austin3515

There are soundwaves yes. There might not be ears to detect them but there soundwaves. And from what I've heard, lawyers have ears everywhere.

But that's just it though isn't it? Why would there be no reason to question the prudence of these investments?

That was my original argument, but I think the original sin of course was perhaps to put themselves in that situation in the first place. I presented that exact analysis to an ERISA attorney and his response was that if any new money went to the plan after 1/1/09 that it would be subject to all of the fiduciary standards. .

We talk in hypotheticals all the time that are grounded in reality. Obviously you would not put such language in an IPS, but I found your hypothetical language a realistic incarnation of exactly my dilemma. Fiduciary responsibility with no ability to do a darn thing about it. If you're trying to answer my question it is completely lost on me. Do you or don't think there is an issue here for fiduciaries of these old TIAA contracts?

ok, now we're getting somewhere. You think fiduciaries of these old tiaa contracts are just screwed?

you get the match for the first 3 quarters, but not the 4th quarter. I'm sure "that's not fair" isn't your argument

I'll throw it back at you and say "what should the IPS say?" Surely the answer to this question is the same question that I am asking. What if the IPS did include some arbitrary criteria that did require the elimination of a fund. What then? So it stands to reason that the answer to my question must be known before you can draft an IPS. But I agree there is nothing more to discuss...

I happen to think it's a reasonable question. You may have knowledge/opinions about the appropriateness of these funds that a CFO/HR Director might not possess themselves. So if you were the fiduciary you would obviously be able to satisfy yourself. What obligation have they make those determinations? I think it's irrelevant whether or not the funds are any good. As we all know, past performance is not a guarantee of future results. So the wise fiduciary performs ongoing reviews.

I'm saying that if they meet my requirements that they will necessarily have comp paid in that quarter and therefore will not have any excess contributions under 415. the match is pretty small so even one paycheck would give me plenty of cushion.

A1: We love TIAA-CREF funds, so that's not the issue. But do they even have to be reviewed, and if the answer is yes, just what should the client do in the event that a fund does stink. A2: None, I assume. I'm asking about the ones still under the Plans investment contract., A3: The client is trying to figure out what the heck they need to do. So it's not really hypothetical, it is a very real dilemma faced by my client.

That actually helps my position, thanks! 415 should not be an issue as anyone who meets the conditions will have comp in the following plan year. Thanks!

If fund A is a dog, what obligation does the trustee have to replace fund A with Fund B. And of course legally they have no ability to do that. So the fiduciary responsibility of monitoring plan investments and making sure they are appropriate. IT seems to me there is a perpetual failure because the original failure was to enter into a contract under which the fiduciary is unable to exercise his or her legal responsibility.

Fidelity said they will take it. Use regular applications and sign for participant and put a note that "I'm signing on their behalf because the participant will not respond... and I'm required by law to put this money in an IRA for them."

Just because it fits those parameters doesn't mean it is ok. Would you add something that says "must be over (or under) age 50"? No because that violates age discrimination laws. There's lots of things I wouldn't do because it was illegal, no need to limit the examples to just age

Anyone have any advice? Custodian will not open IRA unless participant signs the forms. Is there a custodian that will allow the employer to open the account without the employees signature, etc.?

Please share if you find it!

Pretty cool, right? Hey listen, if you can provide me something that says this won't work I'll reconsider, but my file contains the requisite approvals to make me comfortable.

P.S. here are the parameters for Other and I have not violated any of them.

VS in AA format, I used the "Other filed"

. Who can explain why clients want the things they want, but they do want them and that is that. Corbel blessed the 15 days after the end of the quarter language so that works for me

It's much easier not to put the money into the plan. Not to mention it saves them money.

Insignificant can failures can always be corrected under SCP.

Is there a window for how far back you can correct an ACP test? If it's failed 5 years can I do SCP? Only affects 1 HCE in all years.

Using last day of quarter rule on matching contributions. Would it be permissible to have as an allocation condition that states you are not eligible for the matching contribution unless you are actively employed 15 days after the last day of the quarter? So employment on 4/15 for the quarter ending 3/31. We are trying to avoid people requiring residual distributions after the match is funded.

You just blew my mind with something... LEt's say the 401k plan excludes owners? No top-heavy minimum?