Compensation and pension at Federal Reserve

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fed pension is good mostly if you put in many years and retire late-50s or later. Take an early pension and there is a massive discount and NO COLA until 62. Cannot take Fed vision or dental into retirement. As others have said, annual raises have been paltry for years (2.68% for 80%+ of staff).

I don't know for sure about vision, but you can opt to get the dental available to all government employees in retirement. I understand it is inferior to Federal Reserve dental.

[Anonymous]

Hmmmm. Are you applying to the Chief Librarian job at the FED by any chance? Good Luck! Looks like a great operation.

[Anonymous]

Top salaries at the Board were disclosed for a few years. You can do a simple Google search. Can’t remember if there were no salaries over $300K, but if there were it would be just a hand full of most senior policy makers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Top salaries at the Board were disclosed for a few years. You can do a simple Google search. Can’t remember if there were no salaries over $300K, but if there were it would be just a hand full of most senior policy makers.

I don't know if the disclosed salary figures include variable pay. But definitely with variable pay compensation can exceed $300,000. And variable pay factors in pension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any chance we can get a range of the raise percentage for the various “ratings”? With apparently 0% for rock bottom performers.

2.6% for almost everyone. 4% for the top performers. Hardly worth what it takes to be rated a top performer.

Seriously? Do they have steps at the Fed Reserve because if not the raise is less than what the GS folks will get if you add in the average value of steps over a career which is about 1.5%.

It's natural to obsess over topline salary figures but don't forget that FERS takes a significant cut: 4.4% employee contribution = $8800 tax on a $200k salary every year. A Fed Reserve employee contributes 0% so effectively makes $8800 more at the same base salary, plus receives better bonuses, better pension rates, and the Fed pension counts bonuses when calculating high salary levels, whereas crappy FERS doesn't count bonuses, just base salary. It's relatively easy to roll over FERS service credits into the Fed pension plan. Also the Fed has much better vision and dental insurance than the garbage FEDVIP plans, plus its own (good) in-house Thrift plan that Congress won't constantly screw with like they do with TSP.

Also the FRB thrift has an 8% match vs. 5% for the normal TSP.

I've never complained about the lack of steps within the FR pay grades. It really doesn't matter when you look at all the superior compensation levers that the FRB provides. The steps on the GS scale are a pathetic distraction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any chance we can get a range of the raise percentage for the various “ratings”? With apparently 0% for rock bottom performers.

2.6% for almost everyone. 4% for the top performers. Hardly worth what it takes to be rated a top performer.

Seriously? Do they have steps at the Fed Reserve because if not the raise is less than what the GS folks will get if you add in the average value of steps over a career which is about 1.5%.

It's natural to obsess over topline salary figures but don't forget that FERS takes a significant cut: 4.4% employee contribution = $8800 tax on a $200k salary every year. A Fed Reserve employee contributes 0% so effectively makes $8800 more at the same base salary, plus receives better bonuses, better pension rates, and the Fed pension counts bonuses when calculating high salary levels, whereas crappy FERS doesn't count bonuses, just base salary. It's relatively easy to roll over FERS service credits into the Fed pension plan. Also the Fed has much better vision and dental insurance than the garbage FEDVIP plans, plus its own (good) in-house Thrift plan that Congress won't constantly screw with like they do with TSP.

Also the FRB thrift has an 8% match vs. 5% for the normal TSP.

I've never complained about the lack of steps within the FR pay grades. It really doesn't matter when you look at all the superior compensation levers that the FRB provides. The steps on the GS scale are a pathetic distraction.

It seems like the comparison from my end would the other financial regulators vs. the GS system. Sure, not contributing to FERS is a plus but if you have two or three years of sub-market raises (market being what the other regulators get) that will quickly get rid of the advantage of no FERS contributions. From my knowledge the other financial regulators generally do better than a 2.5% per year raise but maybe I'm not fully understanding the raise structure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any chance we can get a range of the raise percentage for the various “ratings”? With apparently 0% for rock bottom performers.

2.6% for almost everyone. 4% for the top performers. Hardly worth what it takes to be rated a top performer.

Seriously? Do they have steps at the Fed Reserve because if not the raise is less than what the GS folks will get if you add in the average value of steps over a career which is about 1.5%.

It's natural to obsess over topline salary figures but don't forget that FERS takes a significant cut: 4.4% employee contribution = $8800 tax on a $200k salary every year. A Fed Reserve employee contributes 0% so effectively makes $8800 more at the same base salary, plus receives better bonuses, better pension rates, and the Fed pension counts bonuses when calculating high salary levels, whereas crappy FERS doesn't count bonuses, just base salary. It's relatively easy to roll over FERS service credits into the Fed pension plan. Also the Fed has much better vision and dental insurance than the garbage FEDVIP plans, plus its own (good) in-house Thrift plan that Congress won't constantly screw with like they do with TSP.

Also the FRB thrift has an 8% match vs. 5% for the normal TSP.

I've never complained about the lack of steps within the FR pay grades. It really doesn't matter when you look at all the superior compensation levers that the FRB provides. The steps on the GS scale are a pathetic distraction.

It seems like the comparison from my end would the other financial regulators vs. the GS system. Sure, not contributing to FERS is a plus but if you have two or three years of sub-market raises (market being what the other regulators get) that will quickly get rid of the advantage of no FERS contributions. From my knowledge the other financial regulators generally do better than a 2.5% per year raise but maybe I'm not fully understanding the raise structure.

In my experience the other federal banking agencies pay better than the Federal Reserve, and I have known people who are discontent with their current manager make the switch. Those closer to retirement tend not to as Fed pension is better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any chance we can get a range of the raise percentage for the various “ratings”? With apparently 0% for rock bottom performers.

2.6% for almost everyone. 4% for the top performers. Hardly worth what it takes to be rated a top performer.

Seriously? Do they have steps at the Fed Reserve because if not the raise is less than what the GS folks will get if you add in the average value of steps over a career which is about 1.5%.

It's natural to obsess over topline salary figures but don't forget that FERS takes a significant cut: 4.4% employee contribution = $8800 tax on a $200k salary every year. A Fed Reserve employee contributes 0% so effectively makes $8800 more at the same base salary, plus receives better bonuses, better pension rates, and the Fed pension counts bonuses when calculating high salary levels, whereas crappy FERS doesn't count bonuses, just base salary. It's relatively easy to roll over FERS service credits into the Fed pension plan. Also the Fed has much better vision and dental insurance than the garbage FEDVIP plans, plus its own (good) in-house Thrift plan that Congress won't constantly screw with like they do with TSP.

Also the FRB thrift has an 8% match vs. 5% for the normal TSP.

I've never complained about the lack of steps within the FR pay grades. It really doesn't matter when you look at all the superior compensation levers that the FRB provides. The steps on the GS scale are a pathetic distraction.

It seems like the comparison from my end would the other financial regulators vs. the GS system. Sure, not contributing to FERS is a plus but if you have two or three years of sub-market raises (market being what the other regulators get) that will quickly get rid of the advantage of no FERS contributions. From my knowledge the other financial regulators generally do better than a 2.5% per year raise but maybe I'm not fully understanding the raise structure.

In my experience the other federal banking agencies pay better than the Federal Reserve, and I have known people who are discontent with their current manager make the switch. Those closer to retirement tend not to as Fed pension is better.

Got it, seems like the best play would be to switch to the fed reserve towards the end of one's career assuming one had the experience to do so and take advantage of the better pension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any chance we can get a range of the raise percentage for the various “ratings”? With apparently 0% for rock bottom performers.

2.6% for almost everyone. 4% for the top performers. Hardly worth what it takes to be rated a top performer.

Seriously? Do they have steps at the Fed Reserve because if not the raise is less than what the GS folks will get if you add in the average value of steps over a career which is about 1.5%.

It's natural to obsess over topline salary figures but don't forget that FERS takes a significant cut: 4.4% employee contribution = $8800 tax on a $200k salary every year. A Fed Reserve employee contributes 0% so effectively makes $8800 more at the same base salary, plus receives better bonuses, better pension rates, and the Fed pension counts bonuses when calculating high salary levels, whereas crappy FERS doesn't count bonuses, just base salary. It's relatively easy to roll over FERS service credits into the Fed pension plan. Also the Fed has much better vision and dental insurance than the garbage FEDVIP plans, plus its own (good) in-house Thrift plan that Congress won't constantly screw with like they do with TSP.

Also the FRB thrift has an 8% match vs. 5% for the normal TSP.

I've never complained about the lack of steps within the FR pay grades. It really doesn't matter when you look at all the superior compensation levers that the FRB provides. The steps on the GS scale are a pathetic distraction.

It seems like the comparison from my end would the other financial regulators vs. the GS system. Sure, not contributing to FERS is a plus but if you have two or three years of sub-market raises (market being what the other regulators get) that will quickly get rid of the advantage of no FERS contributions. From my knowledge the other financial regulators generally do better than a 2.5% per year raise but maybe I'm not fully understanding the raise structure.

There's really no structure to the raises at the other financial regulators. It's at most several years of compensation agreements, but what the next few will bring are anyone's guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any chance we can get a range of the raise percentage for the various “ratings”? With apparently 0% for rock bottom performers.

2.6% for almost everyone. 4% for the top performers. Hardly worth what it takes to be rated a top performer.

Seriously? Do they have steps at the Fed Reserve because if not the raise is less than what the GS folks will get if you add in the average value of steps over a career which is about 1.5%.

It's natural to obsess over topline salary figures but don't forget that FERS takes a significant cut: 4.4% employee contribution = $8800 tax on a $200k salary every year. A Fed Reserve employee contributes 0% so effectively makes $8800 more at the same base salary, plus receives better bonuses, better pension rates, and the Fed pension counts bonuses when calculating high salary levels, whereas crappy FERS doesn't count bonuses, just base salary. It's relatively easy to roll over FERS service credits into the Fed pension plan. Also the Fed has much better vision and dental insurance than the garbage FEDVIP plans, plus its own (good) in-house Thrift plan that Congress won't constantly screw with like they do with TSP.

Also the FRB thrift has an 8% match vs. 5% for the normal TSP.

I've never complained about the lack of steps within the FR pay grades. It really doesn't matter when you look at all the superior compensation levers that the FRB provides. The steps on the GS scale are a pathetic distraction.

It seems like the comparison from my end would the other financial regulators vs. the GS system. Sure, not contributing to FERS is a plus but if you have two or three years of sub-market raises (market being what the other regulators get) that will quickly get rid of the advantage of no FERS contributions. From my knowledge the other financial regulators generally do better than a 2.5% per year raise but maybe I'm not fully understanding the raise structure.

The paltry raises every year are problematic. Yes, salary ranges are higher than other government jobs. But receiving a 2.5-2.8% raise every year hurts over time. It’s only going to be worse this year with the inflation we’ve experienced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any chance we can get a range of the raise percentage for the various “ratings”? With apparently 0% for rock bottom performers.

2.6% for almost everyone. 4% for the top performers. Hardly worth what it takes to be rated a top performer.

Seriously? Do they have steps at the Fed Reserve because if not the raise is less than what the GS folks will get if you add in the average value of steps over a career which is about 1.5%.

It's natural to obsess over topline salary figures but don't forget that FERS takes a significant cut: 4.4% employee contribution = $8800 tax on a $200k salary every year. A Fed Reserve employee contributes 0% so effectively makes $8800 more at the same base salary, plus receives better bonuses, better pension rates, and the Fed pension counts bonuses when calculating high salary levels, whereas crappy FERS doesn't count bonuses, just base salary. It's relatively easy to roll over FERS service credits into the Fed pension plan. Also the Fed has much better vision and dental insurance than the garbage FEDVIP plans, plus its own (good) in-house Thrift plan that Congress won't constantly screw with like they do with TSP.

Also the FRB thrift has an 8% match vs. 5% for the normal TSP.

I've never complained about the lack of steps within the FR pay grades. It really doesn't matter when you look at all the superior compensation levers that the FRB provides. The steps on the GS scale are a pathetic distraction.

It seems like the comparison from my end would the other financial regulators vs. the GS system. Sure, not contributing to FERS is a plus but if you have two or three years of sub-market raises (market being what the other regulators get) that will quickly get rid of the advantage of no FERS contributions. From my knowledge the other financial regulators generally do better than a 2.5% per year raise but maybe I'm not fully understanding the raise structure.

The FDIC barely does better than that and our bonus system is practically non-existent. Hopeful that will change with our new Chairman and our Union contract ending this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any chance we can get a range of the raise percentage for the various “ratings”? With apparently 0% for rock bottom performers.

2.6% for almost everyone. 4% for the top performers. Hardly worth what it takes to be rated a top performer.

Seriously? Do they have steps at the Fed Reserve because if not the raise is less than what the GS folks will get if you add in the average value of steps over a career which is about 1.5%.

It's natural to obsess over topline salary figures but don't forget that FERS takes a significant cut: 4.4% employee contribution = $8800 tax on a $200k salary every year. A Fed Reserve employee contributes 0% so effectively makes $8800 more at the same base salary, plus receives better bonuses, better pension rates, and the Fed pension counts bonuses when calculating high salary levels, whereas crappy FERS doesn't count bonuses, just base salary. It's relatively easy to roll over FERS service credits into the Fed pension plan. Also the Fed has much better vision and dental insurance than the garbage FEDVIP plans, plus its own (good) in-house Thrift plan that Congress won't constantly screw with like they do with TSP.

Also the FRB thrift has an 8% match vs. 5% for the normal TSP.

I've never complained about the lack of steps within the FR pay grades. It really doesn't matter when you look at all the superior compensation levers that the FRB provides. The steps on the GS scale are a pathetic distraction.

It seems like the comparison from my end would the other financial regulators vs. the GS system. Sure, not contributing to FERS is a plus but if you have two or three years of sub-market raises (market being what the other regulators get) that will quickly get rid of the advantage of no FERS contributions. From my knowledge the other financial regulators generally do better than a 2.5% per year raise but maybe I'm not fully understanding the raise structure.

The FDIC barely does better than that and our bonus system is practically non-existent. Hopeful that will change with our new Chairman and our Union contract ending this year.

Plus there are no step increases at the FDIC.

[Anonymous]

+10

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thank you! Yes, I’ve read in other threads about how great the pension is. The SEC is slated to get roughly a 7.5% raise next year (give or take, it’s the raise given to GS employees plus 2.65% with some adjustments for locality). I do have to consider the part about getting fired or laid off. That’s pretty much nonexistent at the SEC unless someone isn’t even barely fulfilling their own responsibilities. I’ve never had that problem even when I was in private sector, but I know sometimes layoffs aren’t linked to performance or anything the employee can control.

Do you know what’s the policy on starting comp at the FRB? If I’m around $200k at the SEC, would they just match or can I negotiate? Or even worse, go off some predefined formula using years of experience and I actually have to take a cut?

I’m a Reserve bank employee who’s annual “merit” increases are close to the board of gov’a 2.5 range. Don’t really understand the GS system at all, but how the heck can the SEC do 7.5% increases? I’m feeling swindled here. What’s the structural barrier to the Fed having such low increases? Colleagues are mad/very concerned this year with inflation where it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thank you! Yes, I’ve read in other threads about how great the pension is. The SEC is slated to get roughly a 7.5% raise next year (give or take, it’s the raise given to GS employees plus 2.65% with some adjustments for locality). I do have to consider the part about getting fired or laid off. That’s pretty much nonexistent at the SEC unless someone isn’t even barely fulfilling their own responsibilities. I’ve never had that problem even when I was in private sector, but I know sometimes layoffs aren’t linked to performance or anything the employee can control.

Do you know what’s the policy on starting comp at the FRB? If I’m around $200k at the SEC, would they just match or can I negotiate? Or even worse, go off some predefined formula using years of experience and I actually have to take a cut?

I’m a Reserve bank employee who’s annual “merit” increases are close to the board of gov’a 2.5 range. Don’t really understand the GS system at all, but how the heck can the SEC do 7.5% increases? I’m feeling swindled here. What’s the structural barrier to the Fed having such low increases? Colleagues are mad/very concerned this year with inflation where it is.

Management at the Board doesn’t care about retaining staff. There is very high attrition but nothing is done to address it.