Leaderboard

Here's just one picture that he got....DSLR attached to his telescope, but not his laptop (so he calls it manual..usually he sets up a timing sequence through laptop software but his laptop died morning of)

Not sure about the implications for a governmental plan, but I'm of the opinion that you should always track different money types separately at all times, regardless - and whether or not there are different restrictions on the different types. My thought, w/o research, is that there is no reason or basis upon which you can now allow in-service w/d on the MP dollars, the merger shouldn't change anything in that regard.

Don't you have to keep it segregated for the J&S rules? In non-government MPPs if you merged it into a 4k plan you would have to offer J&S on the MPP money. An MPP is a type of pension plan that is covered by the J&S rules. Since this is a merge those are protected benefits. I am with CuseFan you always track the types of money separate. If it never comes up it doesn't take much effort to do so. If you need to separate the money out after of years not tracking them separate that is a near impossible task.

This illustrates the difference between a vendor and a service provider. The former simply provides a product according to its delivery system while the latter delivers service that provides value to the customer. Much easier to fire a vendor than a service provider.

I would disagree. I've seen amendments through board resolutions that would effectively amend the plan's provisions immediately with the understanding that the plan document would be subsequently amended to reflect the change. This may very well fall within those same guidelines. A major point of contention that occurs when doing this type of amendment is ensuring that you do not amend the plan out of prototype status. I cannot see where merely selecting one provision over another effective a month from now would cross that line. Honestly, I would wonder why that client is still with the vendor. Even when I worked in an assembly line process when it would take 2 weeks to process a simple amendment, the amendment by resolution technique was an effective way to get the plan's provisions changed until the document could be formally amended. The client is looking to get something done. Instead of looking for ways to meet the client's needs while remaining within the framework of the rules, it appears as if the client is being presented with a 'too bad for you'. I may sound a little too critical, but this has been something I've been working around for at least 15 years now. Good Luck!