david rigby

Since there is no 2014 table yet, perhaps you are willing to share what answer you received from your software provider. Inquiring minds want to know.

Just a few comments: - Taking into account cash-flow matching and expected benefit payments, can a discount rate be too conservative? - Does an auditor have any responsibility to point out a discount rate that is "too low"? (they will certainly point out the opposite)?

DOL reg. 2520.104b-1©.

Throw around some weight? It's EE's responsibility to provide complete and accurate information. Tell EE that she won't be covered at all without a last name? (hey, it's just a thought.)

Also note that the 70-1/2 RMD is absolute for an IRA (or combination of IRAs if the individual has more than one). Different for a qualified retirement plan (pension, profit-sharing, 401k, etc); typically, those plans specify that distribution must begin by the later of 70-1/2 or severance of employment, except for EEs who are "5% owners".

Accrued Benefit. See IRC 411(a)(7). Note the reference to Normal Retirement Age, which means that must be defined first. BTW, you might benefit from general background reading (if not alread) such as "Fundamentals of Private Pensions" (my copy is published by the Pension Research Council) or "Pension Planning" (published by Irwin).

Non-attorney comment looking in from the outside: seems likely that the IRS and/or bankruptcy court has dealt with the Q before.

There is a "firm deadline"; the Plan Administrator must include this person on the Form SSA filed for the plan year following the plan year of termination of employment, which is due 7 months after the close of that (second) plan year (75-day extension available), unless the participant has received a full distribution before the filing. The PA must also notify the participant ("you have a benefit under the plan...") on or before this filing date. It's possible the regular statements received by the participant ARE the notification to the participant. Also likely, the participant is responsible for keeping the plan advised of any address change.

May? Of course. Should? This plan sponsor might need some objective advice.

If FaceBook share price gains 23 cents per day for the rest of 2012, that will be a 12/31/2012 price that is ~90% higher than the opening price of $38. Not bad.

Are you suggesting there is a difference in payment date for "wired" versus "mailed"?

As always, check the plan document.

Correct.

Ultimately, the plan sponsor must choose the discount rate(s) for SFAS87/88/106/158 purposes. Frequently, the actuary is asked for a recommendation and/or the auditor blesses the choice. The IRS segment rates might be reasonable, or might produce a result similar to another reasonable rate. The 24-month smoothing aspect does not automatically mean such rates are (or are not) reasonable. [bTW, PBGC segment rates are similar to IRS segment rates, without 24-month smoothing.] Many auditors will focus on whether the method to choose a rate is objective and a reasonable reflection of market value. Using multiple rates does not invalidate the process. Possibly, some prior discussion might be relevant to you: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=46127

Be careful with this simplified result: what if the plan is frozen? IMHO, it makes more sense to change nothing on the SSA records for this person. Later, upon "re-term", that person is either a death, a retiree, or a VT. All you really want is that the SSA has a correct answer to the Yes/No question: "is this person entitled to a benefit later?"

Just a thought: the plan administrator might be curious to determine if those checks are uncashed due to death of the recipient.

... and there are probably many reasons why the participant should not invest in that IPO.

When you searched IRC 416 and Reg. 1.416, did you find anything about vested benefits?

This might not be relevant to anyone else: neither the PBGC nor the IRS has any authority to define generally accepted actuarial principles.

Bingo. Sure, my copy of Jordan ("my precious") gathers dust, but it should be the ratio of N(12)'s.

D's?

The DOL "guy" is not a guy. It's Phyllis Borzi.

Just to be clear, does this sentence mean "defers beyond NRD"?

Yikes! These message boards do not serve well as a place for investment advice, except to offer some general guidelines. The big red flag to me is your desire to both retire and buy insurance. "Retirement" usually means you are focused on a steady stream of income, while insurance usually means you are protecting someone else (or perhaps an estate). Insurance does not generate income. Apples and oranges. Perhaps you need advice from someone who is selling only his/her advice, NOT selling insurance, annuities, stocks, bonds, etc.

Sorry, no opportunity to check the reg, but it sounds fishy to me (that's the technical term). Suppose the EE is unmarried at initial ASD, but is married when the restriction is removed. Not sure if this matters, just wondering.