Jump to content


Senior Contributor
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


MoJo last won the day on April 8

MoJo had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About MoJo

  • Birthday 11/06/1957

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Fiduciary issues, compliance, plan design, you know, ERISA geek stuff.

Contact Methods

  • Skype

Recent Profile Visitors

2,441 profile views
  1. Well, IMHO, that's because they saw fit to hire me! (Just kidding - maybe!) We had a entire task force working to interpret, evaluate, and implement, and have developed tracking on client "elections." Quite the undertaking....
  2. To each his own. Mandating a provision for the convenience of the recordkeeper seems to me to be a bad business decision, and one that should weigh in on the fiduciaries' decision on who to engage for those purposes. That said, having "defaults" clearly is needed to manage the volume of changes. We took the position that if the plan had a $5,000 cash out limit, we would "default" them to $7,000, with ample opportunity to opt out of the default and select a different (lower) limit. We "defaulted" all others to staying at the limit they had in their plan (and most were $1,000 to avoid the IRA requirement). We did have some opt for something different than the defaults (both of them), but not many.
  3. It might be stating the obvious here, but *if* the plan sponsor determines that a restorative payment is warranted (under the guidance given by my esteemed professional colleagues above), the the plan sponsor is essentially *admitting* (at least the serious possibility) of a fiduciary breach and that breach essentially entails the selection of the SVF fund in the initial instance (with the possibility of an MVA.) While a restorative payment may solve the back end issue of a MVA, it leaves the fiduciary exposed for any other damages that an enterprising plaintiff's counsel may see for the entirety of the fund being in the plan. We never recommend a restorative payment (which is iffy in any event), and usually advise that the client seek an alternative (installment payments, a "put" or the like,) If the contract is benefit responsive, participant's generally will suffer no loss. Inconvenient, yup, but we do it all the time (both with respect to incoming business, and outgoing business using our SVF).
  4. Thanks. I needed a laugh and glad to know others have the same experience... It's pretty bad when a client under DOL audit is asked for a copy of their own plan document - as requested by the investigator.....
  5. Yea, but it's a bridge we cross often.... Working now on a DOL audit, which covers a period that predates our involvement, and moves beyond the date the plan left us. While we're only responsible for our "era," we have to tie the beginning and end points to what we obtain from/.provided to others.... Bene designations being one of this issues....
  6. Yes we shall. As a constitutional scholar (in my mind, anyway) and a published author on the "independence" of the judiciary due to lifetime appointments (which, I argued, cause a reversion to the middle) ... I now feel as though that independence has been eroded by partisan ideology (both ways). If you agree with this decision, then virtually EVERYTHING passed between 2020 through 2022 is now null and void. Bye bye CARES Act. Bye bye every spending bill, budget, foreign aid, Social Security payments, VA benefits and pensions. EVERYTHING. What a world that would be....
  7. And if you are the third service provider since the participant's death and don't have the document in effect nor does the plan sponsor (which may be the third plan sponsor due to M&A activity (real life, here), what do you do?
  8. The question from that perspective is whether the proxy voting rules adopted by the House is applicable, and constitutional. The House, which can determine it's own rules, said yes. And by the way - anything to prevent the protection of pregnant workers. Anything.... Gotta wonder....
  9. My only response is to shake my head and mutter "only in Texas...." After all, aren't they the ones who are intentionally and militarily refusing to abide by a SCOTUS ruling.... For what it's worth, the House itself gets to decide what it's rules are and can enforce or not enforce the quorum rules affirmatively or negatively. I would suggest that enforcement of the House's quorum rules is reserved to the members of the House. In other words, if a House member doesn't object, then the House has made a defacto determination that a quorum exists, or that it doesn't apply at the time. "After the fact" determinations are inapplicable, inappropriate, and inconsistent with a Federal form of government. Individual states have no power to overturn what the legislative body has done. Constitutional determinations can only be made on the basis of the text of the Constitution, not the internal (or inferno) rules of a specific body....
  10. I'm not sure, and this seems to be what we call a "dandelion" - blow on it and the fluffy seeds spread everywhere. One the one hand, corrections are book "current year" - when contributed, and are otherwise considered "current balances." On the other hand, there may be protected benefits from the past iterations of the plan document that apply to the individuals for whom a corrective contribution is applicable. Generally, we take the position that the correction is "current" and all matters relating to it are subject to the current plan provisions - but we haven't analyzed a protected benefit issue, or here, a default beneficiary issue (although, that isn't a protected benefit). We'd probably use current plan provisions, but if it results in conflict, we might interplead the money and let a court decide....
  11. You get to a certain age and you lose your "filters." I deal with enough ... from the DOL that it's time I turn them loose on something really egregious....
  12. Our positions are not mutually exclusive. Call the DOL, then go after their clients!
  13. Almost makes you want to call the DOL and report them.....
  14. While I would never say never, the answer to the first part of your questions is contained in your second part. It isn't feasible to segregate servicing for one client from the norm of processing for all other clients. In addition, my concern isn't as much for our liability (as we are a nondiscretionary, directed, ministerial service provider) but rather for the plan - where a misstep in institutionalizing inappropriate distributions is a plan issue, and possibly a qualification issue. We take pride in being trusted advisors to our plan sponsor clients, and would seriously caution against them directing us to do something we think can have substantial risks to the plan. That said, guidance, guidance, guidance.....
  • Create New...