Jump to content
CSC

Please retweet this

Recommended Posts

Would really appreciate it if people would retweet this. Maybe if enough people do I can get an answer from our representatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 From HB2820 An educational institution may not:
(1) except as provided by Subdivision (8) of this subsection and Subsection (b) of this section, refuse to enter into a salary reduction agreement with an employee if the qualified investment product that is the subject of the salary reduction is an eligible qualified investment and is registered with the system under Section 8A;

Some school districts are keeping teachers from investing with Vanguard or Fidelity, which have the lowest fees and forcing them instead into plans with high fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got really bad news for you that I'm sure you're fully aware of. Texas Republicans are always going to side with financial institutions over workers. I guarantee it.

 

...although I don't know what is in HB2820/HB2020 (not sure which is right, you used both).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darn, that was a typo. It is 2820. I'm aware of the fact that some of the republican politicians will do this, but to say they all will I think is wrong and I'm not giving up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious, but not curious enough to read the bill. Everything I know leads me to believe that some combination of the following will allow school districts to maintain their list of approved vendors:

  1. Exceptions in Subdivision 8.
  2. Exceptions in Subsection B.
  3. The definition of a qualified investment product.
  4. The registration process under Section 8A.

It looks like there are lots of loopholes here. If you get to the bottom of the text, I'd love to read your conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, ChrisC said:

some of the republican politicians will do this, but to say they all will I think is wrong

These are the same people who fought and defeated the fiduciary rule. Best of luck, fight the good fight. In my view, the only path forward is removal from office. Persuasion isn't an option because being "business friendly" is core to their beliefs. Pressure isn't an option because teachers don't really care. I'd love to be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ChrisC said:

If they answer that the schools can keep their employees from investing with low fee providers like Fidelity and Vanguard, then that will also be ammunition that I can use to show teachers and our benefits committee that there is a problem.

I'm confused, is somebody pointing to this bill and telling you the problem has been solved?

Why can't you just point to the glaring problem in front of us today to prove there is a problem? We already know districts prevent employees from picking the vendor of their choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can do that and I have done that. As you know many people don't care or don't listen. The representative that sponsored this bill has said it is to open the marketplace. So I want our politicians to answer if it is truly open. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Indeed, the Texas Legislature was so concerned about the well-being of salespeople in financial services last year that it removed the 2.75%-a-year maximum fee limit for 403(b) products offered to teachers. Now the sales folks can earn more for themselves on teachers’ savings".

I mean why not, there are a lot of teachers in Texas, and while they all may not make big salaries, they do have steady monthly incomes,  paid by state and local taxes so why not allow this to go on. It's giving back to the business community.  (I am being cynical here)

Texas is not the only states where Vanguard is being blackballed. I have to say though Fidelity's 403b list is an accident waiting to happen. You can hardly find the index funds  hidden among all the other managed higher cost funds if are your average teacher with limited knowledge.  That list looks designed to fool you too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ChrisC said:

 From HB2820 An educational institution may not:
(1) except as provided by Subdivision (8) of this subsection and Subsection (b) of this section, refuse to enter into a salary reduction agreement with an employee if the qualified investment product that is the subject of the salary reduction is an eligible qualified investment and is registered with the system under Section 8A;

Some school districts are keeping teachers from investing with Vanguard or Fidelity, which have the lowest fees and forcing them instead into plans with high fees.

Maybe I'm confused but it seems to me that they are just saying that vendors cannot be excluded if they qualify. In other words, districts cannot put the plans out for bids and control the number of vendors. I don't see anything about excluding Vanguard or Fidelity, but all I've read is your quote. I think CA and WA have such a state regulation currently. All thanks to the powerful insurance lobbies which have lots of money to give to the elected representatives.

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...