NSPS and retiring

**Brett** · 12-01-2006, 02:07 PM

I hope to retire in under seven years when I turn 55. But, I will also be coming under the new NSPS pay banding system in April of next year. Change always brings worry. I always have considered myself a stellar performer, but, as often is the case, I often butt heads with my boss. I worry that if it ever became personal, my pay (and retirement) would suffer.

Comparing apples to apples, as a step-6 now, future earnings would have to give me almost a full percentage pay raise every year on top of our cost-of-living increase to keep pace with step increases. What I worry also about is being paid bonuses instead of an increase because bonuses are not used to calculate my high-three average for retirement.

I would appreciate any input from those that are now under NSPS.

**Birchtree** · 12-01-2006, 05:48 PM

I'm not in your situation but I'd recommend letting the market (TSP) be your equalizer. It does offer the potential to keep you even, you'll just have to do the necessary management to keep your portfolio working. Sometimes slow consistent progress is the best. Pay attention to a good DCA program and don't get too thin - you can't accumulate heavy shares with 5 funds.

**Griffin** · 12-02-2006, 04:08 AM

Brett,

NSPS has not been around long enough to produce any clear trends. However, take heart that the mechanisms that drive salary raises under the system should remove the necessity for cash bonuses. Therefore, the bonus system should disappear and those funds be moved towards salary lines. However, the MAMSCO/appropriation process has not caught up with this reality yet. The more likely scenario is that the additional allotment your organization recieves will likely be weighted towards those that are making the salary increase distribution decisions and with a (smaller) even distribution among all others except in extreme circumstances (for better or worse). Don't **** anybody off and you will likely see a smaller bonus annually as opposed to a bonus once every three years. This may benefit you in your retirement calculation because a three year bonus paid incrementally annually would actually slightly increase the base three salary. Unless the big wigs absorb so much of the pay raise increases that you all end up getting totally shafted (I have already heard several rumors that this is becoming the norm). With Rummy heading out the door, I would not be suprised if NSPS went away too. It creates more hassle in terms of time management then is gained in financial benefit, and the EO complaints have yet to surface.

**Brett** · 12-03-2006, 01:08 AM

For a go-getter the NSPS can be great. I have used the analogy of baseball. A great game, but you need impartial hard working umpires to make the game great. If you had an umpire that rooted for the other team, or just didn't make good calls; moral tanks.

Its one of those situations where you just have to hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

**Griffin** · 12-06-2006, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by Brett

For a go-getter the NSPS can be great......If you had an umpire that rooted for the other team, or just didn't make good calls; moral tanks.

I'm not sure about that. NSPS looks good on paper but will likely end up causing a lot of backstabbing. Corporate America has the incentive of corporate efficiency, profit bonuses, team work and the ability to fire, to motivate people to work together. They have a counter weight that Government lacks.

I absolutely hate this - but a reality of life is - it always easier to point out your peers weakness, then to excel yourself. NSPS will not drive people to excel, it will drive people to not be the worst, but not be so good that they get on their peers hit lists. Work becomes a popularity contest, kind of like Survivor.

**ChemEng** · 12-07-2006, 06:49 PM

The tribe has spoken!

I have 2 BIG problems with NSPS:

1. How does it handle military supervisors? Mine have tended to rotate out at the beginning of a fiscal year--which coincides exactly with the time frame that your evaluations are due. Late evaluations are quite common as are the "write your own evaluation" situations. Again, CPAC is trying to drive a cultural change in how the Army traditionally does business. ::rollseyes::
2. The fund pools themself. First of all, they are all different sizes and have different amounts of money. It has to be easier getting some sort of a percentage simply because there is more money to go around than it is for smaller pools of money. That just dones seem right to me. Secondly, how close an employee is to the flagpole is going to directly affect how much visibility his work gets thereby impacting his cut. I work at Fort Knox, but my headquarter is located in beautiful Fort Monroe. Short of increasing my already absurd number of phone calls to nuisance level, there is no way I can compete with my peers in the same fund pool who work in Fort Monroe.

Sorry if anyone here works at CPAC. Without exaggeration, Ive had nothing but AWFUL experiences dealing with them--including 1 situation where I could have LOST my job because THEY dropped the ball. *sigh*

It is a pretty good story though if anyone is interested.