Leaderboard

Yes.

Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was released 6/1/1967. A co-worker of mine for the last 15 years said he's never heard of it. Inconceivable.

Whenever I hear of plan sponsors asking about "alternative" investments the first thing that comes to mind is they are looking to somehow benefit themselves and since they don't have enough disposable money to do this on their own outside the plan, or maybe even enough in their own plan account, they try to justify putting employee/participant retirement funds at risk so they can take advantage of this unique opportunity. Unless, and only unless, this alternative investment is prudent for retirement funds and is made solely in the best interests of plan participants (not the owner/plan sponsor) will it be OK. A colleague owned a piece of a racehorse than ran in the KD a few years back, and she ended up with net income when it was all said an done, but that didn't mean it was a suitable 401(k) investment. The fact that an LLC has to be established and the plan could not directly invest in this asset leads me to believe it would not be retirement plan suitable and a big fiduciary mistake.

How do you value it every year? if someone is invested in it and needs an RMD and the rest of their balance isn't large enough what do you do? Is the value known well enough to even compute the RMD? What if they want a loan and the rest of their investment isn't large enough to fund what do you do? If they are invested in it and terminate and part of their benefit is in this how do they get paid their full benefit? Not only in terms of cash but value. It will look bad if while the NHCEs get paid out on this investment they value is x and when the HCE finally gets paid an appraisal says it is 2x or 10x especially if there wasn't a formal appraisal in the past. (Or even if all the NHCEs get paid from teh plan and then the plan sells the investment for 2x or 10x) Will this spin off a type of income that will trigger Unrelated Business Income Tax (UBIT)? Do a search on this board on real estate in plans and the problems. Just about everything I listed above has been the subject of real estate in a plan. It seem to me you will have same type of problems with this.

What FIS document is this? We use the PPA VS in AA format, and it reads very differently, (and IMHO is much clearer). Ours doesn't have quite the same option as yours, and the closest choice is this - underlining is my emphasis: _____(not to exceed 12) consecutive month period from the Eligible Employee's employment commencement date and during which at least ______(not to exceed 1,000) Hours of Service are completed. If an Employee does not complete the stated hours of Service during the specified time period, the Employee is subject to the 1 year of service requirement in i above. I'm honestly not sure how I'd interpret yours, and I would probably ask FIS to clarify. Our document (and I had this confirmed by FIS) would be that if you don't work the requisite number of hours in the initial 3 month period ONLY, then you revert to the "Year of Service" standard, and there are no subsequent 3 month measurement periods - even in the first year.

Surprising what people born in the last 40 years (hey, that's consistent with the person having been a co-worker for 15 years!) have never heard of. I myself am trying to get over the idea that "All the Single Ladies" is now considered an oldie. Inconceivable? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

At any time if they complete 3 consecutive months with 83 hours in each month then they become eligible. If they do not do that in the first anniversary period (within 12 months of their date of hire), then you check if they worked 1000 hours during the anniversary period. If not, then revert to the Plan Year for the Year of Service eligibility, but they can still meet eligibility at any time by completing 3 consecutive months with 83 hours in each month.