Leaderboard

Years ago, it was common practice for a sale price to be set as a multiple of gross revenue, usually anywhere from 90% to 150% of gross revenue. Sale prices now are more frequently determined as a multiple of EBITDA, since two firms with the same revenue can have very different profitability. "Discretionary" expenses are also sometimes added back into the income figure. The most important advice I can give you is not to even think about doing this without hiring an experienced corporate transactions attorney. They can be expensive, but there are critical considerations most people would never think of that are very important when buying or selling a business. If you're selling the company's assets, as opposed to stock, you'll want a higher multiple, since gains on the sale are taxable as ordinary income for asset sales, whereas stock sales give you capital gains tax treatment. Be aware that an intelligent buyer should not purchase stock without exhaustive due diligence, since any liability for work done in the past would be transferred. Many other factors also come into play, such as health insurance and other benefits, retirement plans, business relationships, etc. There's generally some type of retention period, and proceeds of the sale are paid over that period. For example, if you sell for 120% of revenue, you might get 20% of the last three years' average revenues up front, then 20% of collections for each of the next 5 years. In that instance, it's in your best interest to make sure as much business stays on during the retention period as possible. This is one reason why many sellers stay around for a year or two after the sale. Buying/selling a firm is a complex transaction that involves a lot of time if done correctly. Don't expect this to happen quickly. Get a good attorney!

My recollection - whether this was anything official or not I don't remember, but I am actually pretty confident in this - is that a minimum investment requirement set by an investment firm is "ok." Saying "you can have a brokerage window if you have at least $10,000" is not ok. Just be careful that you don't inadvertently wind up with "anyone can do whatever they want" with accounts scattered all over.

No. You do not get a match on a 402(g) excess.

How do you escape TH vesting?

Loan is a special asset of the plan as is the cash account for receiving contributions, disbursing participant withdrawals, and processing transfers between plan investments. If you go to the balance transfer/reallocation screen, I doubt "loan" comes up as an investment option of the plan for asset transfer -- just as "cash" is not an investment option. Also, you can't transfer a loan note to another investment as there is no $$$ to transfer. Even if you wanted to pay off the loan, you'd have to take a withdrawal of other investments to repay the loan -- you couldn't just transfer funds from investment to pay the loan. However, since loan systems are usually integrated with the record keeping system, the repayments are deposited as withdrawn. It would seem you'd have to refinance the loan to change the sourcing of the withdrawal and repayments to options available under the plan at the time of refinance.

A qualified plan "account" for a participant is not like a bank account or, say, a simple brokerage account, everything in one bucket, so to speak. It contains sub-accounts, one each for every source in the plan. You cannot switch between sub-accounts, but you can within them. If you could switch between sub-accounts, why wouldn't everyone move all their unvested profit sharing money to their deferral account?

So, Austin, could I exchange my 0% vested Fund A in Match to a 100% vested Deferral source in fund B? What happens when I exchange my guaranteed by statute 100% vested contribution to deferral to a vestable profit sharing source?