Leaderboard

We've started using AF's PlanPremier TPA platform and I need a reality check - after using Nationwide, John Hancock, MFS, and AF Recordkeeper Direct with few problems, we've run into a lot of minor irritations and now, one preposterously stupid thing that has me shaking my head. I need to know if this is just a very powerful system (I guess it is FAScore behind the scenes) that gives us enough rope to hang ourselves, or if it really is not ready for prime time (or decrepit and over-the-hill). The irritations are: after money is transferred in to a plan, it doesn't show up on the main screen showing total assets until some time later; maybe each month or so that gets updated, but in order to see transferred money you have to drill down to the participant level. That seems dumb. And, to look at a contribution roster that has been submitted, you can't just go to a list of rosters and view one; you have to go to extra trouble to run a report. And, to refresh your memory on how to do something, like run year-end report, there is no printed documentation, so you have to listen to a dumb audio training session for up to 20 minutes to get information that should take a minute to find. The stupid thing is that if the plan uses a stable value fund instead of a money market, you are screwed in terms of handling forfeitures. There is no "cash" account; forfeitures must be held in one of the plan investments. So we had them go to the stable value fund because it was the most conservative of all the investments. Well, after carefully calculating and allocating the 2009 PS contribution plus forfeitures, we find that not only has there been a slight loss in the stable value fund in the two weeks since it went in, but we're only allowed to use 95% of the money in that fund since it is subject to fluctuation (ahem - "stable value"?!). So now we have to waste a lot of time either recalculating the contribution, or telling the employer to come up with more money (how much? who knows, it is now a moving target). We've certainly learned to insist that plans have a MM fund when using this system in the future, but it seems rather "unfortunate" (mild understatement) that a relatively innocent decision by a broker (it's worth noting that brokers can mess things up, even when they're not trying) can lead to this situation - it's only a few hundred bucks but I resent having to spend even an extra minute dealing with it, and it's going to turn into hours. Sorry for the long-winded rant (yeah I feel a little better) - any thoughts on just how good this system is?

LOL, I did a double-take when I checked the date on my initial post. We have migrated a few more plans over there and are more-or-less learning how to manage the system, but it remains fraught with difficulties. The latest (actually it was a known problem for us a few years ago but I forgot) is that to upload a contribution file, you have to create a template (no big deal) but then they have to do...something...to review and approve it. And you have to finish the first one with them on the phone. Oh and the columns you see on the screen don't line up the same way as those in the template. It's like they have a slowness committee that everything passes through to make sure procedures are as slow and painful as possible.

As noted way back by someone else, the burden of proof should be on the one making the (erroneous) claim that deferrals can't be made on comp over the limit. (Assuming the document itself does not have such a limit, which is unlikely at best but easily checked.) The question here is not one of law or regulations - the question is, who is in charge and who is being paid to do what? The original poster needs to nut up and say "you're wrong because I know more about this than you do and I say you're wrong." And if they (I'm not paying that much attention...auditor or plan sponsor or whomever "they" is) still insist, then put it in writing and note that they are violating the participant's rights to make contributions and potentially causing plan disqualification by creating some arbitrary limitation not existing in the plan document. Enough already.

One presumes that if the plan DOES say that deferrals are limited to the first $250,000 of compensation, the sponsor would be at liberty, without fear of disqualification, to amend it out effective immediately. Why would one want to have such a provision? It's January 4th, and (presumably) the issue has not come up yet this year. Check your plans and, if you find that language, consider amending it out before anyone is restricted from making the salary reduction they want by a technicality.

I bet the guys that took over the federal facility in Oregon have an attorney that backs their case. But most attorneys probably wouldn't agree with that particular interpretation. I see Zane in the same vein. No extra charge for the rhyme.