Jump to content
Ray_CSU

403(b) Plan At Csu

Recommended Posts

Approved Vendors:

 

AIG Retirement/VALIC

Life Insurance Company of the Southwest

Americo

MetLife

AXA Equitable

Midland National

CalSTRS

Oppenheimer

Great American

PFS Investments, Inc.

Horace Mann

Plan Member Services

Industrial Alliance Pacific

Security Benefit

ING

USAA Insurance Company

 

 

 

Steve,

 

What an awful bunch of choices (except for CalSTRS and perhaps USAA). AIG is the TPA, right? Is it charging a fee on top of the fund expenses?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AP,

Not, AIG is only the common remitter. When AIG got the contract for the 457, it was part of the agreement that AIG would be the common remitter for the 403b as well, for smoother accounting process, I am told. I don't doubt that AIG wanted a favorable position to sell more 403b, but our 457 committee disallowed this because its a conflict of interest and we wanted teachers to stay away from TSAs.

AIG is only signing up vendors to the new ISA. You are right, USAA and CalSTRS are the only low fee companies. There are going to be hundreds of employees angry that Fidelity and TIAA CREF are not on the list.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't doubt that AIG wanted a favorable position to sell more 403b, but our 457 committee disallowed this

because its a conflict of interest and we wanted teachers to stay away from TSAs.

 

And yet the only phone number they put on the letter they just sent out is the troubled AIG's number? Talk about a favorable position. And why is LAUSD saying that these other companies that have signed ISA cannot be on the list?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Groundswell,

Until you come forward and provide evidence to your latest accusations that there are some vendors who have signed the ISA but are not on the list, your pronouncements are just that, more accusations. The 457 committee is an open public committee and we would listen to what you have to say on this matter or any other matter or from anybody else. But since I have suggested this numerous times before and you keep coming back with new accusations with no evidence, I believe that you are just an angry former “UTLA approved” vendor and that’s all.

regards,

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Groundswell,

Until you come forward and provide evidence to your latest accusations that there are some vendors who have signed the ISA but are not on the list, your pronouncements are just that, more accusations. The 457 committee is an open public committee and we would listen to what you have to say on this matter or any other matter or from anybody else. But since I have suggested this numerous times before and you keep coming back with new accusations with no evidence, I believe that you are just an angry former “UTLA approved” vendor and that’s all.

regards,

Steve

 

 

I have absolutely nothing to do with any formerly approved UTLA vendor. And I'm coming forward. I have a copy of a signed executed ISA from one the vendors (so far) signed by Wendolyne Traylor on 6/4/08 this vendor is not on the current list. I know of the other vendors in this situation and I will contact them and get them to send the executed ISA's. Where should I send these exactly? To who's attention?

 

I believe that you are a former school employee (I would say angry but, its rude and your retired living in the desert with your heath and a penison, so life is too good) who, with the best intentions, helped get the now troubled AIG approved as the 457 choice. agreeing that AIG become the common remitter of the 403b as an add on. Giving them the opportunity to reduce the vendors on the list as a compliance matter. Now many low cost vendors are gone. CalStrs has a fine program, but they don't have reps, neither does USAA. AIG has reps and you GAVE OUT THEIR PHONE NUMBER TO EVERYONE....AGAIN! and somehow you disallowed this conflict of interest? The letter you posted was about the 403b plan, not the 457. Yet there's the troubled, bailed-out and beleaguered AIG with their web address and phone number listed.

 

You just wrote:

 

"When AIG got the contract for the 457, it was part of the agreement that AIG would be the common remitter for the 403b as well, for smoother accounting process, I am told. I don't doubt that AIG wanted a favorable position to sell more 403b, but our 457 committee disallowed this because its a conflict of interest and we wanted teachers to stay away from TSAs."

 

Yet this is exactly what's happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Groundswell,

Our next meeting is December 4th at 3:00pm on the 28th floor of Beaudry. At the 28 floor at the reception's desk ask which room the 457b oversight committee meeting is held. You are welcome to voice your concerns directly to the committee. Bring the evidence of vendors signing the agreement that are not now on the list.

Have a good day,

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A state bill was passed, AB 2191, that basicly exempted CSU from the 770 regulation that is why K-12 and other colleges are still following the 770 gudelines. It is interesting to read becase they were mentioned directly by name. They sent out an extensive RFP with some very heavy requirements that had to be met before they would even look at product.

 

 

Observer,

 

I ask you to kindly read the bill and show me where CSU was exempted from 770.3, they were not. Here is a link to the chaptered bill.

 

This bill basically allowed the state controllers office to administer there program with more flexibility, it did not give any new powers to CSU to ignore existing California law.

 

ScottyD

 

 

Below are sections of the bill. It amends code and says that CSU is excluded. That is how it reads to me.

 

An act to amend Sections 24950, 24953, 25100, 25101, 25111, 25112,

25113, 25114, and 25115 of the Education Code, to amend Section

12420.2 of the Government Code, and to amend Section 770.3 of the

Insurance Code, relating to public employees.

 

SEC. 3. Section 25100 of the Education Code is amended to read:

25100. (a) The board shall establish a vendor registration

process through which information about tax-deferred retirement

investment products as described in Section 403(b) of the Internal

Revenue Code of 1986 shall be made available for consideration by

public employees of all local school districts, community college

districts, county offices of education, and state employees of a

state employer under the uniform state payroll system, excluding the

California State University System, eligible to participate in an

annuity contract and custodial account as described in Section 403(b)

of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A state bill was passed, AB 2191, that basicly exempted CSU from the 770 regulation that is why K-12 and other colleges are still following the 770 gudelines. It is interesting to read becase they were mentioned directly by name. They sent out an extensive RFP with some very heavy requirements that had to be met before they would even look at product.

 

Observer,

 

I ask you to kindly read the bill and show me where CSU was exempted from 770.3, they were not. Here is a link to the chaptered bill.

 

This bill basically allowed the state controllers office to administer there program with more flexibility, it did not give any new powers to CSU to ignore existing California law.

 

ScottyD

 

Below are sections of the bill. It amends code and says that CSU is excluded. That is how it reads to me.

 

An act to amend Sections 24950, 24953, 25100, 25101, 25111, 25112,

25113, 25114, and 25115 of the Education Code, to amend Section

12420.2 of the Government Code, and to amend Section 770.3 of the

Insurance Code, relating to public employees.

 

SEC. 3. Section 25100 of the Education Code is amended to read:

25100. (a) The board shall establish a vendor registration

process through which information about tax-deferred retirement

investment products as described in Section 403(b) of the Internal

Revenue Code of 1986 shall be made available for consideration by

public employees of all local school districts, community college

districts, county offices of education, and state employees of a

state employer under the uniform state payroll system, excluding the

California State University System, eligible to participate in an

annuity contract and custodial account as described in Section 403(b)

of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

 

You've read it wrong. CalSTRS sponsored the bill and there is no exception, even CSU would disagree with you on this one.

 

ScottyD

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A state bill was passed, AB 2191, that basicly exempted CSU from the 770 regulation that is why K-12 and other colleges are still following the 770 gudelines. It is interesting to read becase they were mentioned directly by name. They sent out an extensive RFP with some very heavy requirements that had to be met before they would even look at product.

 

Observer,

 

I ask you to kindly read the bill and show me where CSU was exempted from 770.3, they were not. Here is a link to the chaptered bill.

 

This bill basically allowed the state controllers office to administer there program with more flexibility, it did not give any new powers to CSU to ignore existing California law.

 

ScottyD

 

Below are sections of the bill. It amends code and says that CSU is excluded. That is how it reads to me.

 

An act to amend Sections 24950, 24953, 25100, 25101, 25111, 25112,

25113, 25114, and 25115 of the Education Code, to amend Section

12420.2 of the Government Code, and to amend Section 770.3 of the

Insurance Code, relating to public employees.

 

SEC. 3. Section 25100 of the Education Code is amended to read:

25100. (a) The board shall establish a vendor registration

process through which information about tax-deferred retirement

investment products as described in Section 403(b) of the Internal

Revenue Code of 1986 shall be made available for consideration by

public employees of all local school districts, community college

districts, county offices of education, and state employees of a

state employer under the uniform state payroll system, excluding the

California State University System, eligible to participate in an

annuity contract and custodial account as described in Section 403(b)

of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

 

You've read it wrong. CalSTRS sponsored the bill and there is no exception, even CSU would disagree with you on this one.

 

ScottyD

 

Okay then how are they getting around it?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still trying to work out what to do about my 403(b) now that the CSU has eliminated my current company.

 

One possible piece of good news is that Fidelity will offer the Spartan Index Fund (according to a FAQ at http://www.calstate.edu/hr/benefitsportal/tsa/faq1.shtml#Q5

 

A customer service representative at Fidelity indicated that the U.S. Spartan Index Fund is one of the fund investment choices effective January 1, 2009, but it is not listed on Fidelity’s fund sponsor insert that is included in the Enrollment kit. Is this fund available?

Yes, the U.S. Spartan Index fund is an available fund investment choice as of January 1, 2009. Fidelity has confirmed that the U.S. Spartan Index fund was inadvertently omitted from the fund sponsor insert.

 

If this is the same as Fidelity Spartan 500 Index Investor FSMKX, it has even lower costs than the USAA index fund.

 

-John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Okay then how are they getting around it?

 

 

They are not obeying the law, they aren't getting around it, they are ignoring it.

 

ScottyD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I'm new here and haven't finished looking around yet, so hopefully this post isn't redundant or otherwise inappropriate. I work for the California State University and have had a 403(b) for many years, with Fidelity as my investment choice. I'm bothered by the upcoming changes like everyone else, and I certainly don't want to invest through an insurance company. However, it appears that CSU employees may have it better than many of you, as we still have Fidelity as an option, even though the list of available funds is pretty limited.

 

I mention this not to make anyone feel bad, but because I saw a post where someone recommended that Fidelity be contacted and asked why they didn't sign an agreement (ISA). I thought people might like to know that they did sign an agreement with the California State University.

 

Our choices come next year are: AIG, Fidelity, ING, MetLife, and TIAA-CREF. I plan to stay with Fidelity, but the problem is that onlyy one of the five funds I currently use are going to be available. I need to research the new 'offerings' and decide which, if any, to go with.

 

Does anyone else have any investment options, other than annuities via life insurance companies?

 

 

 

Do you mean you only have 5 funds within Fidelity to choose from! At lausd we could choose from ALL of their funds. I'm still hoping they will sign in the 1st Q.

 

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...

×
×
  • Create New...