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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What’s your current grade and salary? And what type of jobs are you looking at? $200K would be very high to start.

I’m a 14 at the SEC and currently around $200k. Non-lawyer.

What’s the salary band of the job you’re looking at?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What’s your current grade and salary? And what type of jobs are you looking at? $200K would be very high to start.

I’m a 14 at the SEC and currently around $200k. Non-lawyer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible to make >300k at the Fed? I'm thinking of leaving academia but only if I can make the same pay

It depends what level. But with bonus, yes. Economists and lawyers are on a higher pay scale.