david rigby

Another option might be for the former spouse to inquire (of her attorney) why the DRO was never qualified (or even attempted) as a QDRO. Possible mal-practice against the attorney? This inaction is not the fault of the plan or the second spouse.

The goal is accomplished by selection of a retroactive effective date for the plan amendment. Theoretically, there could be a concern under the 401(a)(4) regs.

Nothing wrong with this technique. It may be because the HCE (ususally only one) is already over or close to the 401(a)(17) limit, in which case the salary scale is almost meaningless, espcially when the HCE represents most of the liability.

Don't hold your breath. BTW, why notify attorney? Has the (now terminated) participant told you to send all correspondence to attorney? Why is anyone tolerating this broker's behavior? Why is not the broker already gone? Is anyone planning to inform the "powers that be" of the inappropriate behavior of the broker? Broker has a license, doesn't he?

This from DOL, and also look at its references to staff report from the SEC. http://benefitslink.com/DOL/pensionconsultants.pdf

Perhaps you miss his sarcasm.

May 31, 2005 MOODY'S DAILY LONG-TERM CORPORATE BOND YIELD AVERAGES Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA* 5.02 5.02 Aa 5.25 5.05 5.15 A 5.41 5.32 5.37 Baa 5.75 6.05 5.90 Avg 5.47 5.36 5.42 MOODY'S DAILY TREASURY YIELD AVERAGES Short-Term (3-5 yrs): 3.66 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs): 3.88 Long-Term (10+ yrs): 4.32 MOODY'S DAILY PUBLIC UTILITY COMMON STOCK YIELD AVERAGES Price: 267.1 Yield: 3.78 New Dividend: 10.10

You may also Search these Message Boards.

Only a little more discreet? Perhaps you should edit your message and remove the details. And it appears your client needs legal advice, where such specifics will be unavailable here.

Is this a distributable event under the terms of the plan? Likely not. But another point might be can the employer unilaterally eliminate this class from (active participation in) the plan? Must examine the plan provisions, and the ER should probably discuss with legal counsel.

Does this help? http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_cobra.html

Treasury News Release: http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/js2471.htm Also see page 41 of the earlier link to the proposed regs on IRS website.

I state the obvious. Review the PBGC website (www.pbgc.gov), especially for its own statements that may be related to your topic. Also, review statements on "pension reform" from the American Academy of Actuaries; http://www.actuary.org/pension.htm. You can also use the Search feature (see upper right) of these Message Boards for some viewpoints (although most such postings are related to administrative details). For example, this contains a synopsis of mine: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=22341

Correct, but it assumes a fact not in evidence. And the possible distribution at NRA while still employed (if permitted by the plan) can also be a problem.

In addition, if the plan permits inservice distribution at NRA, changing from 60 to 65 would be an impermissible cutback of a retirement option, at least with respect to the accrued benefit.

Perhaps I don't understand your phrasing. Are you creating a new SERP? And does the qualified DB plan already exist? Do the SERP participants already participate in the DB plan? Do you want the SERP to be a vehicle to "make-up" for the 401(a)(17) limit? Or perhaps it already does that and you want it to do something different?

Perhaps someone wants to take advantage of the "catch-up" provisions. If the PS contribution is expected to remain at the 15% level, then a plan with deferral will not be later amended to add a match, unless it is a safe-harbor (if they can afford 15% PS, then the safe harbor match will be part of that).

From the phrasing of the Q, it appears this is a DB plan. Correct? In general, anti-cutback rules apply to participants and to the benefit accrued as of the plan amendment's effective date. The NRD can be changed for anyone who enters the plan after the amendment is adopted. It cannot be changed w/r/t any benefits already accrued.

Probably this originates from the unhappy circumstance of a deferral only plan that becomes top-heavy. In 25+ years in this business, I have seen only one top-heavy plan which had more than 75 participants. The larger the plan, the less likely TH is. How does this plan fit with that comparison? (OK, it is not proof of anything, just experience over many years. The TH issue may be irrelevant.)

Need more info. In what context is it "significant"? Why were participants "missed"?

Here is your problem.

Funky, no. Idiotic, yes. What happens if the "separate party" decides not to sell for $1? But that won't happen. Ah, now we see that the separate party is not really separate after all.

April 29, 2005 (Friday) MOODY'S DAILY LONG-TERM CORPORATE BOND YIELD AVERAGES Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA* 5.21 5.21 Aa 5.43 5.18 5.31 A 5.54 5.44 5.49 Baa 5.86 6.07 5.97 Avg 5.61 5.48 5.55 MOODY'S DAILY TREASURY YIELD AVERAGES Short-Term (3-5 yrs): 3.78 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs): 4.07 Long-Term (10+ yrs): 4.53 MOODY'S DAILY PUBLIC UTILITY COMMON STOCK YIELD AVERAGES Price: 269.6 Yield: 3.76 New Dividend: 10.14

Hmmm. Might the document be open to interpretation on whether or not there is a "true-up"?

Most plan documents (and administrative procedures) would not require an additional election. (Many plans base deductions on a percent.)