david rigby

Never seen a plan that did not do this in practice, even if the document was ambiguous.

Hey, I'm not a health actuary, but this does not look like an insured premium. Looks more like some type of stop-loss arrangement.

No quibble with Effen's comments. If this means you prefer to leave the assets invested without a distribution now (but expect to take a distribution later), then you will need advice from counsel and actuary together. A plan cannot exist without a sponsoring organization, so closing your company may force you to terminate the Plan. Alternatively, if the company continues to exist, then the plan may continue to exist, which may accomplish your goal, with your legal counsel's confirmation, but their will be some ongoing admin costs. If your counsel does not have familiarity with ERISA matters, it may be worthwhile to ask your counsel to consult with experienced ERISA attorney.

Lance, this is nothing more than a rumor, which is not useful to anyone. If you have additional details or sources of information, please post them. Thank you.

IRS Reg. 1.401(a)(4)-11(d). http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-....42&idno=26 And don't forget about TH minimums.

How the loss is amortized is part of the accounting policy. The "10% corridor" approach in FAS87 is a minimum. Unless the sponsor is changing their accounting policy (in which case, they tell you, not vice versa), the remaining loss should be amortized in the same manner as before the curtailment. Generally, this means the new amount is "re-amortized".

Pardon my ignorance: how do you accomplish this? Treat it as an investment loss, so that everyone shares the pain? (If the BG is in another country, that money is 100% gone.)

"Pogo Joe" Caldwell was Dr. J before Dr. J was Dr. J.

Check.

It depends. Are we talking about entire career, or only pro career, or only college career? (For example, Dr. J is excluded if the focus is on college career.) College career: DT, Big O, Lew Alcindor, Elgin, West. (Wow, this guy is also really old. ) If you don't know who DT is, shame on you.

I posted a message today (04/16/2010) @ about 3:10 pm (my time). The time in the message is 3:10 am. Yes, I've checked the time zone setting under "My Controls/Board Settings". In fact, it gives the current time as exactly 12 hours earlier than my clock/watch/etc. Is there some other setting I've overlooked?

Go Braves!

Is "lump sum distribution" defined in the Plan? If not, the meaning of the original quote will be vague.

Not disagreeing w/ your comments, is it possible that other taxpayers have a dog in this fight? If the EE uses the existing 1099 as proof that there is no taxable income, then he may have gotten (from his perspective) a "tax-free distribution". Thoughts?

Does the Plan have to do anything? Whose problem is it?

... and of course, - the Plan document must permit the payment of expenses; - the expenses paid are reasonable.

It's not like the pre-PPA full funding limitation; no such "deemed amortization". The Transition Base, or a Prior Service Cost base, is amortized in a staight-line manner. Could be affected by FAS88, but not as you suggest.

Usually, the AOCI increase is due to an increase in the Unrecognized Net Loss (which is amortized in future years). Therefore, bad. (But, there may be other things going on.)

If the EE terminated employment during the plan year in which the plan termination is effective, you may get a different result. Check the plan document carefully.

Then why not turn off the CapsLock key? The answer to your question depends entirely on the precise wording of the amendment, and how it interacts with other plan language. It may also depend on the termination date(s) of the affected EEs. Yes, that means that some of the "partial distributions" might get 100% vesting and some others might not. The Plan Administrator probably needs advice of experienced ERISA attorney.

Most actuaries (me included) prefer to be paid for our work. Just guessing, I suspect that the actuary for this plan is in the same category. I could, but won't, provide a swag, primarily because the answer (even a ballpark range) depends on several factors.

Yes, that's why a document must be in writing. If the sponsor wants to do something different, the document must first be amended. All documents have a procedure (or general outline) of how to amend, and who has authority.

Data as of 31-MAR-10 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.32 5.32 Aa 5.68 5.55 5.62 A 5.89 5.80 5.85 Baa 6.25 6.37 6.31 Avg 5.94 5.76 5.85 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.74 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.48 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 4.22

... And get multiple quotes.

Sounds like a failure to follow the written document.