR/><BR/>In addition, PPA eliminated the full funding limitation exemption from the PBGC variable rate premium and added a cap on the variable rate premium for very small employers.<BR/><BR/>The following describes the proposed rules in more detail.<BR/><BR/>Measurement Date for Unfunded Vested Benefits and Assets<BR/><BR/>Under rules prior to the PPA changes, UVBs were determined as of the last day of the month preceding the premium payment year (e.g., December 31 for calendar year plans) for most, but not all plans.<BR/><BR/>The proposed rules issued by the PBGC require that UVBs be measured as of the valuation date in the premium payment year rather than a date in the prior plan year. This new date is referred to as the "UVB valuation date." Thus, for plans with more than 100 participants (on a controlled group basis), the calculation of UVBs will be as of January 1 for the premium payment year, rather than a day earlier and must reflect the plan's population and provisions as of that date. This eliminates the need for a "roll forward" approach such as the Alternative Calculation Method allowed for calculations of UVBs prior to PPA. However, because some plans may not have completed a funding valuation for the current year by the premium filing due date, the PBGC has proposed changes in premium due dates and penalties, as described below.<BR/><BR/>The change in the premium measurement date does not change the date as of which participant counts are determined for purposes of determining the flat rate premium and the cap on the variable rate premium for small plans. Participant counts are still determined as of the close of the preceding plan year. The proposed regulations distinguish this as the "participant count date." However, the participant count date for new and newly covered plans and for mergers and spinoffs is proposed to be the first plan year that begins on the plan's effective date. This change eliminates the ability to choose between the effective date or the adoption date as the first day of the plan year for premium filing purposes.<BR/><BR/>Calculation of Unfunded Vested Benefits<BR/><BR/>UVBs are determined using the vested funding target (which reflects at-risk status, if applicable) and the market value of assets.<BR/><BR/>Vested Funding Target<BR/><BR/>The rules propose two alternatives to calculate the vested funding target for UVBs.<BR/><BR/>The first alternative is to determine vested benefits using the segmented yield curve "spot rates" (a single month's bond yields). The PBGC has defined this as the "premium funding target" to distinguish it from the funding target. The spot rates are determined as of the month preceding the start of the plan year.<BR/><BR/>The second alternative is to use only the vested benefits of the funding target calculated for minimum contribution purposes. This calculation is defined as the "alternative premium funding target." Thus, the same interest rate assumption used to determine plan funding for the premium payment year would be used to determine the variable rate premium. An election, which is irrevocable for five years, is required to use this alternative. This election will be reported in the PBGC premium filing. Due to the five-year requirement, a plan sponsor could not calculate the funding target under both alternatives and use the calculation that produces the lowest premium.<BR/><BR/>Hewitt Comment: The second alternative would make the variable rate premium calculation more consistent with the plan's funding. Also, estimated premium payments may be more easily determined since an estimate of the 24-month average rates could be slightly more predictable than spot rates. However, since market assets are measured as of the valuation date, using the spot rates may better match the position of the plan as of the measurement date.<BR/><BR/>Market Assets<BR/><BR/>The proposed rules require that market assets be determined as of the measurement date; there is no alternative to use valuation assets used for plan funding (e.g., a 24-month average cannot be used for premium purposes). Assets are not reduced by the prefunding or funding standard carryover balances. Contributions made for the prior plan year are included in market assets only to the extent they are contributed prior to the date of the premium filing. Contributions made after the valuation date are included in market assets discounted at the effective interest rate used for the funding valuation. That is, regardless of a plan's election of which interest rates to use to calculate UVBs, the funding valuation effective interest rate is used to discount contributions. This eliminates the need to calculate an effective interest rate based on the spot rates used for premium calculation purposes. In addition, these amounts could be used for the Schedule SB as well.<BR/><BR/>Vested Benefits<BR/><BR/>For premium purposes only, the rules propose two situations where benefits will generally be considered vested.<BR/><BR/>If a benefit can be eliminated or reduced by amendment, (i.e., it is not protected under IRC 411(d)(6)), it would nevertheless be considered vested (if vested entitlement has been met) if the benefit has not actually been eliminated or reduced.<BR/><BR/>Also, the following death benefits would be considered vested (to the extent the vesting entitlement has been met) when a participant is living:<BR/>The plan's qualified preretirement survivor annuity (QPSA); <BR/>A post-retirement survivor annuity payable to a beneficiary (e.g., a J&S or certain and life benefit); <BR/>A return of accumulated mandatory employee contributions.<BR/><BR/>Hewitt Comment: Vested benefits were not clearly defined under the rules in effect prior to PPA. As a result, there was not consistent practice in determining whether a benefit was or was not vested. For example, some plans may not have considered death, disability, or supplemental benefits as vested benefits. Under the proposed rules, these types of benefits would be considered vested for premium purposes if the participant has satisfied the plan's vesting rules (e.g., if the participant has more than five years of service). For some plans, this change in definition of vested benefits could have a somewhat significant impact on the amount of UVBs.<BR/><BR/>Changes in Due Dates and Penalties<BR/><BR/>In order to provide time for plans to perform actual calculations for UVBs, the PBGC has proposed changes in the due dates and penalties for premiums and allows for an estimated variable rate premium filing. The proposed due dates vary depending on plan size since the PBGC has different requirements for the flat rate premium for small and large plans and the PPA allows for different valuation dates for small employers. The following due dates would apply beginning with plan years after 2007:<BR/> Due Date (Calendar Year Plans)<BR/>Premium Small Plans<BR/>(< 100 ppts) Mid-Size Plans<BR/>(100-499 ppts) Large Plans<BR/>(500+ ppts)<BR/>Flat Rate - Estimate N/A N/A Last day of the 2nd month that begins on or after the 1st day of the premium payment year (February 28th)<BR/>Flat Rate - Final Last day of the 16th month that begins on or after the 1st day of the premium payment year (April 30th) 15th day of the 10th month that begins on or after the 1st day of the premium payment year (October 15th) 15th day of the 10th month that begins on or after the 1st day of the premium payment year (October 15th)<BR/>Variable Rate - Estimate N/A 15th day of the 10th month that begins on or after the 1st day of the premium payment year (October 15th) 15th day of the 10th month that begins on or after the 1st day of the premium payment year (October 15th)<BR/>Variable Rate - Final Last day of the 16th month that begins on or after the 1st day of the premium payment year (April 30th) Last day of the 16th month that begins on or after the 1st day of the premium payment year (April 30th) Last day of the 16th month that begins on or after the 1st day of the premium payment year (April 30th)<BR/><BR/>The variable rate premium filing date of October 15th (for calendar year plans) has been maintained for large and mid-sized plans. However, the premium filed and paid by this date can be an estimate. A final variable rate premium can be paid by April 30th of the following year (for calendar year plans) without a penalty if an estimated variable rate premium is filed and paid by the due date and is based on:<BR/>Final market value of assets, and <BR/>A reasonable estimate of the funding target for the premium payment year taking into account the most current data available.<BR/><BR/>The estimated variable rate premium would need to be certified by the enrolled actuary, and would be subject to audit. The proposed penalty relief would be lost if the market assets reported in the estimate were not the same as in the final filing (i.e., a mistake was made either resulting in either higher or lower market assets). The proposed rules do not provide any specific instances where a mistake would be acceptable; however, the PBGC would consider waiving penalties based on facts and circumstances. Regardless of whether or not penalties apply, interest would accrue on the unpaid premium from the estimated variable rate premium due date to the final "true up" payment date.<BR/><BR/>Hewitt Comment: The requirement to have a final market value of assets is significant. If a mistaken asset value is used, the plan could be subject to late filing penalties.<BR/><BR/>For situations where a plan is considered a "small plan" for one year, but a "large plan" in the next year, the proposed rules provide safe-harbor relief for plans whose flat-rate due date for the plan year preceding the premium payment year is later than the large-plan flat-rate due date for the premium payment year. In such situations, any penalty would be waived.<BR/><BR/>Other Changes in Filing Rules<BR/><BR/>The proposed rules eliminate the following current special filing rules:<BR/>Exemption of variable rate premium reporting for plans with fewer than 500 participants with no UVBs; <BR/>Calculation of the variable rate premium on all accrued rather than vested accrued benefits for plans with 500 or more participants; and <BR/>Valuation of benefits at the funding interest rate if less than the variable rate premium interest rate.<BR/><BR/>A new exemption is added for very small plans which allows such plans that qualify for the variable premium participant cap to pay the capped premium and not report UVBs.<BR/><BR/>Recordkeeping and Audits<BR/><BR/>The proposed rules add the requirement that plan sponsors and employers must maintain records in addition to the parties currently specified in rules. Also, the operation of the system used to determine premium information must be available for demonstration to the PBGC so that its effectiveness and reliability can be assessed by the PBGC. In addition, the proposed rules would add data used for the UVB calculation to the list of items the PBGC can gather from other sources such as the IRS and DOL when the PBGC determines that records are insufficient.<BR/><BR/>Effective Date of Proposed Rules<BR/><BR/>When final, the new premium rules would apply for premium payment years beginning after 2007. These new rules apply even if the plan has special funding rules that apply to certain plans of commercial passenger airlines and airline caterers or delayed effective dates for the PPA funding rules (such as cooperatives, government contractors or plans with settlement agreements with the PBGC).<BR/><BR/>Implications for Employer Reporting under ERISA 4010<BR/><BR/>The PPA changed the criteria to determine if employer reporting under ERISA 4010 is required. For "years" beginning after 2007, reporting is required if the funding target attainment percentage at the end of the preceding plan year is less than 80%. In the past, 4010 reporting was triggered based on variable rate premium calculations. After the PPA, premiums and 4010 reporting are no longer linked as the asset and liability measures differ. These proposed regulations do not address any outstanding issues associated with reporting requirements under 4010 including the effective date for reporting in relation to an "Information Year," the determination of an end of year funding target attainment percentage, and any potential small plan exemptions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-82456639647165031292007-06-20T17:58:00.000-06:002007-06-20T17:58:00.000-06:00Read all about them here:http://www.hewittassociat...Read all about them here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.hewittassociates.com/Intl/NA/en-US/Default.aspxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-12384758656583936592007-06-20T17:47:00.000-06:002007-06-20T17:47:00.000-06:00Here's who is managing your pension. Got any furth...Here's who is managing your pension. Got any further questions please call<BR/><BR/>Dear Mr. Sir,<BR/> <BR/>Hewitt Associates is handling the LANL TCP 1 and medical, dental and legal coverage.<BR/> <BR/>No decision has been made as to who the administrator will be for the LLNL plan yet. When a decision has been made it will be prominently posted ont he LLNL transition website.<BR/> <BR/>Please let us know how we may further assist you.<BR/> <BR/>UC Customer Service<BR/>1-800-888-8267 Option 4<BR/>Fax: 1-800-792-5178Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-82424834463312597342007-06-20T08:29:00.000-06:002007-06-20T08:29:00.000-06:005:58, I found it interesting that 30% of those who...5:58, I found it interesting that 30% of those who weren't vested seem to share your view. I assume many were younger employees such as yourself and the lack of faith is telling. You're in good company though, as the Director apparently needed a guarantee that he would not lose UCRP level benefits.<BR/><BR/>Some of my younger coworkers did the same. It is clear many do not plan to spend their entire career at LANL. I am one of those 580 that went inactive with UCRP who is too young to retire. We'll see how it works out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-64235885321222569922007-06-20T05:33:00.000-06:002007-06-20T05:33:00.000-06:00I don't know but this may be a good place to write...I don't know but this may be a good place to write and find out.<BR/><BR/>http://www.ig.energy.gov/documents/CalendarYear1996/IG-0394.txtAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-86736977842500199882007-06-20T02:28:00.000-06:002007-06-20T02:28:00.000-06:00Does anyone know who ismanaging the LANL TCP1 pens...Does anyone know who is<BR/>managing the LANL TCP1 <BR/>pension plan ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-55290297901820250532007-06-19T20:03:00.000-06:002007-06-19T20:03:00.000-06:00My plan is to take Option (A) when I retire in a f...My plan is to take Option (A) when I retire in a few month which will entitle my wife to 100% of my base pay for the rest of here life. KNowing that she is going to live at least 30-40 years more than me I'd say that the screwwing I got by the UC / NNSA is the screwing they are going to get. That boils down to $1.44M not including what I am going to draw between age 54 and 72. Paybacks a bitch. I would advise everyone to do the same immediately. Do I feel like I've been violated? You bet !Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-7642442776712985922007-06-19T19:01:00.000-06:002007-06-19T19:01:00.000-06:006/19/07 6:25 PM You forgot one more thing. Lump s...6/19/07 6:25 PM You forgot one more thing. Lump sums are coming to an end very soon, maybe right after Oct 1st, 2007. They have been found to drain the pot to fast and with the UCRP only 80% funded with 16% contributions they need to keep as much green as they can. So for those who are on the edge of making a decision you had better think quick. You only have until July 15th, 2007.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-5994035602386741802007-06-19T18:25:00.000-06:002007-06-19T18:25:00.000-06:00I wonder how many people at LLNL don't realize tha...I wonder how many people at LLNL don't realize that the retirement tables for TCP_1 will be much different than the current UCRP table. I would bet that you will not at age 60 get the same percentage as you would have gotten.<BR/><BR/>"The liability for these members <BR/>as determined for the LANS defined benefit plan will almost certainly be different, as it will be based on the LANS benefit <BR/>provisions and the actuarial assumptions and methods used by the LANS actuary."<BR/><BR/><BR/>SMART PERSON:<BR/><BR/>"I had no faith in TCP1 being able to pay me 30 years from now, felt certain that mandatory employee contributions would be coming, and knew that the 401(k) was portable for when I leave LANL. I didn't want to be one of the last people trying to draw on the TCP1 pension, and didn't want to be tied to LANL for the rest of my career, so the 401(k) was an easy choice for me." <BR/><BR/><BR/>And now finally that we know the MERCER report is telling UC , LANS and LLNS to cut as many of the benefits as they can will start cutting "survivors benefits" based on the very same reason that the military uses when it comes to bennies. There answer is, we didn't hire you spouse, so why is he or she entitled to anything. Want to bet that disappears shorty after they get their claws into LLNL clan? <BR/><BR/>My advise is to retire now if you can and lock as much as you can up tight.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-32696554198266636522007-06-19T17:58:00.000-06:002007-06-19T17:58:00.000-06:00"I find it interesting that 30% of the nonvested e..."I find it interesting that 30% of the nonvested employees went to TCP2."<BR/><BR/>I'm one of those people, but I don't know why you would find this unusual. I had only 3 years of service at time of transition, and ~30 years to go until retirement. I had no faith in TCP1 being able to pay me 30 years from now, felt certain that mandatory employee contributions would be coming, and knew that the 401(k) was portable for when I leave LANL. I didn't want to be one of the last people trying to draw on the TCP1 pension, and didn't want to be tied to LANL for the rest of my career, so the 401(k) was an easy choice for me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com