Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
apteacher

Contempt

Recommended Posts

 

I do think some people are uninformed about the group retirement plan business, whether it be for profit or not for profit. The under a million plan group plan business is not going to provide the kind of pricing that some people her seem to think is so widely available. You can argue about it all day long, but that is the reality.

 

TR,

 

Here is some reality:

 

The CalSTRS 403b plan offers competitive pricing (.33 admin. fee), plus excellent fund choices, to any school district in California.

 

My own school district (a relatively small one, 12 schools or so) will be offering another plan that will charge no administrative fee, and will include both Vanguard and Fidelity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would be helpful if for once you could provide some authority for your opinions. If there is authority you can goolge it just as I found the citation to the FL attorney general's opinion.

 

Whether adminstrators have influence over a board is not relevant if the Board has the sole authority to make the decisions regarding the plan. I won't bore you with the cite but there is a regulation under ERISA that states that advisors and consultants to a plan who do not have authority to make decisions that bind the plan are not fiducaries.

 

No one can prevent some one from filing a law suit against a SD employee but in states like FL which have protective state laws such suits will be dismissed without a trial. If you have a case with a different result in FL please provide. In other states you need to check the applicable state law or the terms of the collective bargaining agreement which may require that the SD defend the employees.

 

Intruder,

 

My two points still stand:

 

1) Administrators do exercise influence over board members. While you are correct that the board has ultimate authority, it is also true that they often take their cue from school district administrators. If you would like proof, just look at the minutes of any school board agenda. The board almost always gives approval to an item that is "Recommended for Action" by the superintendent.

 

2) I am not fluent in Florida law, but I can tell you that there are lawsuits all over the country against teachers. This is beyond dispute.

 

 

How about this reality:

 

CA has a state income tax rate of 9.3% while FL has no state income tax. Which one is prefered by taxpayers who pay for SD costs?

 

How many lawsuit are there invovling 403b plans? Whether teachers can be sued is a matter of state law. Perhaps you teach in the the wrong state.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Skeptical
Perhaps you should ask Judy if she doenst think we are debating fiduicary responsibility since she introduced the issue in an earlier post when she stated that those who have more fiduciary dutes under the new 403b regs - the adminstrators and business manage-rs are the dumbest at this sort of thing, referring to their fiduciary resposibilities and then followed up in later post stating that the new regs will put more fiduciary responsibility on administration, as she understands it. Why doent you ask her if she misspoke.

 

Why is the model FL plan a poor decision? Just because it doesnt contain the investment funds you would prefer what makes it bad if it reduces fees by one third and will not cost taxpayers or SD anything. This sounds like win-win.

 

Also SD can adopt the model plan as an add on to their exisiting options instead of as a replacement.

 

Intruder,

 

An observation: I notice that you always fail to address any specific poster by "name", nor do you provide any closing salutation. Where did you learn this style of communication? I've grown used to it but I do find it a little odd.

 

Ahh the ERISA / fiduciary sidebar: certainly not the topic of this thread. But If you want to put Judy on the spot, good luck to you.

 

Why do you think the FL model plan will reduce fees by one third? Did you get that from a press release or can you provide something better to support that claim?

 

Fair warning: I'm not interested in a quirky, IRC code response. If you cannot back up this "fact" beyond citing the IBCs wild claims through their op-ed pieces and press releases, I will consider your credibility to have dropped to zero.

 

Regards,

 

Jim

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this reality:

 

CA has a state income tax rate of 9.3% while FL has no state income tax. Which one is prefered by taxpayers who pay for SD costs?

 

How many lawsuit are there invovling 403b plans? Whether teachers can be sued is a matter of state law. Perhaps you teach in the the wrong state.

 

Intruder,

 

You are sometimes quite difficult to follow. Are you saying that, since CA has an income tax, its school districts can better afford to provide good 403b plans? This is untrue. For example, the costs of the CalSTRS plan is borne by the participants, and not the state. My district's plan will be paid for by the TPA that will in turn pass on the costs to the suckers who buy the high priced products that it sells.

 

I don't know the answer to your second question. Yes, obviously lawsuits are determined by state law. You are only stating the obvious. It is just as obvious that lawsuits against teachers are widespread are taking place in many states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps you should ask Judy if she doenst think we are debating fiduicary responsibility since she introduced the issue in an earlier post when she stated that those who have more fiduciary dutes under the new 403b regs - the adminstrators and business manage-rs are the dumbest at this sort of thing, referring to their fiduciary resposibilities and then followed up in later post stating that the new regs will put more fiduciary responsibility on administration, as she understands it. Why doent you ask her if she misspoke.

 

Why is the model FL plan a poor decision? Just because it doesnt contain the investment funds you would prefer what makes it bad if it reduces fees by one third and will not cost taxpayers or SD anything. This sounds like win-win.

 

Also SD can adopt the model plan as an add on to their exisiting options instead of as a replacement.

 

Intruder,

 

An observation: I notice that you always fail to address any specific poster by "name", nor do you provide any closing salutation. Where did you learn this style of communication? I've grown used to it but I do find it a little odd.

 

Ahh the ERISA / fiduciary sidebar: certainly not the topic of this thread. But If you want to put Judy on the spot, good luck to you.

 

Why do you think the FL model plan will reduce fees by one third? Did you get that from a press release or can you provide something better to support that claim?

 

Fair warning: I'm not interested in a quirky, IRC code response. If you cannot back up this "fact" beyond citing the IBCs wild claims through their op-ed pieces and press releases, I will consider your credibility to have dropped to zero.

 

Regards,

 

Jim

 

 

Why dont you think the fees will be reduced from 2.5 -3.0 to 1 to 1.5%?

 

I really dont care about what you consider my creditability to be since you dont proivde any basis for your opinions. If you think the FL model plan is unfair or inaccurate in its statements why dont you present your comments to the IBC, FL education association, the FL school boards association, the FL Association of District school superintendents and the FL Association of School Administrators, with a copy to 403bwise. This way we can all review the merits of your comments. I am sure given your stature, your comments will receive careful consideration.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intruder,

 

Fees of 1 - 1.5 are a "win-win?" Vanguard and Fidelity Spartan offer fees that are many times lower. Show me a plan that has low cost index funds comparable to V and F, and then I will be happy to declare victory with you.

 

American Century and Waddell & Reed are the "best in class" low cost providers? This is simply laughable.

 

Now I have another class of people to hold in contempt. In addition to the sleazy salespeople who plug lousy products and the ignorant school employees who buy them, I now add the kind of folks in Florida who develop such lousy products in the first place and then tout them as being "models."

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intruder,

 

Fees of 1 - 1.5 are a "win-win?" Vanguard and Fidelity Spartan offer fees that are many times lower. Show me a plan that has low cost index funds comparable to V and F, and then I will be happy to declare victory with you.

 

American Century and Waddell & Reed are the "best in class" low cost providers? This is simply laughable.

 

Now I have another class of people to hold in contempt. In addition to the sleazy salespeople who plug lousy products and the ignorant school employees who buy them, I now add the kind of folks in Florida who develop such lousy products in the first place and then tout them as being "models."

 

 

Doesnt matter who you hold in contempt .The FL model plan wont cost the taxpayers or SD any money. And, unlike CA, FL SD employees are immune from lawsuits and dont pay any state income tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How about this reality:

 

CA has a state income tax rate of 9.3% while FL has no state income tax. Which one is prefered by taxpayers who pay for SD costs?

 

How many lawsuit are there invovling 403b plans? Whether teachers can be sued is a matter of state law. Perhaps you teach in the the wrong state.

 

Intruder,

 

You are sometimes quite difficult to follow. Are you saying that, since CA has an income tax, its school districts can better afford to provide good 403b plans? This is untrue. For example, the costs of the CalSTRS plan is borne by the participants, and not the state. My district's plan will be paid for by the TPA that will in turn pass on the costs to the suckers who buy the high priced products that it sells.

 

I don't know the answer to your second question. Yes, obviously lawsuits are determined by state law. You are only stating the obvious. It is just as obvious that lawsuits against teachers are widespread are taking place in many states.

 

 

What I am saying is that the public doesn't care about 403b plans as long as taxpayers don't have to pay for them which is why the FL model plan will not cost SD anything. What CA taxpayers do care about is the 46B deficit in CA's two public pension plans which will have to be paid for by CA taxpayers by raising the 9.3% income tax whereas FLs state employee pension plan has a surplus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Skeptical

Intruder,

 

An observation: I notice that you always fail to address any specific poster by "name", nor do you provide any closing salutation. Where did you learn this style of communication? I've grown used to it but I do find it a little odd.

 

Ahh the ERISA / fiduciary sidebar: certainly not the topic of this thread. But If you want to put Judy on the spot, good luck to you.

 

Why do you think the FL model plan will reduce fees by one third? Did you get that from a press release or can you provide something better to support that claim?

 

Fair warning: I'm not interested in a quirky, IRC code response. If you cannot back up this "fact" beyond citing the IBCs wild claims through their op-ed pieces and press releases, I will consider your credibility to have dropped to zero.

 

Regards,

 

Jim

 

 

Why dont you think the fees will be reduced from 2.5 -3.0 to 1 to 1.5%?

 

I really dont care about what you consider my creditability to be since you dont proivde any basis for your opinions. If you think the FL model plan is unfair or inaccurate in its statements why dont you present your comments to the IBC, FL education association, the FL school boards association, the FL Association of District school superintendents and the FL Association of School Administrators, with a copy to 403bwise. This way we can all review the merits of your comments. I am sure given your stature, your comments will receive careful consideration.

 

 

Intruder,

 

My opinion of the FL model plan, which is based on the public information released to date, is that the plan will be far from "best in class". It is strictly my opinion, which you can accept, reject, or ignore. On the other hand, you claim that the IBC supported model will reduce costs substantially when you said, "what makes it bad if it reduces fees by one third and will not cost taxpayers or SD anything".

 

Do you have anything to support this statement? What information, beyond IBC promotional materials, leads you to believe that this will be a model plan?

 

What makes this proposal the big winner in your view? That revenue sharing requirements to both the IBC and participating SDs will keep SDs from spending any budgeted resources?

 

Jim

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am saying is that the public doesn't care about 403b plans as long as taxpayers don't have to pay for them which is why the FL model plan will not cost SD anything. What CA taxpayers do care about is the 46B deficit in CA's two public pension plans which will have to be paid for by CA taxpayers by raising the 9.3% income tax whereas FLs state employee pension plan has a surplus.

 

Intruder,

 

You seem to be arguing that the FL plan is good because 1) it does not cost the taxpayers anything, and 2) it reduces fees by one third.

 

I have responded that there are other plans available which 1) cost school districts little or nothing, and 2) charge far less than the FL plan.

 

You have not responded to either point.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What I am saying is that the public doesn't care about 403b plans as long as taxpayers don't have to pay for them which is why the FL model plan will not cost SD anything. What CA taxpayers do care about is the 46B deficit in CA's two public pension plans which will have to be paid for by CA taxpayers by raising the 9.3% income tax whereas FLs state employee pension plan has a surplus.

 

Intruder,

 

You seem to be arguing that the FL plan is good because 1) it does not cost the taxpayers anything, and 2) it reduces fees by one third.

 

I have responded that there are other plans available which 1) cost school districts little or nothing, and 2) charge far less than the FL plan.

 

You have not responded to either point.

 

 

1. Did the vendors for the other plans that you cited submit proposals to the IPS? After all 90 vendors were invited but only 24 responded to RFP. It does little good to suggest that there are cheaper alternatives if the vendors are not interested in participating the model plan.

 

2. The model plan allows SDs to select or retain other vendors with whom the SD wants to make available for its employees. In addition, a SD can elect not to participate in the model plan and is free to seek low cost vendors.

 

How about responding to this Q:

 

Since you agree that CA will have to close its $46B unfunded liability for public pensions by increasing the state income tax rate above 9.3% will you remain in CA when you retire to contribute your fair share of the cost of your benefits or will you move to one of the 40 states with a lower income tax or even to a state with no income tax such as WA, NV or FL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Did the vendors for the other plans that you cited submit proposals to the IPS? After all 90 vendors were invited but only 24 responded to RFP. It does little good to suggest that there are cheaper alternatives if the vendors are not interested in participating the model plan.

 

2. The model plan allows SDs to select or retain other vendors with whom the SD wants to make available for its employees. In addition, a SD can elect not to participate in the model plan and is free to seek low cost vendors.

 

How about responding to this Q:

 

Since you agree that CA will have to close its $46B unfunded liability for public pensions by increasing the state income tax rate above 9.3% will you remain in CA when you retire to contribute your fair share of the cost of your benefits or will you move to one of the 40 states with a lower income tax or even to a state with no income tax such as WA, NV or FL?

 

 

Intruder,

 

I do not know the answer to your first question.

 

Regarding your last question:

 

I have not agreed that CA will close the unfunded liability by increasing the state income tax. I'm not sure where you got that. You continue to somehow link 403b plans to state fiscal problems. That is odd, to say the least.

 

Will I move out of CA? Are you kidding me??? You are a funny guy.

 

By the way, would you please respond to Skeptical's questions:

 

"My opinion of the FL model plan, which is based on the public information released to date, is that the plan will be far from "best in class". It is strictly my opinion, which you can accept, reject, or ignore. On the other hand, you claim that the IBC supported model will reduce costs substantially when you said, "what makes it bad if it reduces fees by one third and will not cost taxpayers or SD anything".

 

Do you have anything to support this statement? What information, beyond IBC promotional materials, leads you to believe that this will be a model plan?

 

What makes this proposal the big winner in your view? That revenue sharing requirements to both the IBC and participating SDs will keep SDs from spending any budgeted resources?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fellow Travellers:

 

An interesting set of articles by Scott Simon, whose thinking I enjoy, can be found at http://morningstaradvisor.com/articles/arc....asp?authId=500 He addresses some issues around "fiduciary responsibility" in Article 5 and perhaps in other places. Admittedly, fiduciary responsibility is much more a part of the 401(k) world, per ERISA, but it sure seems to be coming our way as well.

 

JudyS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Skeptical

 

What I am saying is that the public doesn't care about 403b plans as long as taxpayers don't have to pay for them which is why the FL model plan will not cost SD anything. What CA taxpayers do care about is the 46B deficit in CA's two public pension plans which will have to be paid for by CA taxpayers by raising the 9.3% income tax whereas FLs state employee pension plan has a surplus.

 

Intruder,

 

You seem to be arguing that the FL plan is good because 1) it does not cost the taxpayers anything, and 2) it reduces fees by one third.

 

I have responded that there are other plans available which 1) cost school districts little or nothing, and 2) charge far less than the FL plan.

 

You have not responded to either point.

 

 

1. Did the vendors for the other plans that you cited submit proposals to the IPS? After all 90 vendors were invited but only 24 responded to RFP. It does little good to suggest that there are cheaper alternatives if the vendors are not interested in participating the model plan.

 

2. The model plan allows SDs to select or retain other vendors with whom the SD wants to make available for its employees. In addition, a SD can elect not to participate in the model plan and is free to seek low cost vendors.

 

How about responding to this Q:

 

Since you agree that CA will have to close its $46B unfunded liability for public pensions by increasing the state income tax rate above 9.3% will you remain in CA when you retire to contribute your fair share of the cost of your benefits or will you move to one of the 40 states with a lower income tax or even to a state with no income tax such as WA, NV or FL?

 

Intruder,

 

The IBC says that 24 vendors submitted proposals. Remember by the IBCs documents these vendors had to agree to revenue sharing with both the IBC and the individual SDs. A poster here stated (EDIT: WITHOUT citation or supporting links) that each vendor had to pay $15,000 to bid. I do not know if that statement is true or not. We also don't know for sure what was in the RFP because the IBC has not released it. I do know this: "Best in Class" would start with TRANSPARENCY.

 

You sir, are brilliant at evading reasonable questions, asked in the context of a discussion among reasonable participants. That you cannot or choose not to answer supports the belief that you are on the board as a "troll"; Not to further the discussion, but to cause trouble. I make the above statement NOT because I disagree agree with your views, but because you've proven it's impossible to have any serious, valuable dialgue with you.

 

Of course you could prove me wrong by actually responding to my very reasonable, respectful questions. We'll see.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JIm, Judy, AP and other educators and good pros,

All of you valuable posters and IMHO you are wasting valuable time trying to have a conversation with the many trolls that only try to imflame and distrupt.

There is a very handy feature on this site and thats ignore. They do not give a flying .... about the 403b problem, teachers, defined pension plans, diversification, teaching others the basics or answering posters questions. I don't know why you keep trying to get something from him/her/it when he/she/it is a plain and ordinary leach.

These folks have nothing else to do but come here and stir up destructive debate. Let them post and if nobody feeds them, they will post less.

Just ignore.

Have a great day,

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IBC says that 24 vendors submitted proposals. Remember by the IBCs documents these vendors had to agree to revenue sharing with both the IBC and the individual SDs.

 

Jim,

 

NO WONDER Vanguard, Fidelity, and T. Rowe Price did not end up as "best in class" of the low priced vendors. I checked the IBC web site (http://www.themodelplan.com/submit.html), and they did not even submit proposals. Gee, I wonder why!

 

Check out that list of companies that submitted bids. It's the usual list of suspects: great Americans (e.g., Horace Mann), presidents (e.g., Lincoln Financial), and states (e.g., Mass. Mutual). Hey, I have an acronym for our usual list of suspects: GAPS. Yep, from now on, when someone asks about a plan that is riddled with the usual list of subjects, and does not have either V, F, TRP, or a comparable low cost firm, my answer will be: GAPS.

 

So, IBC, what kind of plan did you develop? GAPS.

 

Florida school employees, you have been GAPSed.

 

This is going to become a very useful term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...