Leaders Workshop

Soft Skills Development & Training

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.
Re: [TSP_Strategy] When is a Windfall not a Windfall?

Re: [TSP_Strategy] When is a Windfall not a Windfall?

 

Hi Sarah--my iPhone won't allow access to our TSP ALLOCATION table. Is Strategy
still 100% S Fund? I'm on travel with no computer access! Thank you so much!!
Kim


From: sarah_oz@yahoo.com [TSP_Strategy] <TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com>;
To: <TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com>;
Subject: [TSP_Strategy] When is a Windfall not a Windfall?
Sent: Fri, May 1, 2015 1:07:10 AM

 


When is a Windfall not a Windfall?

3:39 PM ET

What if the government got rid of the Windfall Elimination Provision? Well, it did in April for some retirees--but unfortunately not those covered under the Civil Service Retirement System.

More on that in a bit. First, a little background.

Congress created the WEP in 1983 as a way to level the playing field for Social Security recipients. It covers employees who receive pensions related to work for which they didn't pay Social Security taxes and who also receive Social Security retirement benefits from other work they performed that was covered by Social Security taxes. Federal retirees under CSRS, along with others who receive pensions from work not covered by Social Security, appear to be low wage earners from the standpoint of their Social Security earnings record. Under the WEP, their Social Security benefits are reduced in order to, the theory goes, eliminate the "windfall" they'd get from receiving full Social Security.

According to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, nearly 900,000 retired federal, state and local government employees are currently affected by the WEP. That number grows by about 60,000 retirees each year.

For many years, AFSCME, the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association and others have lobbied Congress to repeal the WEP. So far, their efforts haven't gained traction.

But one small group of workers just got out from under the WEP. According to a notice on the Social Security Administration's web site, on April 8, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia preliminarily approved a nationwide class action settlement agreement in the case Greenberg v. Colvin. As a result of the settlement, SSA will no longer apply the WEP to people who qualify for Social Security retirement benefits and also receive National Institute of Israel pensions. (The NII is Israel's form of social insurance for the residents of Israel, like Social Security benefits are for Americans.) The plaintiffs in the case had argued that SSA had misapplied the WEP to NII old-age benefits.

That's good news for recipients of such benefits who also qualify for Social Security, but CSRS retirees are still subject to the WEP. How does it affect them? Let's look at the example of one theoretical retiree (fair warning: this gets a little complicated):

John spent most of his career working in a government job where he was exempt from paying Social Security tax because he was covered under CSRS. After 30 years of federal service, at age 55, John was eligible to receive his CSRS retirement benefit. His benefit was computed as 56.25 percent of his $60,000 high-three average salary. So his unreduced retirement is $33,750 per year, or $2,812 per month.

After ending his federal career, John worked in the private sector for another 11 years, at a salary of $30,000 a year. The combination of his retirement and new salary was a little more than the amount John would have earned had he kept working for the government. John's new salary was subject to income and Social Security tax withholdings.

To calculate John's Social Security retirement benefit, first figure that his total earnings over 11 years add up to $330,000. Social Security benefits are computed by adding up the highest 35 years of Social Security covered wages and then dividing the total by 35 and dividing again by 12 months to come up with an average monthly earnings amount. John didn't have 35 years of Social Security covered wages, but the average is nevertheless determined by dividing by 35 years. The average monthly wage for John would be approximately $786.

For someone who first becomes eligible for Social Security benefits in 2015, the unreduced Social Security benefit amount is the sum of the following:

  • 90 percent of the first $826 of  average indexed monthly earnings
  • 32 percent of indexed monthly earnings over $826 and up to $4,980
  • 15 percent of average indexed monthly earnings over $4,980

(Wages also are indexed to reflect wage values in the year you first become eligible to receive benefits, generally age 62. According to SSA, such indexation ensures that a worker's future benefits reflect the general rise in the standard of living that occurred during his or her working lifetime. For simplicity, John's future wages in this example have not been indexed.)

For John, the Social Security formula would be applied as follows (without the WEP):

  • 90 percent x $786 (average wage up to $826) = $707.40

But John is subject the WEP. Under the WEP, the first factor of the formula is changed from 90 percent to 40 percent. So his benefit would be computed as:

  • 40 percent x $786 = $314.40

So John's Social Security benefit would be cut by $393 a month due to the WEP. When he fully retires at age 66, his income would include his CSRS retirement of $2,812 a month, plus his Social Security retirement of $314.40 a month (and any other retirement savings or pensions John may have earned during his career.)

If John would have remained in the government for another 11 years rather than working in a second career in the private sector, he would have qualified for a CSRS benefit equal to 78.25 percent of his high-three average salary of $60,000, or $46,950 per year ($3,912.50 per month). This is $786.10 more than his combined monthly Social Security and CSRS benefit. Based on his example, John would have been better off financially to continue working in his federal career rather than beginning a second career where he was covered by Social Security instead of CSRS.

(Image via Jerry Sliwowski/Shutterstock.com)


3:39 PM ET

http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/retirement-planning/2015/04/when-windfall-not-windfall/111556/


__._,_.___

Posted by: "kb2018@ymail.com" <kb2018@ymail.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (2)
Neither the TSP Strategy group, nor individual members, are licensed or authorized to provide investment advice. Any statements made herein merely reflect the personal opinions of the individual group member. Please make your own investment decisions based upon your personal circumstances.

.

__,_._,___
[TSP_Strategy] When is a Windfall not a Windfall?

[TSP_Strategy] When is a Windfall not a Windfall?

 


When is a Windfall not a Windfall?

3:39 PM ET

What if the government got rid of the Windfall Elimination Provision? Well, it did in April for some retirees--but unfortunately not those covered under the Civil Service Retirement System.

More on that in a bit. First, a little background.

Congress created the WEP in 1983 as a way to level the playing field for Social Security recipients. It covers employees who receive pensions related to work for which they didn't pay Social Security taxes and who also receive Social Security retirement benefits from other work they performed that was covered by Social Security taxes. Federal retirees under CSRS, along with others who receive pensions from work not covered by Social Security, appear to be low wage earners from the standpoint of their Social Security earnings record. Under the WEP, their Social Security benefits are reduced in order to, the theory goes, eliminate the "windfall" they'd get from receiving full Social Security.

According to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, nearly 900,000 retired federal, state and local government employees are currently affected by the WEP. That number grows by about 60,000 retirees each year.

For many years, AFSCME, the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association and others have lobbied Congress to repeal the WEP. So far, their efforts haven't gained traction.

But one small group of workers just got out from under the WEP. According to a notice on the Social Security Administration's web site, on April 8, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia preliminarily approved a nationwide class action settlement agreement in the case Greenberg v. Colvin. As a result of the settlement, SSA will no longer apply the WEP to people who qualify for Social Security retirement benefits and also receive National Institute of Israel pensions. (The NII is Israel's form of social insurance for the residents of Israel, like Social Security benefits are for Americans.) The plaintiffs in the case had argued that SSA had misapplied the WEP to NII old-age benefits.

That's good news for recipients of such benefits who also qualify for Social Security, but CSRS retirees are still subject to the WEP. How does it affect them? Let's look at the example of one theoretical retiree (fair warning: this gets a little complicated):

John spent most of his career working in a government job where he was exempt from paying Social Security tax because he was covered under CSRS. After 30 years of federal service, at age 55, John was eligible to receive his CSRS retirement benefit. His benefit was computed as 56.25 percent of his $60,000 high-three average salary. So his unreduced retirement is $33,750 per year, or $2,812 per month.

After ending his federal career, John worked in the private sector for another 11 years, at a salary of $30,000 a year. The combination of his retirement and new salary was a little more than the amount John would have earned had he kept working for the government. John's new salary was subject to income and Social Security tax withholdings.

To calculate John's Social Security retirement benefit, first figure that his total earnings over 11 years add up to $330,000. Social Security benefits are computed by adding up the highest 35 years of Social Security covered wages and then dividing the total by 35 and dividing again by 12 months to come up with an average monthly earnings amount. John didn't have 35 years of Social Security covered wages, but the average is nevertheless determined by dividing by 35 years. The average monthly wage for John would be approximately $786.

For someone who first becomes eligible for Social Security benefits in 2015, the unreduced Social Security benefit amount is the sum of the following:

  • 90 percent of the first $826 of  average indexed monthly earnings
  • 32 percent of indexed monthly earnings over $826 and up to $4,980
  • 15 percent of average indexed monthly earnings over $4,980

(Wages also are indexed to reflect wage values in the year you first become eligible to receive benefits, generally age 62. According to SSA, such indexation ensures that a worker's future benefits reflect the general rise in the standard of living that occurred during his or her working lifetime. For simplicity, John's future wages in this example have not been indexed.)

For John, the Social Security formula would be applied as follows (without the WEP):

  • 90 percent x $786 (average wage up to $826) = $707.40

But John is subject the WEP. Under the WEP, the first factor of the formula is changed from 90 percent to 40 percent. So his benefit would be computed as:

  • 40 percent x $786 = $314.40

So John's Social Security benefit would be cut by $393 a month due to the WEP. When he fully retires at age 66, his income would include his CSRS retirement of $2,812 a month, plus his Social Security retirement of $314.40 a month (and any other retirement savings or pensions John may have earned during his career.)

If John would have remained in the government for another 11 years rather than working in a second career in the private sector, he would have qualified for a CSRS benefit equal to 78.25 percent of his high-three average salary of $60,000, or $46,950 per year ($3,912.50 per month). This is $786.10 more than his combined monthly Social Security and CSRS benefit. Based on his example, John would have been better off financially to continue working in his federal career rather than beginning a second career where he was covered by Social Security instead of CSRS.

(Image via Jerry Sliwowski/Shutterstock.com)


3:39 PM ET

http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/retirement-planning/2015/04/when-windfall-not-windfall/111556/


__._,_.___

Posted by: sarah_oz@yahoo.com
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Neither the TSP Strategy group, nor individual members, are licensed or authorized to provide investment advice. Any statements made herein merely reflect the personal opinions of the individual group member. Please make your own investment decisions based upon your personal circumstances.

.

__,_._,___
[TSP_Strategy] Sabbaticals Coming Back?

[TSP_Strategy] Sabbaticals Coming Back?

 


How One Agency Will Use Sabbaticals and Rotations to Retain Employees

April 29, 2015

The State Department plans to give its workforce more flexibility to move within and outside of government, provide better training and hold managers more accountable as part of a series of sweeping reforms across the organization.

State released its second ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review on Tuesday, which included recommendations ranging from how to promote democratic societies to combatting climate change to internal structural shifts. One-third of the multi-year review was dedicated to how State could better invest in an "agile, skilled workforce."

A major theme of the workforce initiatives was mobility for State employees. Proposals included employees moving within different department bureaus, rotations between State and the U.S. Agency for International Development, stints at other federal agencies and even a pilot program for workers to take a "sabbatical" from federal service.

"We're managing people's entire careers, not just managing them to the next tour," Tom Perriello, a former Virginia congressman who was tasked by Secretary of State John Kerry to lead the review, told Government Executive. "One of the things we have found from that process is people want a little more flexibility."

He added State employees "should get exposure to a wide range of experiences." Time at the Treasury Department, he cited as an example, could both expand an employee's knowledge of economics and provide a new perspective on problem solving and management at another federal entity. Additionally, the separate sabbatical pilot program will allow employees to take up to five years of unpaid leave for "personal, professional or educational" purposes.

State is also seeking to improve flexibility in employees' work schedules to support families. The department has boosted those with telework agreements by 50 percent since 2013 and will continue to find opportunities for employees to work remotely. State also promised to "make clear our expectation that managers enable a healthy balance between work and personal life."

Perriello said the department has not yet fielded many work-life balance complaints, but it did not "want to wait until we have a problem to adjust to that."

State will also seek to fill vacancies more quickly through special hiring authorities as well as streamlining the overall process. The review called for better identification of staffing gaps and more diversity in hires. To boost retention, the department will increase its use of Senior Level and Senior Technician designations.

New State hires can expect "lifelong professional training," including a core curriculum upon entering the department. Perriello stressed the development of "blended" learning, meaning both in-classroom and virtual sessions.

Part of that training will focus on managers, increasing accountability in evaluations and promotions. The department will update performance plans to better align them with the objectives of each supervisor's office.

Accountability measures will take place earlier in employees' careers "so people are not developing bad habits," Perriello said.

The QDDR proposed a data-driven approach to harnessing information and the knowledge of the department's workforce, which would in turn bolster State's diplomatic agenda. The department will "establish a hub for analytics, data science, strategy and knowledge management" to increase the "flow of information" among offices, bureaus and overseas posts.

The review did not call for the same reshuffling of offices as did the first QDDR, which Perriello attributed to a desire to allow the shakeups of four years ago to play out.

State said its two greatest assets are its people and its institutional knowledge, and it wants to protect and develop both.

"We will further invest in effective, accountable leadership at the State Department and USAID, strengthen the skills of our people, and ensure that our organizational culture and business practices reflect contemporary American society and continue to attract and retain top talent," the department wrote in the report. 


April 29, 2015

http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2015/04/how-one-agency-will-use-sabbaticals-and-rotations-retain-employees/111424/


__._,_.___

Posted by: sarah_oz@yahoo.com
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Neither the TSP Strategy group, nor individual members, are licensed or authorized to provide investment advice. Any statements made herein merely reflect the personal opinions of the individual group member. Please make your own investment decisions based upon your personal circumstances.

.

__,_._,___
[TSP_Strategy] from: wombat.hoffman1953@gmail.com

[TSP_Strategy] from: wombat.hoffman1953@gmail.com

 

Hello TSP

http://andybroadaway.com/operate.php?note=7tg2he7zpwt5zp

wombat.hoffman1953@gmail.com

Sent from my iPhone

__._,_.___

Posted by: "wombat.hoffman1953@gmail.com" <wombat.hoffman1953@gmail.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Neither the TSP Strategy group, nor individual members, are licensed or authorized to provide investment advice. Any statements made herein merely reflect the personal opinions of the individual group member. Please make your own investment decisions based upon your personal circumstances.

.

__,_._,___
[TSP_Strategy] Re: 27 pay periods in 2015

[TSP_Strategy] Re: 27 pay periods in 2015

 

Depends on who processes your pay. I'm paid by NFC, we don't have 27 pay periods this year.

__._,_.___

Posted by: T Rowe <trowe_00@yahoo.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (3)
Neither the TSP Strategy group, nor individual members, are licensed or authorized to provide investment advice. Any statements made herein merely reflect the personal opinions of the individual group member. Please make your own investment decisions based upon your personal circumstances.

.

__,_._,___
Re: [TSP_Strategy] C vs S vs I

Re: [TSP_Strategy] C vs S vs I

 

yes

__._,_.___

Posted by: sarah_oz@yahoo.com
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (19)
Neither the TSP Strategy group, nor individual members, are licensed or authorized to provide investment advice. Any statements made herein merely reflect the personal opinions of the individual group member. Please make your own investment decisions based upon your personal circumstances.

.

__,_._,___
Re: [TSP_Strategy] I Fund and USD

Re: [TSP_Strategy] I Fund and USD

 

Sarah I hope I stayed in the right thread..as i have several clarifications and they probably cross several threads.  My apolgogies if I should have broken these out 


1)  I have been noticing the rise of the I fund .  Given the currency issues and the potential for higher rates in the US why is this fund leading the pack?  


I fund is being aided by these countries' central banks (loosening of monetary policies) and cheaper oil prices.  However, as the value of the currencies of these countries diminishes in relation to the USD, returns diminish as well.

Over the past few weeks, USD has been consolidating, presumably because of the Fed's delay in raising rates.
As rates rise, the USD increases in strength, which weakens I fund returns.

Looking at the charts, it appears to me that the I fund is nearing resistance levels and the USD is preparing to return to bullish mode.

__._,_.___

Posted by: sarah_oz@yahoo.com
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (11)
Neither the TSP Strategy group, nor individual members, are licensed or authorized to provide investment advice. Any statements made herein merely reflect the personal opinions of the individual group member. Please make your own investment decisions based upon your personal circumstances.

.

__,_._,___
Re: [TSP_Strategy] C vs S vs I

Re: [TSP_Strategy] C vs S vs I

 

sarah 


When you refer to 1210 are you referring to this chart?  Now at 1128.70 
In chart reading what does 1210 represent?  

INDEXDJX:DWCPF


Dow Jones U.S. Completion Total Stock Market Index: INDEXDJX:DWCPF quotes & news - Google Finance

 

thanks mimi



__._,_.___

Posted by: hilgard50@yahoo.com
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (18)
Neither the TSP Strategy group, nor individual members, are licensed or authorized to provide investment advice. Any statements made herein merely reflect the personal opinions of the individual group member. Please make your own investment decisions based upon your personal circumstances.

.

__,_._,___
Re: [TSP_Strategy] I Fund and USD

Re: [TSP_Strategy] I Fund and USD

 

Sarah I hope I stayed in the right thread..as i have several clarifications and they probably cross several threads.  My apolgogies if I should have broken these out 


1)  I have been noticing the rise of the I fund .  Given the currency issues and the potential for higher rates in the US why is this fund leading the pack?  

2)Your comment below 
 So far, IMHO, this cycle has fallen in line with traditional cycles.  S leads at the outset, C catches up, then S leads one final time before the bear cycle begins.

The S fund has more short term potential than the C fund IMHO.

Remember that the S fund includes NASDAQ stocks.  While the Dow and S&P hit new highs this year, the NASDAQ is still below its previous high.

That said, all of these charts look extended.  Even if the NASDAQ hits new high ground this year, I  expect it to fall back significantly, losing a third or so of the ground achieved since 2000.

When the momentum shifts, it will likely be to G and/or F. 

2) Clarification:  So today we are in the S Fund and based on the business cycle you may recommend C prior to the next significant downturn (recession) -- is that correct?  is your significant downturn referring to the next recession as opposed to the next correction?  

thank you mimi
 

__._,_.___

Posted by: hilgard50@yahoo.com
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (10)
Neither the TSP Strategy group, nor individual members, are licensed or authorized to provide investment advice. Any statements made herein merely reflect the personal opinions of the individual group member. Please make your own investment decisions based upon your personal circumstances.

.

__,_._,___
[TSP_Strategy] Fixed Income Sector Performance

[TSP_Strategy] Fixed Income Sector Performance

 



Charts of the Week

Fixed Income Sector Performance (Total Return as of 3/31/15)

Chart of the Week for April 24, 2015 - April 30, 2015

Ten of the eleven fixed income sectors posted positive returns in the twelve month period ended March 31, 2015. Similarly, nine of the eleven sectors rose in the twelve month period ended March 31, 2014.

The fixed income market includes many different types of securities, and their performance can vary substantially among these types. The chart above compares the performance of eleven major fixed income sectors for the one-year periods ended March 31, 2015 ("current year"-blue bars above) and March 31, 2014 ("prior year"-gold bars above). Ten of the eleven fixed income sectors produced positive returns for the current year. In contrast, nine of the eleven sectors rose in the prior year.

The U.S. Federal Reserve ("Fed") ended its bond buying program in the third quarter of 2014 and also revised its statements regarding its forward-looking monetary policy in the current year. These Fed actions and a strengthening U.S. economy generally should have led to higher interest rates. However, interest rates fell over the last year based on reported and forecasted economic conditions, with long-term bonds benefitting the most in the current period.

High Yield was the leading sector shown in the prior year. For the current year, High Yield produced a positive return, but its return ranked 8th out of the eleven sectors shown. Many energy companies issue high yield debt and the value of those bonds fell, with concerns over falling oil prices over the last year. The overall return in the current year for High Yield was still positive as other areas outside energy earned positive returns.

Global was the only sector shown to have a negative return in the current year, with the strengthening U.S. dollar being the primary detractor. In local currency terms, Global produced a positive return in the current year.

Performance fluctuates over time and returns depend in part on the market environment, which is hard to predict. Changes in both actual and expected interest and inflation rates can materially impact fixed income investments. Also, investors should note that even U.S. Government securities can decline in value and investing in sectors such as High Yield or Emerging Markets involve additional risk.

When making investment decisions, prudent investors should invest based on their own circumstances, taking into consideration their goals, investment experience, time horizon, and risk tolerance.


__._,_.___

Posted by: sarah_oz@yahoo.com
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (28)
Neither the TSP Strategy group, nor individual members, are licensed or authorized to provide investment advice. Any statements made herein merely reflect the personal opinions of the individual group member. Please make your own investment decisions based upon your personal circumstances.

.

__,_._,___
Re: [TSP_Strategy] TSP Investment

Re: [TSP_Strategy] TSP Investment

 

Hey Tom,

 It looks like yahoo made it slightly harder to find the allocations. You can click on the "Yahoo! groups" below one of these posts in your Email to go to the groups page. From there you can click the "TSP_Strategy" on the left; listed below the "Groups Home" section. 

 Next you look above "Welcome to TSP Strategy !", find and click the "More" button. It is a drop down menu that has "Database" click it and then Click "TSP Allocations" to find the current TSP strategy.

 



On Friday, April 24, 2015 6:54 AM, "Tom St John tstjohn@gmail.com [TSP_Strategy]" <TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


 
Hi,

I am new to the group. So this may be a stupid question. I have been reading and am not above to figure out what the current allocation recommendation is. May be I am not looking in the correct place. I would appreciate any guidance .  

Thanks

Tom St John



__._,_.___

Posted by: Russel Todd <toddrukkus@yahoo.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (18)
Neither the TSP Strategy group, nor individual members, are licensed or authorized to provide investment advice. Any statements made herein merely reflect the personal opinions of the individual group member. Please make your own investment decisions based upon your personal circumstances.

.

__,_._,___