Going Against The Tide

[GBurns]

None of the competing bidders filed any objection to the RFP , the bidding process or to the award. That suggests that there either was nothing to contest or they were not interested in providing services under the conditions. But looking at the vendor's Q&A neither conditions nor required services seem to have been a problem. Of course that does not say that the RFP was not designed with the end award in mind.

I think that the NJ procurement code requires a minimum of 2 accepted bids at the final stages and a minimum of 3 at the bid opening, since this was not sole sourced. Since the RFP was very public and not restricted to any particular in-house list, if other providers were interested they could have easily submitted a bid.

So while we don't know who or how many did submit responses, we do know that there were a few and that there was no filed objections to it being awarded to Prudential. The union action was against the change not against the award.

*************

Joel: While it might beg the question, it supports my point that the employees have no interest.

[Guest mjb]

Joel: Its a portion today and more in later years when they want to squeeze out better performance.

You keep asking the same Q to the audience when you should direct it to the state pension board which made the decision to outsource the 457 plan. Maybe the state wanted to concentrate only on monitoring the performance of investments in DB plans in which it has investment risk and not devote resources to managing DC investments.

Bird increasing returns is a collary of reducing losses because the plans were not diversified (e.g plans wre were over invested in equites. Loss of 20B in assets will be made up by taxpayers and cannot be made up by increasing returns. The goal to diversify investments into classes which are not as volitiile as equities to prevent this kind of meltdown of assets in future changes in the economic cycle. The problem is that the state is still not contributing enough to the DB plans because it would require an increase in taxes.

[Guest Pensions in Paradise]

A cruel injustice has been inflicted on New Jersey State employees and must be corrected forthwith.

Joel, rather than wasting your time discussing the issue on this board, why don't you contact every major newspaper/tv/radio station in New Jersey and bring this issue to their attention. Maybe one of them will take up your cause. And while you're at it contact the New Jersey Attorney General.

[joel]

If I am annoying anyone in the "audience" may I suggest you simply refrain from participation, observe and allow the other attendees to respond.

The DC plan known as the NJ Supplemental Annuity Collective Trust (SACT) has been operated internally since its inception in 1963. The DC Alternate Benefit Program has been operated externally since its inception at about the same time. Both are and have been no-load, very low cost programs. The State's 457 Plan since its inception about 25 years ago thru December 31, 2005 had been operated internally at no-load and low cost.

The State is not new to sponsoring DC plans and when they have they always emphasized no-load and low cost. Q.: Why was the fundamental principle of no-load and low cost abandoned with the 457 Plan?

[SteveH]

I feel like Joel's question is the same as asking, "Why does the woman in the office next to me always buy Starbucks coffee when should could just drink the stuff here in the office for free?"

mjb's response: "Well it's probably because she feels that the Starbucks coffee tastes better."

Joel's retort: "No, no, that's impossible. She only buys black coffee, none of the frilly stuff that Starbucks makes. It is the same coffee that is available here in the office and at the office they only ask for donations of $.08 per cup!"

mjb's (getting a little frustrated) comes back with: "Well perhaps the coffee is better quality, maybe it is heated just to the right temperature, maybe she has the hots for the young kid behind the counter."

Joel's (getting a little indignant) fires back: "Ridiculous, she should just drink the coffee in the office, that woman makes no sense! Someone please tell me why she always drinks the Starbucks."

Pensions in Paradise, Gburns, mjb (sensing that this conversation is never going to go anywhere): "Dude, since you don't know why she drinks Starbucks, and we obviously aren't inside of her head, why don't you just go ask her?"

Joel (frustrated by the smart remark above): "Look if you don't want to have a philosophical discussion about the woman in the office next to me, then just leave me alone!"

---------------

So now that I have cleared up that we have discussions about what people think about. Why do some women shave off their eyebrows and paint new ones on? Is it because they want to always look surprised?

Discuss....

[Guest HiKidsImASrPensionAdmin]

ttott, thanks for the laugh...I needed it!

[J2D2]

ttott, I think you've got it!

[GBurns]

Or they could be looking surprised that others did not shave but plucked instead? Of course, there will be those who think that the look of surprise was because they found out that it might not have been such a good idea.

Does it improve the looks of most? I find it comical looking in many.

[SteveH]

I wonder, does it start out plucking gone awry? But that doesn't seem to be the answer because even if someone got a little over zealous with the tweasers that wouldn't explain the fact that the eyebrows, once drawn in, now have a completely new location on the forehead that is obviously not normal. Maybe it is just an attempt at individuality, and I should let it go.

[Guest HiKidsImASrPensionAdmin]

I think the misplacement is caused by the mirror that is used when the drawing is taking place. This type of event can not happen with assistance, one must do it on their own! As they get closer to the mirror the hand/eye coordination gets out of sync. It can't be an attempt at individuality...there are too many of them out there.

That is my theory at least.

[Locust]

You guys are too easily amused. It's scary. I'm scaring myself by adding this message.

[GBurns]

This is a very important issue. Just ask the next three adult females, that you see, about the importance of doing eyebrows.

And if you really want a revelation, if you are male, ask your female significant other to NOT do anything to their eyebrows for three days and see their reaction. Then if they really do nothing you will better understand the reason for amusement.

I might make fun and find some comical and even ironic, but I realize that the issue has become an important one for them, even though self inflicted and often purpose defeating.