david rigby

No matter when the plan is terminated, plan assets must be liquid.

In case you did not notice, the important word in the above posts is "beneficiary", and the context is "death benefit". Your turn now.

1099-R? If being paid under plan EIN, and using a 1099-R, that looks a lot like a plan distribution to me. Presumably, this extra payment will be rollable?

That's a good question, they may not be the same company but they definitely are in the same controlled group. It could be an umbrella company. Is controlled group the relevant question? (Don't know, just asking.)

Data as of 30-MAR-12 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.04 4.04 Aa 4.24 4.20 4.22 A 4.54 4.61 4.58 Baa 5.20 5.40 5.30 Avg 4.66 4.56 4.61 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.70 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.61 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.90

So what you're saying is that if the employee requests a distribution, they employer has to oblige without the completion of the QDRO process? NO, that is definitely not what QDROphile stated, nor implied.

I did not see a reference to 414 (but I could be mistaken). The reg refers to active participants in the plan. Since that reg was probably written long before any bureaucrat anticipated the concept of a frozen plan, my hunch is they were thinking "actively accruing benefits". If I get a chance, I'll ask the question next week.

Probably yes. Read PBGC reg. 4043.23 (including definition of "active participant") and instructions for Form 10.

Like.

Practicalities may also help. If you have any under $5K distributions, those may be the simplest part of your paperwork; getting them "out of the way" should not be a problem, as long as you are not creating any significant delay for other participants.

Employer might need a new recordkeeper.

For the non-actuaries out there reading this, the "law of large numbers" is not a "law" at all, but just reflects some ability to predict overall patterns, at least approximately. In any particular case or ALM study, the actuary will take note of any special demographic or plan characteristics that might cause (or increase) volatility in any measurement. In other words, hiring an actuary is a great idea!

Excellent replies above. In particular, if the plan is large enough, and the sponsor willing to pay for it, the actuary can perform asset liability modeling. This is stochastic modeling, usually of alternative asset mixes, and covers multiple years with probabilities that certain outcomes will be met (such as, the plan's funded ratio will be at least X%). As frizzyguy states, this is not cheap, and must also include the sponsor's agreement willingness to fund the plan. The end result is NOT the single best asset mix, but a model of how different mixes and cash flow patterns are expected to behave. It does not make the actuary a fiduciary; instead it takes advantage of the actuary's consulting and mathematical skills to help the plan sponsor manage the plan's future. That's a good thing, a very good thing.

A triple oxymoron!

In addition, the plan might also incur some administrative expense associated with an unpaid loan.

To whom would you send such a notice?

How much are you paying?

The standard media response is "a million to one".

Uhhh, your title says "long term care insurance", but your post says "long term life insurance". LTC does not equal LI. The response above to get a good local agent is accurate, no matter which type of insurance you are seeking. Don't hesitate to interview 3 or more agents before making a selection.

That is my understanding.

I forgot to look up the rates from 02/29/2012, so here is the next day: Data as of 01-MAR-12 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.87 3.87 Aa 4.03 3.99 4.01 A 4.36 4.41 4.39 Baa 5.05 5.20 5.13 Avg 4.48 4.37 4.43 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.60 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.45 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.70

This provision has some good theoretical support, although (as mentioned above) it creates some serious practical problems for the plan sponsor. But to answer your question, I believe you would convert the LS to an immediate annuity using IRC417e provisions. Then that annuity is valued as a plan liability using IRC430 provisions. Opens the door to lots of risk, all on the plan sponsor. Other than that, it's a pretty cool way to provide an annuity from a DC plan.

There may be some other issues here. I suggest you use the Search feature with keyword "4972", then focus on the hits that fall in the "401(k) Plans" topic.

Please define "local".

I haven't checked the 401k regs. I think the general rule is that you can discriminate against, or among, HCEs.