david rigby

Prior discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=27281&hl=

Actuarial Value of Assets. That is, some technique to "smooth" asset fluctuations.

And the other wrinkle is the possible use of an AVA.

What is meant by this?

The NFL? Who cares?

I don't know what this means. At any rate, I have doubts about 7%. Probably an annuity is not the best vehicle for this. Imagine that.

Here is one prior discussion thread: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=20870 There may be others.

Hold on here. What do you want? What are you trying to accomplish? What he is selling may or may not be good, safe, etc. But, the first thing is to get a handle on what you are doing or planning. Many factors involved, such as - are investing for long-term? - is this retirement income? - your age? - your other resources? income? - dependents? - your general health (for example, if you are 65 and expect to live to 85, that might differ from an expectation to live to 75) - would this particular investment increase or diminish your diversification? - is this an individual investment or part of a company plan?

No you weren't.

Gentlemen, Perhaps we can cease the dart-throwing and negative comments, and get back to productive discourse. Thanks. For joeyd, several previous comments should be useful to you. IMHO, the most important is that you should engage the services of an experienced retirement consultant to assist in your plan design. Important facts (in no particular order) will include items such as - C corp or S corp? - what type of benefit do you want to provide? - what level of benefit do you want to provide? - what employees do you want to cover? - what level of funding can you expect (short-term and long-term are both important and may have different answers)? IMHO, when you engage an expert consultant, you may or may not decide to exclude individuals who already have a "preference", that is your choice. But, if you listen to such an expert, be sure to listen to some other experts before you make a decision. After you get some of this advice, then you may choose to come back to these Boards to bounce those ideas off the larger community. Most of us like responding to such inquiries (it is difficult to do so without some framework first).

I think this is another "stealth" ad.

Agree. But watch out for lax administration. For example, suppose the retiree remarries and then dies 10 years later. To those administering the plan, the (new) widow is "the spouse", and they may not realize the first wife is the one (and only) surviving spouse for the J&S benefit.

You can see IRS Pub.560 here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p560.pdf, or call to have a copy mailed to you. You can also find resources here: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/consumer_info_pension.html The link in post above by wmyer appears to ignore defined benefit plans as an alternative. Depending on the factors mentioned above (ages, compensation, etc.), a DB plan could be a valid consideration. Don’t be scared off by those who say they are dinosaurs; DB plans have advantages that can be significant in certain situations, but may not be cost effective for all employers.

You can also find the SOA Table Manager here: http://library.soa.org:8080/xtbml/jsp/index.jsp The UP-84 Table is labeled as table number 831, and titled “1984 US UP, Male & Female”. Read the Comments carefully.

Agree.

That's not what I meant, but you can think whatever you want.

vebaguru is right on some points, including the post above. But my reason is not listed: competition.

You might find value here: http://benefitslink.com/modperl/qa.cgi?db=qa_who_is_employer Note especially the link "view Q&As by topic".

What is the prize? and why did I win? I'm not sure about AndyH's "as good a guess as any", but I agree that there is not enough information here (that is, on this discussion thread) to entirely evaluate the proper value of the Alternate Payee's portion. Likely, to determine the participant's portion, it will be whatever's left after you have determined the A.P. portion, so be sure the DRO gives adequate definition.

And hold your breath.

Anyone?

Well, perhaps. It might be hasty to put all of this in one basket. Always start with a careful review of what the QDRO is awarding.

South Carolina?

That is one way, and probably the most common, so I endorse it. Make sure you focus first on what the QDRO really defines. But don't be too quick to blame the QDRO or the attorney(s) for any confusion. If it is like virtually all QDROs I have seen, it will contain "boilerplate" language that the QDRO is not requiring the plan to pay more in total benefits. I'll bet it is similar to the actual language of the statute. There is a pretty good chance such language is also in your plan document.

http://benefitslink.com/software.html BTW, some of us don't discuss what software we use, for various reasons.