david rigby

Sorry, no further details are available. Or, in the words of Harlan Weller, "I couldn't say."

1.5! Wow. My experience is in the 1.0 range, and that was overpriced.

Are you suggesting those tasks are less wasteful than reading SARs?

The simple approach is to ask what is the unfunded current liability under IRC 412.

If experience is valid, it is worth only about 60%-75% of what the seller thinks it is.

Probably not wise to assume that "incarcerated" is equivalent to "lost" or "missing". Several other discussion threads on this topic. Try the Search feature, perhaps using keyword of "missing participant" or similar.

Possibly the DOL?

No specifics on the identity of the party(ies). However, the context of the rumor was "Asia".

That seems appropriate. Know any ERISA attorneys?

01/31/2006 MOODY'S DAILY LONG-TERM CORPORATE BOND YIELD AVERAGES Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA* 5.39 5.39 Aa 5.59 5.50 5.55 A 5.84 5.92 5.88 Baa 6.15 6.46 6.31 Avg 5.86 5.82 5.84 MOODY'S DAILY TREASURY YIELD AVERAGES Short-Term (3-5 yrs): 4.48 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs): 4.53 Long-Term (10+ yrs): 4.71 MOODY'S DAILY PUBLIC UTILITY COMMON STOCK YIELD AVERAGES Price: 293.0 Yield: 3.69 New Dividend: 10.81

The principle s/b straightforward: you cannot get out of T-H requirements just because someone had a QDRO.

Anyone hear anything about a major firm outsourcing some/most of its actuarial work?

8. Waste time. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=31342&hl=

Any other plans?

For whom? Do buyer and seller want the same outcome? Need more facts.

See law (passed and signed I think) in December. Title was something like "Deficit Reduction Act of 2005". http://thomas.loc.gov/

If there are new facts, or new understanding of old facts, why not just re-submit the request? Might be more efficient than looking for other similar cases.

Remind me not to apply for a job there, or do business with that company.

Not sure it is that simple. I believe CB plans still had to be amended to comply. See original ERISA Sec. 211, especially subsection ©.

Some may say that you cannot merge a DC plan into a DB plan (or vice versa). I believe that is a misreading of IRC 414. However, it does appear that to do so, you must first treat the disappearing plan as if it were being terminated (and my statement may be an oversimplification). Thus, you have to vest the participant. If there is also a forfeiture account waiting for allocation, then allocate it . On a practical level, with only one affected participant, it seems the sponsor would gladly opt for the simplest approach. Other comments?

For most plans, the effective date was the first day of the plan year, beginning in 1976. But maybe you knew that. My career began in 1977, and I recall many plans without final documents then, perhaps as late as 1979. That is the best I recall.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=31235&hl=

I think the regs address this issue. Did you check? I believe the short answer is that the "lookback" period should always include 12 months, but of course you should review the regulation for exact applicability. BTW, what does this have to do with "top heavy"?

What information? Be specific.

http://benefitslink.com/IRS/notice2006-8.pdf