david rigby

Just a hunch: when the financial advisor says "before it matures", she/he means "before you die". I suggest looking at what happens in that event: where does the death benefit go / what is the definition of a death benefit in the Plan? If the answer(s) are not what the plan sponsor wants, then now is the time to change the plan.

... and the death rate for the first few days of 2010.

Having the word "matures" in quotes raises the question of what is really (really) meant by the statement. Many decades ago, an insured might get a check from an insurance company at age 100 (along with lots of publicity) because the insurance policy "matured". Very unlikely that any such event occurs anymore.

If so stated by the plan / amendment, yes. Otherwise, it seems inappropriate to impute a proration.

There may be some prior discussions on this topic. Does this one help? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=42456

A few prior discussions. Try using the Search feature, with keyword "raffle".

... coverage being the lesser of the two concerns. You may end up combining these two plans for testing purposes.

You don't "contribute" to the stock market; you invest in the stock market. Contributions to the DB plan are from compensation/corporate profits; limits are based on IRC 412/430 (minimum) and 404 (maximum). I see no relevance to the source of the cash flow, as long as the limits are observed.

NC probably has one salary scale included. The limit under IRC 404 may need more than one year's increase.

Have you reviewed Rev. Proc. 2008-50?

A 401(k) plan is a subset of the universe of 401(a) plans.

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/Publications/qdros.html Do Q&As 2-11 to 2-13 imply that 18 months is "long enough" to expect that a DRO will be submitted? Is Fidelity imposing a much longer (forever?) holding period? If so, is there justification for doing so?

Data as of 31-DEC-09 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.33 5.33 Aa 5.54 5.44 5.49 A 5.86 5.82 5.84 Baa 6.31 6.47 6.39 Avg 5.90 5.76 5.84 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.00 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.67 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 4.28 FYI, I also monitored these rates for every business day since December 15. No spikes, very little fluctuation.

Link to court decision: http://legacy.plansponsor.com/uploadfiles/...hamdivorces.pdf

IMHO, the corrected DOB produces an experience loss, at 1/1/2010. No impact on 2009. No impact on 2009 AFTAP and/or distributions. If the sponsor does not want any restrictions to apply at 4/1/2010, a 2010 AFTAP prior to the date is needed, which would seem to require an accrued contribution at 12/31/2009, assuming the hypothetical actuary has sufficient time to certify an AFTAP prior to April 1. Or have I misread something?

Amen. Thanks again to Dave Baker for this wonderful resource.

1. What does the plan say? 2. Whether this is an operational issue or a plan provision, it must be administered in a non-discriminatory manner.

Just an opinion, without any significant cross-checking: The reference to "benefit increases" in IRC 404(o)(4)(A) is intended to refer to any plan amendment that increases the Funding Target for HCEs, regardless of the specific characteristics of the amendment. Sure, (a) it's not a cogent argument, and (b) it's not arguing in your favor. Sorry.

I've heard that another sign of decline is ending sentences in prepositions.

Just a non-attorney guess: focus first on why the adjustment is being made. If (for example) the retro adjustment is made due to court order or other regulatory authority, there is probably a written document describing it. A "make whole" intention may go beyond the pay itself and cover other forms of compensation. Different answers to the "why" question might lead to different results.

Below Ground is onto something very important. There are probalby many variations of this around: Possibly, "always followed by a dicatorship" is hyperbole, but the risk of collapse is real.

Also good advice.

I'm w/ jpod here. It appears ("stock purchase") that Company A bought Company B "lock stock and barrell". If so, then the buy/sell agreement need not mention any plans, because B remains the sponsor of its plan(s), but now B is a subsidiary (or something similar) of A. If this is an accurate summary, A has no ability to "not accept" Plan B. A is (probably) now a fiduciary of the Plan B. Stated another way: Plan B has not changed, but Company B now has a parent company. Yes, they have the option of merging plans, but careful review by competent advisor(s) is warranted. (Just guessing: did any lawyer look at this in advance?)

I vote for November 09 minimum present value segment rates for a plan year beginning in 2010. http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=177406,00.html

If A purchased B, probably yes, and "not accepting" the plan is not an option. First, this requires a careful review of the buy/sell agreement.