MoJo

When? I've been in many cities too - and by and large, the Cleveland of today is by far the best!

Now now.... That bridge (Lorain Ave., to be precise) is symbolic of the sturdiness of Cleveland and Clevelandians. It is recognized an a prime example of art deco style and architecture - and ends right at the stadium. Hearty architecture (and the bridge is but one example, see also Terminal Tower, the Standard Oil Company Building (birthed in Cleveland,) the theaters, etc.). Hearty people. Hearty economy. Hearty city. Not like the throw away culture on the coasts and elsewhere. By the way, the "mistake on the lake" moniker has been soundly debunked. Cleveland is a leader in biotech and other technology, WORLD RENOWNED HEALTH CARE (the Cleveland Clinic system, University Hospitals System, and the Metrohealth System), is ranked one of the most livable cities in the country, is one of the more affordable major metro areas in the country, boasts three major sports teams (the Guardians, Browns and Cavs), the Cleveland Orchestra (ranked one of the top three orchestras in the WORLD for over a century, Playhouse Square (the largest theater complex in the world outside of NYC), the Cleveland Museum of Art, the Crawford Auto Museum, the Botanical Gardens, numerous highly ranked educational institutions, the Cuyahoga Valley National Park running from Akron through Cleveland (the most visited National Park in the country) which connects to both the Summit County and Cuyahoga County metroparks systems expanding it's reach, the Lake Erie lakeshore and dozens of lakefront parks and recreational venues, four season activities (boating, hiking/biking (along the 60 plus mile "towpath" in the National Park along the path of the old Ohio and Erie Canal)) and even snow skiing (downhill and cross country)) - all within 20 miles or so of the center of downtown.

Sitting here in suburban Cleveland as I type this, all I can say is I'd rather be here than in the Wormy Apple any day of the week..... Actually, there's only one team more hated around here than the Yankees - and that would be the Steelers.... 😁 (oh, and all my "Indians" attire just became a supplement to my retirement nest egg!)

I think you are underestimating - "should be 20 recordkeepers, 25 unique answers to this question!" Only partly kidding on this one. We run "two" separate r/k platforms - and the answers to various questions differ based on which platform we're talking about....

We do provide a notice to the plan sponsor who may use it, modify it, or whatever. We will (FOR A FEE) distribute it to participants, but generally, that is an exception. We haven't been asked, but I would doubt that we would distribute a notice that was not prepared by us....

Slightly off topic - but who published the article on Mega Roth's recently? We've gotten about 8 or 9 questions on these in the last week and a half - and that usually means someone has recycled an article... AGAIN! [sigh]

While the DOL may not agree - the way I'd look at this is that the 7 day rule is a "safe harbor." The requirement is "as soon as practicable." If for reasons beyond the control of the employer it went that extra day, then it may be "as soon as practicable" even though it didn't meet the safe harbor. The DOL would look at the regularity of prior contributions - and in my experience would say if you can do it in x days, you should be able to do it in x days - so "as soon as practicable" to them is the pattern of behavior established. Conversely, if you do it consistently in x days, and ONCE do it in x-1 days, they have been know to hold you to the x-1 standard, and deem all other contributions as late.

Maybe I'm losing patience in my ... nearing retirement ... age, but I'd just call the probate court and let them know you hold assets of the estate and the administrator is being non-responsive in collecting them, and ask if you can send the money to the clerk of courts.... I guarantee there will be a response when the court issues a "show cause" order. Just kidding (but not much!)

Our policy - never ever ever "poke the bear." They take the time they take, and when agitated it usually isn't a pleasant experience. That said, it appears 6-10 months is now the normal - and that's down from 10-18 months a couple of years ago.

Despite my previous facetious comment, I think it's a good idea. Belgarath: You mean there is another way to "bank" besides fat fingering on my phone? Haven't been inside a building that has "bank" over the door literally in years - even when getting a mortgage from one....

I just listened to a cybersecurity guru talk about all of the risks of being on-line, sooooo, can we go back to stone tablets? Might not be so speedy or current, but might be safer!

There are a number of recordkeepers that take business from TIAA with loans (the one I work for, included). We treat the loans as "assets held away" until fully amortized. It complicates life - for us and the plan sponsor - but it's doable. One has to think whether it was "prudent" to select such a recordkeeper (TIAA) in the first place knowing that the assets can't be moved when the fiduciary so decides. By the way, in some situations, TIAA has been known to hold assets in their general account product for 10 years, to secure a 5 year loan.

Depends on the function. As noted in this thread, it's hard to find experienced talent, meaning "replaceable" but not easily or immediately.... I have a member of my team retiring next March, and we've already begun the search, because finding an expert on ESOPs and taxes is not easy.....

Yup. We had a drop dead date of 12/7 for "guaranteed" check cut by the deadline. Best efforts for anything after that (and most were timely processed). There still were a few that were "processed" in December, but a check got cut in January.... Money spent. Tax consequences unknown - and unknowable until the IRS pings one of the participants. "Stuff" happens.

Good in theory. IMPOSSIBLE in practice. We process approx 500 distributions daily in our group annuity business - of all kinds. Once queued, there is virtually no way to stop it. Not sure how many are processed by the institutional trustee handling that side of the business - but they provide the same services to tens of thousands of plans (beyond just our book) and I assume it is the same situation.... Withholding is base don what is keyed in when the entered into the queue. Downstream is so automated, it may have been zero (and that cold also be a withholding mistake).

First, correct, 12/30 was the deadline. Second, "actually distributed" is the question - and as you say, it depends on where the assets are.... Some participant will the guinea pigs here - because we know of some who are taking the position that a 12/x request with a 1/x check date is still a CRD....

Too the extent that the benefits go "directly" from the plan to the children, there are no assets that are probateable. Keep in mind that plan benefits are not "assets" of the participant until distributed (legal title to the assets are held by the Trustee) and consequently upon death, the account is not part of the decedent's estate - and the probate court has nothing to do with them (of course, unless the plan provides that the benefits go to the "estate.")

While I agree with the analysis provided by shERPA, I've also seen in practice that the "distribution" occurs at the point in time that the money is removed from the trust and paid into a common distribution account. I work for a bundled service provider that uses a single distribution account for processing of distributions from our group annuity book of business (we are the annuity provider as well), and book the distribution as occurring at the time the money leaves the group annuity. We also have an NAV book of business trusteed by an independent institutional trust company (Matrix, if you care), and they issue a 1099 based on the date the check is cut - which may be several days after liquidation of the assets from the trust. This was an issue we raised through various trade associations to get IRS "leeway" in those cases where a proper request was submitted prior to 12/30, but due to r/k issues or errors, the check wasn't cut until after the first of the year. The IRS did not provide guidance one way or the other - but we are aware of some participants (in the NAV book of business) that have claimed the distribution as a COVID distribution on their 1040 form, with documentation that the request was made timely and "not the fault of the participant." We'll see if that flies or not....

It wasn't me! It was the universe that did you in! I use rules in my personal email (also Outlook), but at work, 98% requires I at least be aware of the contents. I try to "file" to a folder but often other more pressing matters intervene - which is the reason for the 6000+ in my inbox. I do tend to ignore most "reply all" that include a member of my team (they can handle it, and will loop me in when needed). The problem is - EVERYONE thinks you read, comprehend, and memorize everything they sent you - not realizing 600 other people are sending you stuff too...

Often.... 52 emails so far today....

Ahhhh, the good old days. Problem is, the work does NOT stop when you are on vacation, over the weekends, or in the evenings. Choose your poison - check your phone a couple of times and get rid of the chaff, and deal with the low hanging fruit, or return to the office and see 6025 emails in your inbox (and, that is exactly the number in my inbox currently, and I've only taken 1 day off so far this year). This thing called retirement is looking better and better every day and every email incoming..... And for the record - EVERYONE *is* that important. Just lose one of them and see how important they are.

Feedback. Of any kind!

Pardon my jumping in here - are you saying the plan sponsor *wants discretion* in selecting the beneficiaries? That's what it appear to me that you are saying. Attorneys would call that "felony stupid" (stupidity of the highest order) and litigators would love that! The whole point of having specific plan language detailing who gets what is to avoid any possibility of any discretion whatsoever, so the defense is "Your Honor, the Plan language is clear and ambiguous and I am bound by ERISA to follow the terms of the Plan." Case closed. We deal with bene disputes all the time, and once you point to the plan language, they go away. If the benes want something different, then them that gets can give to them that don't (which, actually, never really happens...😗)

Way too many questions to effectively answer this. 1) Does the employer actually have a 401(k), or were they indicating they would start one? If the former, then there may be an operational failure for the plan, and missed opportunity corrections required. If the latter, there actually is nothing that says an employer must have a 401(k) plan, so that leads to: 2) What was the nature of the "offer"? If it rises to the level of an "employment contract" then there may be some remedy - but: a) that depends on the state in which the contract was entered into (state law governs employment contracts); and b) I'm not sure what the remedy would be, but I'm pretty sure suing for enforcement might be a career limiting move.

Yes. I've seen that many times (and often, as sophisticated as the investors are, they often ignore this aspect of plan sponsorship.) I worked with an advisor who worked with a private equity firm, and the solution was to create identical plans for each member of the tranche and aggregate. For the larger companies (in a separate tranche, it may be possible to not aggregate). Lots of complexity.... (i.e. high fees).