austin3515

Bird, this language is straight from the regs. What is the basis for saying that we can even cross-reference as you suggest? It seems to me that as a covered service provider I need to be the one providing the disclosure. I really really like your answer, but can you point to the basis for the conclusion please? (iv) Initial disclosure requirements. The covered service provider must disclose the following information to a responsible plan fiduciary, in writing— (2) Indirect compensation. A description of all indirect compensation (as defined in paragraph ©(1)(viii)(B)(2) of this section) that the covered service provider, an affiliate, or a subcontractor reasonably expects to receive in connection with the services described pursuant to paragraph ©(1)(iv)(A) of this section; including identification of the services for which the indirect compensation will be received and identification of the payer of the indirect compensation.

Well yes, that is exactly what I originally hoped I culd say, but I'm just not sure that that = me disclosing my compensation. Are you suggesting that a complete and total cross-reference might actually work? I guess it might just be too gray to hang my hat on.

Excellent, Jim, I'm glad I'm in good company!

What I struggled with, Bird, is the fact that I as a service provider am required to tell my clients what I'm getting paid (at least as I read the rules). So what I've decided on is to provide a short 30,000 foot explanation of what we receive and reference them back to the services contract with John Hancock. So my JH disclosure for example, would state "we receive 5bps of plan assets per year." [i know there is another installation piece which I'll also mention]. I think that is enough disclosure to tell them what I am getting paid. Does anyone disagree that this strategy would not meet the spirit of the disclosure? I should think the DOL would actually like this straightforward approach cosndiering their contemplation of a summary requirement, whicn in my hear tI believe is due to the 6 page disclosures which might dilute the crux of the disclosure.

Too bad for them I'm a secret agent

" if they should continue to retain you. " My clients LOVE me

I learned this morning. They DID change their reporting. The difference relates to defaulted participant loans. The name of the report is Supplemental_Investment_Report_TIAA_Traditional_Annuity The balances shown in this report make up the difference between Schedule A (which has a higher number) and the value reported on other reports. I don't know why yet or what to do about it, but I hope that helps. P.S. this would have received more interest in the 403b forum than here since it is almost entirely unique to 403b's. I would think moving posts should be limited to more egregious offenses.

I think TIAA CREF changed it's reporting on Schedule A. The beginning balance on the Schedule A report does NOT match the ending balance from 12/31/2010. Recently, an auditor asked me to change the schedule A such that the activity did NOT match the Schedule A report. They were using the Statement of Changes in Net Assets instead. Does anyone know what's going on here?

Because it's 50 pages?

Can I cross-reference the Amnerican Funds/John Hancock, etc., contracts for an explanation of the TPA Compensation that we receive?

With JH, they don't care that the payments coming in have changed. So you should reamortize the loans, and it won't be too big of a deal. If you don't then a 5 year loan will be repaid over 260 sem-monthly pay-periods which of course is too long. Perhaps you could get away with simply doubling the loan payments for those people not in danger of exceeding the 5 years (i.e., 2 weeks ~=1 semi-monthly pay-period). I think reasonableness has a place in loan admin.

It depends. The determination is made AFTER attribution. So if the two grandparents, after attribution own 100% of the entities together (50/50), then only two people are in the analysis. Based on what you've told us, there probably won't be a lot of attribution under 1563 (for controlled groups) but you still need to go through the excercise. Step is to go through each individual independently and figure out how much that person owns of each individual entity after attribution. Good luck.

FWIW, an extensive discussion on limiting HCE's to $1 can be found here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=41319

Ditto.

This doesn't deal with schedule c though. Bird, have you seen any such disclosures? What might they look like? It just seems hard to imagine how they could do this.

So is it fair to say that you would only need to report direct compensation paid from a brokerage account?

Funnily (word??) I just read the DOL's FAQ that you referenced and had the exact same question that you did. I "binged" my question adn came across your post... I laughed out loud a bit. This is the DOL's fault for making this so darn obtuse.

Looking at a 401k plan on Corbel's PPD format, and the only trustee listed is a nondiscretionary trustee. I thought that only a trust company could serve in this capacity. Can a 401k plan have a nondiscretionary trustee as the sole trustee? If so, it seems to me that I would have set all my plans up that way... I looked in the basic plan document and was not able to find anything that explicity prohibited this scenario.

And the size of the Plan of course.

I've seen the fee go from around 10K down to around 8K, give or take. It's not like half the audit is eliminated by any stretch.

the difference between limited/full-scope audits is not that significnat. Frankly it's all the worthless stuff that you get to skip.

In the following article, it appears that the DOL is ignoring the good work that many pension auditors are doing. http://www.bna.com/overreliance-limitedsco...s-n12884909164/

Dat's it!!!!! THANKS!!!

I don't see where 411a11 helps? Also the one I'm referring to had a whole byuch of language about "after a search in accordance with DOL FAB _____, they are unable to be located, an IRA will be opened in the participants name..."

Someone once posted on here a blurb from their plan termination resolution that "Amends" the plan to allow for rollovers for non-responders in the event of plan termination. I tried to find this through the search engines but had no luck. Can anyone post this language or find the post?