Leaderboard

But how can you back date amendments? ;)

and then there are misfits like me... one of the in-house reports I created includes a random message from the cow that everyone looks for whatever reason. by the way, this is a modified Relius SOA report to make it easier to fill out the 5500. (of course if there are adjustments - such as ADP refunds) the numbers have to be moved, but the purpose was so just about anyone can in the office could use it)we work in different locations, so I don't get to see the folks so I think stuff like this helps. but then I also take the trouble (at my own expense) to send out 'gifts' e.g. they all get an annual gift box from Baraboo just because it is neat to get some cow pies. it started as a one time joke, but never stopped. at one time everyone worked in the same office so I used to give out homemade Christmas cookies and breads, but I know I'm lucky to work with some fantastic people.

More like the 10/15 deadline!

I have worked in this industry in some form since the early '90s. In all the TPAs and one bank the primary way it was there was one person who did almost all the work. At the bank there was a relationship manager. In most of the TPA there was some kind of business development function. But as a rule I was the face of the firm to the client. My guess it has been that way because of self selection. I interviewed one at a firm that all functions were specialized and I was going to be the manager of the distribution group. I did not care for the idea I would not be working on all phases of the plan. The one observation I will make and maybe others can comment on this also. The places I know that have a distribution group, contribution group, testing group...... the one thing they had in common was they offered a very narrow set of plan documents. This was how they kept their costs down. They might have an A, B and C document. If you were in the distribution group you could look up the client and see which of the documents they had. If it was an A document the distribution rules were set and there was a flow chart explaining how they worked. By doing this you didn't have to get people with college degrees to do a lot of the work. So the pay was lower for many of the people. For the distribution group I interviewed to be the manager of the group I was going to be the only 4 year degree person in the group. You didn't need a bunch of accounting majors to do follow one of 3 flow charts all day. I have always worked in the TPA firms that sold themselves as we were willing to give the client pretty much what they wanted if we could agree on a price. So that takes someone who can read plan documents, who can listen to a client and hear when they are saying the participant statements needed to be changed, or they need the firms website to do something new.... I need to be as much a problem solver as a processor. Both models have their strengths. The limited options and highly specialized model can get work done at a low cost my current employer will never be able to match. On the other hand if you want to customize your ESOP benefit program as part of your overall benefit structure the firm I work for now is easily a top tier firm to be working with on that project. (I will stop selling the company I work for now.)

Agree with Tom and at risk of pointing out the obvious what stops you from taking too many people out of the match eligible group is the fact the match in this case has to pass the coverage test on its own. The easiest form of that test is the ratio test. Those people are factored into that test as includable but not benefiting as a general rule. So if you excluded too money people you won't pass the 70% mark on the ratio test for the match.

The statutes say that, in order to be qualified, a domestic relations order must state the mailing address of the alternate payee, NOT the last known mailing address of the alternate payee (as commonly misapprehended, including by that QDRO-incompetent organization, the Department of Labor). If the statutes say that the mailing address must be stated in the order, I think a good argument can be made the overlooking the terms of the order and using some other address available to the plan (a "last-known address"?) is unreasonable. The plan administrator is also charged with administering a QDRO in accordance with its terms. I am not arguing that the delay discussed in this thread is cause for liability.

One of the challenges our industry struggles with is that of bringing new people into the industry. The last few places I've worked have had distribution and trust accounting specialists, but everything else, including relationship management, was handled by the administrator. Distribution processing and trust accounting were always good entry level positions and hey, if you can't handle trust accounting, you might not be cut out for the business at all.

I am now a little sad because I don't get random cow messages...

For smaller firms, I prefer the "one-person handles it all" approach, with some modifications if staffing allows - an IT person, perhaps, or a document/compliance person, etc. There's a certain comfort level in this, particularly in a small firm that has to run lean, in that when "something" happens (and it always does - sickness, disability, someone quits, gets fired, caring for aged parent, whatever) it is much easier for remaining folks to temporarily pick up the slack. If everything is compartmentalized, it is much more difficult for someone else to step in, as a general rule. But as Mr. Bagwell notes, either approach can (and does) work.

I work in a Bank Trust Dept that provides bundled services. We have 250 Plans and 28,000 participants on the Relius platform. We have relationship managers that act as quarterback, and our client services staff is somewhat segregated into teams that process contributions and trades, a distribution team, testing team, special projects person, phone support and an Education team. There is cross training for the folks who do the daily processing so someone can step in to help when required. It works very well.

I have work experience for two types of setups. Both would be categorized as small firms with the second firm being especially small, 3 employees. Both would be considered a bundled plan approach. Firm one was based on separate roles. The administrator was more relationship and handled the plan issues with the clients. The recordkeeper then handled the contributions, distributions, and testing, etc for any and all clients. Recordkeeper did not call the clients. There was a dedicated 5500 preparer. 1099's were handled in house via a trust system. Dedicated employee for onloading and off loading. Firm two was "all hands on deck" but still split roles. The head of the firm handled the high level relationships, plan design, plan documents, and 5500 preparation and some of the ongoing Relius upkeep. I then handled the detail work of contributions, distributions, some of the Relius work like making sure files traded, pricing uploaded and compliance testing. We handled all plans together. I also had the flexibility to call the clients for census inquiries and the like. A third person was eventually hired to do contributions, some of the distributions and help with valuations. We split the plan list into you handle these easier plans and I'll take the more intricate plans. There was a dedicated staff to sell, but that was done by the brokers and RIA's, not by us. Although we would occasionally get the cold call asking about our retirement services. Here is my philosophy. I don't care what approach is taken because both can be successful. I see and have seen that communication(s) between all the parties is the key to client happiness and efficiency. Of course, a solid staff of people make this happen. I like the approach of employee A does all or most of the work for his set of plans. I think it helps the plan and provider with efficiency because ideally knowing the plan and who is eligible makes for a smoother plan. Conversely, I like the idea of employees that do contributions and distributions exclusively because some employees like the repetition and they will sit there and do good work after good work. Depending on the staff at the time, you may find switching between plans approach and specific work approach will be the magic ticket. Other times, maybe not. My soap box issue is this: if you can't do contributions, distributions and testing. Don't bother, get out of the business. Everything else just gets more complicated. Hope this helps.