david rigby

In general, ERISA definitions of vesting and vesting service focus on the employment relationship, not the plan relationship. I believe vesting service cannot be frozen.

Voting has nothing to do with this. See ERISA sec. 202, DOL reg. 2530.202.

Comments from Q and Tom are good. But two points: - you don't have to receive the SPD just because you were employed, but must receive it when you become a participant, which is based on the terms of the plan; - Tom's answer is an attempt to explain how a defined contribution (DC) plan works, but it has not been established that this is a DC plan. Check the SPD. (There might be 2 plans, not one, in which case there should be 2 SPDs.)

Not at all. I'm saying the problem (if there is one) can only get worse. Don't let it.

I tend to use "experience", especially in the context of "experience gain/loss". I never use "actuarial gain/loss".

Is someone waiting for an answer? Give the notice to the VTs!

I think this is a plot by Tom to distract us, so we won't pay attention to our clients, and he can steal them.

I agree with Andy.

Perhaps I do not understand the Q. R U stating that the 5500, including Schedule H, was filed for 2004 without an audit report? How was line 3 of the Schedule H completed?

If "firms" means financial institutions, BB&T will establish automatic rollovers. Whether from a DC or DB plan is not relevant. Email me and I can provide some details.

For plan years beginning in 04 and 05, the rate for 404 unfunded CL has a separate range from the rate for the 412 UCL. They can be chosen independently, as documented in previous discussion threads, anywhere within the applicable range for each. If you have not filed the Schedule B, you have not "chosen" the rate. However, the Schedule B has nothing to do with IRC 404; revise your 404 CL if necessary, document your files and your communication to the plan sponsor.

Here's a thought. Talk to the plan sponsor! Perhaps the sponsor is not aware it may be (is?) in violation of anything, and would appreciate the information.

May 31, 2006 MOODY'S DAILY LONG-TERM CORPORATE BOND YIELD AVERAGES Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA* 5.95 5.95 Aa 6.21 6.11 6.16 A 6.43 6.39 6.41 Baa 6.62 6.94 6.78 Avg 6.42 6.35 6.39 MOODY'S DAILY TREASURY YIELD AVERAGES Short-Term (3-5 yrs): 5.00 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs): 5.09 Long-Term (10+ yrs): 5.32 MOODY'S DAILY PUBLIC UTILITY COMMON STOCK YIELD AVERAGES Price: 278.4 Yield: 3.79 New Dividend: 10.56

Theoretically, every buy/sell agreement is unique, but normally, a stock purchase means the sponsoring company will have a new parent company. It does not automatically change the sponsor, but it would alter the controlled group. Thus, there is no requirement to terminate, unless the parties have agreed to it beforehand. And there is no requirement to fully distribute; since making full distributions may take some time, such provision may delay the actual sale by an unknown time. Numerous other alternatives exist, such as a spinoff immediately before the sale, and probably many others that would require legal advice. Oh, they all require that!

And make sure you get the proper legal advice on how to accomplish this.

... and don't assume (here or otherwise) that actuary = TPA. BTW, does the service agreement between the TPA and the plan administrator address this possibility?

I second everything Andy said. BTW, here is one of the more "passionate" discussion threads: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=31437

There might be reasons to suggest a plan termination, but I can think of several reasons to argue against it. Just because another vendor is suggesting one thing is no reason to suggest the opposite. Perhaps you can offer advice to the prospect that will meet their needs.

I agree with mjb. Don't put "transfer" and "termination" in the same sentence. The sponsor should first determine what it wants to accomplish, before deciding on the mechanism. (BTW, if the plan is terminated, purchasing a group annuity may not be available under the terms of the plan document.)

Several other discussion threads on this topic, including links that may be helpful, and comments on the topic of ERISA preemption. Try the Search feature. For example, http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=31537

Ditto.

I'm shocked! Shocked!

Steve C is correct. The existence of OBRA FFC did not eliminate bases. IMHO, Q&A 94-7 is correct and sufficient.

This is not evidence of discrimination. It is evidence of rounding. Has rounding been consistent year-to-year?

I can't say it better than Gray Book 94-7: Disposition of Reconciliation Account Balance - 412 Can any of the components comprising the Schedule B Reconciliation account ever be eliminated and, if so, under what circumstances? For example, if a plan becomes fully funded for Current Liabilities, can the accumulated additional funding charges due to section 412(l) (Schedule B item 9(p)(i)) be transferred to the plan's credit balance? Similarly, can any or all of the Reconciliation account be eliminated or transferred to the credit balance when the 412©(7) full funding limit applies? RESPONSE: The reconciliation account should be eliminated only when the ERISA full funding limit applies and there is a full funding credit. In no event should the reconciliation account be added to the credit balance. Copyright © 1994, Enrolled Actuaries Meeting All rights reserved by Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. Permission is granted to print or otherwise reproduce a limited number of copies of the material on the diskette for personal, internal, classroom, or other instructional use, on the condition that the foregoing copyright notice is used so as to give reasonable notice of the copyright of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. This consent for free limited copying without prior consent of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting does not extend to making copies for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for inclusion in new collective works, or for sale or resale.