Leaderboard

The SMM might technically only need to go to the one person let in early, but as a part of the full plan document, a very ambitious employee could of course request access to it. (Likely? No, until it happens.)

I don't know, I would expect not in any participant directed 401(k). Maybe still in the 403(b) insurance company and TIA-CREF world. I'm not involved enough in either to offer any hard evidence. I would think, if still prevalent to any significant degree, that the occurrence would be in DB plans, where assets can be placed in certain investments without the need or expectation that they will be liquidated for many years so that redemption fees/deferred sales charges et al either go away or are dwarfed by the extra return (I assume) that such long term investments generate. I remember seeing these investments in many a pension plan termination in the mid/late 80's when corporate raider plan terminations were the rage before excise taxes were implemented (yes, I'm old!).

Peter, I can only say never underestimate the persuasiveness of investment salespersons.

This may not be what you are asking for but plan can also have restrictions due to "day trading" or too many "roundtrips" (buy and sell in the same trading day) within a specified period. Trading funds in and out of a 401(k) every day does not violate the Code. However, plan administrators can place rules that can restrict the frequency of in-plan trades. Some fund sponsors frown on the practice. For example, excessive trading in and out of funds in a commission-free account without paying any sales loads on the funds may cause the sponsor or fund to absorb the cost of the frequent trading. Many have a rule like three roundtrips in the same fund within any rolling 90-day period or 10 roundtrips in the same fund within any 365-day period would be considered frequent trading and will result in the enforcement of the excessive trading policy causing the employee not to be able to trade that fund for a while. Some sponsors simply don't like it because they don't want their employees trading all day and not working. Not a charge but you asked about restrictions.

Yes, but to avoid the escalator, you may elect an initial percent of 10.

Just saying "yes" in an email should not be enough (nor a proper authorization) as they need to sign a proper form with proper language/declaration permitting your company (not you personally) to file. One of the important declarations is "I understand my signature is available for public viewing" - (for non-ez plans). You want all this on the form that they sign. Every vendor has their own way of providing the esigner form so please look at yours and see what language they have. I would never file on behalf of a client with a "yes" in an email. I want that form signed/dated allowing my firm to file on their behalf but that's me.