Leaderboard

And to me, that's really the issue. This is what you'd use to politely, as Mike said, tell them to go fly a kite, in most situations.

Yep. Also, I've been known to use it as a research tool. For example, when I can't remember what reg to look for, i might get a useful prompt from someone else's comment(s).

Dave: Ditto on what everyone is mentioning. I've been participating for years, it is amazing the knowledge not only on day to day matters but on issues that are rarely thought of but occur. This is a go to place for brainstorming and knowledge. Thank you.

1. I like knowing that I am not the only one experiencing some of the issues presented. 2. I have been able to help out others, and others have helped point me in the right direction. 3. Daily reminders that there are very few things in our industry that are black and white. 4. I often see things addressed here before other message boards catch up them.

Dave: It's quite simple. Reading what's posted, and selectively responding keeps me grounded with reality in the industry. We tend to get isolated in what we do specifically, exactly how we do it (especially when stuck with legacy processes and solutions that haven't been challenged in a long time), and what our problems of the day entail. Reading here, 1) I see more of what goes on in the industry - and learn from it, and often can focus my attention on how to achieve that - or avoid it, without having to go through trial and error; and 2) I see alternatives that may be available to resolve the issues I have to deal with. This place also allows me to "flex" my academic muscle and explore things that maybe have never occurred in my career, play with hypotheticals, or hypothetical extensions of real issues, and often "debate" with others who have different experiences, perceptions and approaches to the same issues. I learn. I teach. I explore. Makes me a better professional.

You mean somebody bought an interest in a LP, say 25% of the total LP, and it's been carried at 100% of the LP value? Of course that is wrong. I imagine it is simply poor communication marinated in stupidity. Somebody buys something like that so you know they are stupid or at best had stupid advice, and the stupidity snowballs from there.

After tax contributions are..."after tax" so IMO they have no impact on compensation. No grossing up or down or whatever.

I agree that this is improper, but it happens all the time (the lame reason that I've heard is that it makes withholding easier), and I have not heard of the IRS doing anything about it. So we deal with it. I agree with Bri's analysis.

Is nicely as possible, tell them to go fly a kite.

I just reviewed a proposal today from a recordkeeper I had not previously encountered but that seems to have a well-thought-out fee structure that does per capita. $120 per participant annually. It's a small plan for a relatively new law firm. $120 per head will come out to a little less than 18 basis points if it were pro rata. It seems fair to me for all but the smallest accounts, e.g. for a $10,000 account it's about 1%, which is high but not terrible. And if the employer matches decently, seems fair. I mean, why should, e.g., a clerical employee who's been with the firm for 10 years and has $100k in their account subsidize a young lawyer who is just starting out and has a small account? Obviously, that's a cherry-picked example, but it would be one possible case. Agree that it is more likely the partners would end up subsidizing everyone else, to differing degrees, but it would make more sense if that's the case for the partnership to just pay the fee itself rather than subsidizing it through the plan. I agree this can be looked at in different ways, but it seems to me that the DOL's guidance is correct, i.e., that it is a potentially fair way to allocate fees. It also is less likely to lull an employer into "fee creep" as the asset base gets larger over time. The fundamental question is whether a recordkeeper's costs are driven more by number of participants or asset size, and it seems to me they're more likely driven by number of participants. I guess the employer could also contribute, discretionarily, an additional $120, in this example, to each non-highly compensated employee's account, or to all NHCE accounts < some number, e.g. $10,000. Of course, if recordkeeping fees are calculated on a per-participant basis, but paid from shared mutual fund servicing fees, then they are borne by the participants proportionally to assets, not really per capita.

Bird - I can assure you this was not set up by my firm. It's a new account and apparently that's how they've 'always done it'. Well not anymore. Too much risk exposure. Unauthorized commentary: When I find questionable procedures, it's almost always from larger practices that are focused more on sales than on service and the employees who provide the service. The other odd practice is how many of these practices don't even have a checking system. If a Sr. Consultant had seen this in action maybe it would have been stopped already. But then if they figure this out, their unintended role as my nonpaid sales team might crumble.

Perhaps you are not arguing about this but simply seeking information, but I would never argue on this issue. In my experience, a plan document request means a lawyer is somewhere in the background. My suggestion would be to promptly supply the requested document(s) and have a friendly conversation about what is really going on in this situation. Comments, accompanying the document, such as "Is there something about the plan or its operation that we can clarify/ assist with?" "Is there a problem that needs attention?" may elicit a response that will enable you to solve a problem before it festers and grown into a legal situation for the plan sponsor or a firing situation for the TPA.

RBD was 4/1/2021 and first distribution calendar year was 2020 (but RMD waived), second distribution calendar year is 2021 with 12/31 due date, that didn't change.

What has ERISA counsel suggested?