Leaderboard

Interesting. Based on certain lines of thought in the discussion thread: 1) Why would a Collective Investment Trust be named a 'fund'? 2) Why would a pooled separate account be named a 'fund'? If unallocated general account Stable Value would have other investors, would it be more comfortable to be named a 'fund'? Would the plan change the name as other investors invest or leave Stable Value? IMHO, if participants would perceive the term 'funds' as the differing options to invest in the plan to earn income, then let it be called 'fund'. Otherwise, there is a chance the term shouldn't be used at all and changed to "investment". "The plan has 30 investments available with which to diversify" as opposed to "The plan has 29 funds and 1 account/investment with which to diversify".

Call it the Stable Value Fund Investment Account. Or the SVFIA.

The ABA, last I checked (which was a while ago), had a booklet on what "of counsel" means, and the of counsel attorney can be a K-1 partner getting guaranteed payments, a W-2 employee, or a sole proprietor with payments reported on a 1099-MISC. If a sole proprietor AND he or she no longer has any capital account or trailing interest in receivables, in theory they could have their own plan, since the 414(m)(5) and (o) proposed regs (which would have prevented) are currently a dead letter. If they still have a capital account or interest in receivables of even $1, then 414(m)(2)(A) would require aggregation.

How about the ERISA code? And what you can and can not exclude. It's pretty much black letter law. See §1053(b) in the attached link https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/1053

There may be an Affordable Care Act prohibition on "unconditional opt-outs" that may be relevant to this. It is complicated and I can't remember chapter and verse, and it's possible that that prohibition has no application here, but you should consider it.

When I resign, they'll replace me with a stuffed monkey...

Depends on what the consultant is doing. If they're doing everything related to the plan, the 120 might be too much. If there's a distribution department and a plan document department and sales support/onboarding department and notice department an actuarial department, etc., then that carves out a lot of time that the consultant might have been spending on things irrelevant to their job. Then 120 isn't nearly as big a deal. And I would argue that having a consultant all the extraneous things I included isn't the best use of their time.