Jump to content
lausdfred

Lausd Vender List, Fidelity Grandfatherd?

Recommended Posts

If you are contributing to Fidelity you need to find another company. There is no grandfathering. LAUSD and AIG have their own agenda. Some companies are getting on the list and others are not. Regardless of what the rules may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intruder,

 

Whew! If I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that it is indeed possible for, say, Fidelity to be grandfathered in for those employees who have been currently investing in that company.

 

Do I read you correctly? Does anyone else want to confirm or deny this?

 

 

A school district could technically allow any provider to stay on the list, regardless of it that provider signs documents or even complies with the new regulations - however a district that does this is begging for trouble in an audit. There is no "grandfather" clause that requires a district to continue to offer a vendor. If a vendor will not agree to share information (remember, there are many different ways to share) then that vendor should NOT be allowed on the list. I know that Fidelity CAN share the requisite information with AIG, however I think they feel that AIG shouldn't have access to their client information considering the highly competitive nature of the two institutions (they compete directly for 403(b) business big time at the University level). Fidelity has NOT told me this, this is just my hunch.

 

I don't think its a good idea to grandfather anyone as it leaves the district open to non-compliance and then they have to start letting everyone else on the list who can't comply.

 

Of course LAUSD could just get rid of AIG and go with CalSTRS 403bComply, but I'm doubtful LAUSD is willing to pay the costs at this point. (disclosure......I consult with CalSTRS on this program).

 

Also - Technically no TPA can exclude a vendor that wants to sign the documents, share information and be approved - they MUST add them. I don't see any reason why they would be required to add that vendor immediately, but they must do so as soon as administratively feasible.

 

ScottyD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't trust AIG:

 

I talked to a rep from Midland National - a vendor who is on the LAUSD approved list - this Monday as he was rushing around schools to see his clients before Dec 9.

 

He said AIG denied receiving the ISA that a sister company of Midland submitted to them (I forgot the name of midland's sister company - but it was on the previous LAUSD list) - even though Midland and this sister company are in the same building and sent the signed ISA agreement to AIG almost simultaneously.

 

He said AIG and LAUSD gave his sister company the run-around and they had to have three way conference calls with AIG and LAUSD, and also get lawyers involved with correspondence to AIG to get them to admit that they flubbed the mail. AIG's stance was that the sister company never signed the ISA.

 

BTW, Greg Kildare (LAUSD Risk Management) mentioned at UTLA on Saturday that LAUSD is not happy with the AIG's perfprmance with administering the district's 457b plan and is looking at Vanguard and Fidelity as a possible replacement vendors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't trust AIG:

 

I talked to a rep from Midland National - a vendor who is on the LAUSD approved list - this Monday as he was rushing around schools to see his clients before Dec 9.

 

He said AIG denied receiving the ISA that a sister company of Midland submitted to them (I forgot the name of midland's sister company - but it was on the previous LAUSD list) - even though Midland and this sister company are in the same building and sent the signed ISA agreement to AIG almost simultaneously.

 

He said AIG and LAUSD gave his sister company the run-around and they had to have three way conference calls with AIG and LAUSD, and also get lawyers involved with correspondence to AIG to get them to admit that they flubbed the mail. AIG's stance was that the sister company never signed the ISA.

 

BTW, Greg Kildare (LAUSD Risk Management) mentioned at UTLA on Saturday that LAUSD is not happy with the AIG's perfprmance with administering the district's 457b plan and is looking at Vanguard and Fidelity as a possible replacement vendors.

 

 

 

 

Why did lausd make this deal w/ the aig/valic devil in the first place? Did the district let them have a monoply on the 457 in exchange for administering our program? If so how could we let his happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google:

 

Eli Broad, AIG

 

and

 

Eli Broad, LAUSD, Roy Romer

 

 

Pardon my ignorance of LA LA land political influence but what does eli broad have to do with the selection of AIG to administer the LAUSD 457b plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some students, the teacher has to do everything:

 

http://michaelklonsky.blogspot.com/2008/09...ck-to-golf.html

 

 

Now you have introduced me to the La La Land version of Six degrees of Separation what is the connection you are tying to make of eli broad to AIG considering that he stepped down as a director of AIG more than 5 years before AIG's collapse in 2008?

 

Do you get all of your information from blogs?

 

What do you teach?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's my understanding (and please tell me if I'm wrong) that no more companies will be added to the list. There are many companies right now that are not only willing to sign the ISA but already have signed the ISA that are not allowed on the list.

 

Mr. Schullo, I believe you have received the signed ISA from FTJ fundchoice via Scottyd as proof that this is going on.

 

There seems to be a double standard. LAUSD says that absolutely no other companies will be added to the list as of 10/17/08...and then they add Tiaa-Cref on 11/14/08. LAUSD is not willing to explain why Tiaa-cref was given this courtesy and other companies have not.

 

So how can Fidelity be added now "if" they sign the ISA. I think they will have to wait until 1st qtr '09 when they may open it up to more companies.

 

 

Sorry for the delay. I was in Vegas watching 62 year old Bette Midler's great performance.

Yes I forwarded the information via Scotty to LAUSD. Another company also wrote a letter to UTLA and that too was forwarded to LAUSD.

 

Who is saying all of this that you report here: Who? Who in LAUSD says that "absolutely no other companies will be added to the list as of 10/17/08? I know all of the players at LAUSD and AIG? Who said that? How can LAUSD "not explain why TC was given the courtesy and other companies are not." What are you talking about?

 

Our next open 457b meeting is, Thursday, December 4th at 3:00 on the 28th floor. Any LAUSD educator concerned about their retirement plan is welcome to attend, meet the committee and ask your questions.

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You can't trust AIG:

 

I talked to a rep from Midland National - a vendor who is on the LAUSD approved list - this Monday as he was rushing around schools to see his clients before Dec 9.

 

He said AIG denied receiving the ISA that a sister company of Midland submitted to them (I forgot the name of midland's sister company - but it was on the previous LAUSD list) - even though Midland and this sister company are in the same building and sent the signed ISA agreement to AIG almost simultaneously.

 

He said AIG and LAUSD gave his sister company the run-around and they had to have three way conference calls with AIG and LAUSD, and also get lawyers involved with correspondence to AIG to get them to admit that they flubbed the mail. AIG's stance was that the sister company never signed the ISA.

 

BTW, Greg Kildare (LAUSD Risk Management) mentioned at UTLA on Saturday that LAUSD is not happy with the AIG's perfprmance with administering the district's 457b plan and is looking at Vanguard and Fidelity as a possible replacement vendors.

 

 

 

 

Why did lausd make this deal w/ the aig/valic devil in the first place? Did the district let them have a monoply on the 457 in exchange for administering our program? If so how could we let his happen.

 

 

 

LA Teacher,

 

And you know what else Eli Broad did? He somehow, someway orchestrated a rip-off of the LAUSD by charging about twice as much for the Beaudry building. Click here for story. Of course Romer was the sup. at that time. Furthermore, just about on every floor, the floors are warped! Can you believe in this day and age of building codes and compliances that this building would pass. This is not a small building but has 30 stories.

 

When I first got on the oversight committee, I learned that Broad had about half billion of his fortune in AIG stock. I thought about how stupid that was to put so much of your money in one stock. Now I know why. But he got exactly what he deserved. He was never a friend to education and he did not have ENOUGH.

 

Happy turkey day,

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's my understanding (and please tell me if I'm wrong) that no more companies will be added to the list. There are many companies right now that are not only willing to sign the ISA but already have signed the ISA that are not allowed on the list.

 

Mr. Schullo, I believe you have received the signed ISA from FTJ fundchoice via Scottyd as proof that this is going on.

 

There seems to be a double standard. LAUSD says that absolutely no other companies will be added to the list as of 10/17/08...and then they add Tiaa-Cref on 11/14/08. LAUSD is not willing to explain why Tiaa-cref was given this courtesy and other companies have not.

 

So how can Fidelity be added now "if" they sign the ISA. I think they will have to wait until 1st qtr '09 when they may open it up to more companies.

 

 

Sorry for the delay. I was in Vegas watching 62 year old Bette Midler's great performance.

Yes I forwarded the information via Scotty to LAUSD. Another company also wrote a letter to UTLA and that too was forwarded to LAUSD.

 

Who is saying all of this that you report here: Who? Who in LAUSD says that "absolutely no other companies will be added to the list as of 10/17/08? I know all of the players at LAUSD and AIG? Who said that? How can LAUSD "not explain why TC was given the courtesy and other companies are not." What are you talking about?

 

Our next open 457b meeting is, Thursday, December 4th at 3:00 on the 28th floor. Any LAUSD educator concerned about their retirement plan is welcome to attend, meet the committee and ask your questions.

 

Steve

 

 

 

How about you prove to all of us that this in NOT happening? You know all the players right? Why don't you tell us why these companies are not being allowed on the list.

 

You asked for proof about the ISAs and I sent it to you. But you don't believe the rest of the story.

 

Its your turn to provide proof that this is not happening.

 

So I will answer your questions the best I can...then I want you to investigate and tell us why the companies with signed ISAs are not on the approved list.

 

Ms. Wendolyne Traylor, Benefits Manager is who is saying what I report here. I have sent you a copy of a signed ISA with FTJ (I have others) who acted in good faith and they are not on the list. Isn't that proof enough that something is wrong?

 

You obviously have seen the signed ISA for FTJ. And they are not on the list. Can you tell me why?

 

I asked Ms. Traylor about the TIAA-Cref situation and her response was typically vague:

 

"TIAA Cref was added after the October 17, 2008 deadline because of negotiations between AIG and TIAA Cref that were completed on or around November 14, 2008."

 

I have this email if you would like to see it.

 

So there are all these other companies that already have executed ISAs and they call and call and get no response. Then Tiaa-cref gets added because of "negotiations". Does this seem right to you steve?

 

I have the names and contact numbers for these companies. If I give them to you will you call them and verify that they have been trying to get on the list.

 

Mr. Kim Chin from Pacific Life spoke with Greg Kildare and Greg told him that they will not be allowed on the list. (maybe next year) Yet Pacific Life has an signed executed ISA dated 6/4/08.

 

Is Pacific Life on the list? No. Is that not proof?

Was Tiaa-Cref on the list on 10/17? No. Did they get added on 11/14? Yes. Is that not proof of the double standard?

 

If I send you the emails from Wendolyne stating that no companies will be added to the list as of 10/17/08 will that help? If I send you a copy of the email from AIG to FTJ stating that LAUSD sent the provider agreements and then send you the email from Ms. Traylor stating that AIG sent the agreements will that help show that there is confusion about this crucial form?

 

There is a qoute on this thread that says that Greg Kildare stated on Sat that they are unhappy with the way AIG is adminstering. Yet you keep questioning me?

 

The proof is on the list. There are companies that want to be on the list that have signed ISAs and they are not on the list. Isn't that proof enough?

 

I have the emails to prove what is being said

You have proof that companies with signed ISA's are not being allowed on the list.

I have emails showing/proving that there is confusion about who sent the provider agreements

Greg Kildare has stated that they are unhappy with AIG

 

Is that enough Steve?

 

Please tell me what you would like to see and I will send it off to you.

 

Then I want you to post on this board that I provided proof and that these companies are being treated unfairly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's my understanding (and please tell me if I'm wrong) that no more companies will be added to the list. There are many companies right now that are not only willing to sign the ISA but already have signed the ISA that are not allowed on the list.

 

Mr. Schullo, I believe you have received the signed ISA from FTJ fundchoice via Scottyd as proof that this is going on.

 

There seems to be a double standard. LAUSD says that absolutely no other companies will be added to the list as of 10/17/08...and then they add Tiaa-Cref on 11/14/08. LAUSD is not willing to explain why Tiaa-cref was given this courtesy and other companies have not.

 

So how can Fidelity be added now "if" they sign the ISA. I think they will have to wait until 1st qtr '09 when they may open it up to more companies.

 

 

Sorry for the delay. I was in Vegas watching 62 year old Bette Midler's great performance.

Yes I forwarded the information via Scotty to LAUSD. Another company also wrote a letter to UTLA and that too was forwarded to LAUSD.

 

Who is saying all of this that you report here: Who? Who in LAUSD says that "absolutely no other companies will be added to the list as of 10/17/08? I know all of the players at LAUSD and AIG? Who said that? How can LAUSD "not explain why TC was given the courtesy and other companies are not." What are you talking about?

 

Our next open 457b meeting is, Thursday, December 4th at 3:00 on the 28th floor. Any LAUSD educator concerned about their retirement plan is welcome to attend, meet the committee and ask your questions.

 

Steve

 

 

 

How about you prove to all of us that this in NOT happening? You know all the players right? Why don't you tell us why these companies are not being allowed on the list.

 

You asked for proof about the ISAs and I sent it to you. But you don't believe the rest of the story.

 

Its your turn to provide proof that this is not happening.

 

So I will answer your questions the best I can...then I want you to investigate and tell us why the companies with signed ISAs are not on the approved list.

 

Ms. Wendolyne Traylor, Benefits Manager is who is saying what I report here. I have sent you a copy of a signed ISA with FTJ (I have others) who acted in good faith and they are not on the list. Isn't that proof enough that something is wrong?

 

You obviously have seen the signed ISA for FTJ. And they are not on the list. Can you tell me why?

 

I asked Ms. Traylor about the TIAA-Cref situation and her response was typically vague:

 

"TIAA Cref was added after the October 17, 2008 deadline because of negotiations between AIG and TIAA Cref that were completed on or around November 14, 2008."

 

I have this email if you would like to see it.

 

So there are all these other companies that already have executed ISAs and they call and call and get no response. Then Tiaa-cref gets added because of "negotiations". Does this seem right to you steve?

 

I have the names and contact numbers for these companies. If I give them to you will you call them and verify that they have been trying to get on the list.

 

Mr. Kim Chin from Pacific Life spoke with Greg Kildare and Greg told him that they will not be allowed on the list. (maybe next year) Yet Pacific Life has an signed executed ISA dated 6/4/08.

 

Is Pacific Life on the list? No. Is that not proof?

Was Tiaa-Cref on the list on 10/17? No. Did they get added on 11/14? Yes. Is that not proof of the double standard?

 

If I send you the emails from Wendolyne stating that no companies will be added to the list as of 10/17/08 will that help? If I send you a copy of the email from AIG to FTJ stating that LAUSD sent the provider agreements and then send you the email from Ms. Traylor stating that AIG sent the agreements will that help show that there is confusion about this crucial form?

 

There is a qoute on this thread that says that Greg Kildare stated on Sat that they are unhappy with the way AIG is adminstering. Yet you keep questioning me?

 

The proof is on the list. There are companies that want to be on the list that have signed ISAs and they are not on the list. Isn't that proof enough?

 

I have the emails to prove what is being said

You have proof that companies with signed ISA's are not being allowed on the list.

I have emails showing/proving that there is confusion about who sent the provider agreements

Greg Kildare has stated that they are unhappy with AIG

 

Is that enough Steve?

 

Please tell me what you would like to see and I will send it off to you.

 

Then I want you to post on this board that I provided proof and that these companies are being treated unfairly?

 

 

Just as an aside and clarification - ISA's are not required by law and a standalone ISA would seem to be a bad policy. Could it be that AIG has a new agreement that is a much more broad agreement that these companies have not seen or signed? Not sure who needs to talk with whom, but perhaps the ISA was simply for those vendors who wanted to do transfers and not have them be deemed distributions come 1.1.09 and thus taxable (yes, I am aware of the correction procedure).

 

This is the avenue I would pursue.

 

ScottyD

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's my understanding (and please tell me if I'm wrong) that no more companies will be added to the list. There are many companies right now that are not only willing to sign the ISA but already have signed the ISA that are not allowed on the list.

 

Mr. Schullo, I believe you have received the signed ISA from FTJ fundchoice via Scottyd as proof that this is going on.

 

There seems to be a double standard. LAUSD says that absolutely no other companies will be added to the list as of 10/17/08...and then they add Tiaa-Cref on 11/14/08. LAUSD is not willing to explain why Tiaa-cref was given this courtesy and other companies have not.

 

So how can Fidelity be added now "if" they sign the ISA. I think they will have to wait until 1st qtr '09 when they may open it up to more companies.

 

 

Sorry for the delay. I was in Vegas watching 62 year old Bette Midler's great performance.

Yes I forwarded the information via Scotty to LAUSD. Another company also wrote a letter to UTLA and that too was forwarded to LAUSD.

 

Who is saying all of this that you report here: Who? Who in LAUSD says that "absolutely no other companies will be added to the list as of 10/17/08? I know all of the players at LAUSD and AIG? Who said that? How can LAUSD "not explain why TC was given the courtesy and other companies are not." What are you talking about?

 

Our next open 457b meeting is, Thursday, December 4th at 3:00 on the 28th floor. Any LAUSD educator concerned about their retirement plan is welcome to attend, meet the committee and ask your questions.

 

Steve

 

 

 

How about you prove to all of us that this in NOT happening? You know all the players right? Why don't you tell us why these companies are not being allowed on the list.

 

You asked for proof about the ISAs and I sent it to you. But you don't believe the rest of the story.

 

Its your turn to provide proof that this is not happening.

 

So I will answer your questions the best I can...then I want you to investigate and tell us why the companies with signed ISAs are not on the approved list.

 

Ms. Wendolyne Traylor, Benefits Manager is who is saying what I report here. I have sent you a copy of a signed ISA with FTJ (I have others) who acted in good faith and they are not on the list. Isn't that proof enough that something is wrong?

 

You obviously have seen the signed ISA for FTJ. And they are not on the list. Can you tell me why?

 

I asked Ms. Traylor about the TIAA-Cref situation and her response was typically vague:

 

"TIAA Cref was added after the October 17, 2008 deadline because of negotiations between AIG and TIAA Cref that were completed on or around November 14, 2008."

 

I have this email if you would like to see it.

 

So there are all these other companies that already have executed ISAs and they call and call and get no response. Then Tiaa-cref gets added because of "negotiations". Does this seem right to you steve?

 

I have the names and contact numbers for these companies. If I give them to you will you call them and verify that they have been trying to get on the list.

 

Mr. Kim Chin from Pacific Life spoke with Greg Kildare and Greg told him that they will not be allowed on the list. (maybe next year) Yet Pacific Life has an signed executed ISA dated 6/4/08.

 

Is Pacific Life on the list? No. Is that not proof?

Was Tiaa-Cref on the list on 10/17? No. Did they get added on 11/14? Yes. Is that not proof of the double standard?

 

If I send you the emails from Wendolyne stating that no companies will be added to the list as of 10/17/08 will that help? If I send you a copy of the email from AIG to FTJ stating that LAUSD sent the provider agreements and then send you the email from Ms. Traylor stating that AIG sent the agreements will that help show that there is confusion about this crucial form?

 

There is a qoute on this thread that says that Greg Kildare stated on Sat that they are unhappy with the way AIG is adminstering. Yet you keep questioning me?

 

The proof is on the list. There are companies that want to be on the list that have signed ISAs and they are not on the list. Isn't that proof enough?

 

I have the emails to prove what is being said

You have proof that companies with signed ISA's are not being allowed on the list.

I have emails showing/proving that there is confusion about who sent the provider agreements

Greg Kildare has stated that they are unhappy with AIG

 

Is that enough Steve?

 

Please tell me what you would like to see and I will send it off to you.

 

Then I want you to post on this board that I provided proof and that these companies are being treated unfairly?

 

 

Groundswell,

You might get more cooperation and get this issue addressed if you calm down and bring all of the evidence you have to our next committee meeting. Demanding that I prove something will get you nowhere and besides, in the final analyses, it will not be enough anyway.

 

This is something only you can do. Wendolyn, Greg, Aig rep, bargaining unit members, School Police reps, UTLA, administrator’s rep, Board of Ed rep will all be there. They will be interested in what you have to say and bring all of your evidence and email correspondence and this issue will be addressed. Complaining and demanding of me on this website is not working.

 

Next Thursday on December 4th at 3:00 on the 28th floor is our meeting. Vendors, employees and even the LA Times reporter, Kathy Kristof, have come to the meetings to find out what is going on.

 

Steve

 

 

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...