david rigby

Perhaps Newkirk. http://www.newkirk.com/home2.htm

The only thing I ever found on this was at http://www.wealthadvisors.bigstep.com (but it might not be there anymore). You also might try a search of these Message Boards.

Wait a minute. Did you really mean you worked for company A for 64 years? Perhaps that was 1993 to 1997?

Try the Table Manager at the Society of Actuaries site: http://www.soa.org/tablemgr/tablemgr.asp If you know actuarial mathematics, you can construct just about any table from this data. The tables listed here will almost always be rates of death. Any actuary can "build" whatever table is needed from that information. If you have any trouble determining which is the table you need, just post. For example, read the qxtables.txt file, and you will see that there is more than one 1983 table.

I agree with Kirk. A plain reading of ERISA sec. 514 would lead one to believe that the state law has no jurisdiction over what the plan sends out. However, it still might be a good idea, just not enforceable under state law.

"Interim valuation"? I wonder what that is, and if it is permitted by the plan. I agree with Mike Preston's comment about "thin ice."

Different issues. The "profit-sharing" and "401(k)" terms refer to how (and why) money gets into the plan. Whether the participants have ability to direct the investments is related to what happens to the money after it gets into the plan.

I'm looking for some guidance on whether there are any restrictions on buying stocks on margin, - within a profit-sharing plan? - within a 401(k) plan? - within an IRA? Specific reasoning and/or cites would be appreciated. Thanks.

Link to Index of Q&As as mentioned by KJohnson. http://www.benefitslink.com/qa_columns/pla...cts/index.shtml

Not to be too picky, RCK has the correct Q&A, but it is in 1.401(a)-20. Note (because I have seen this mistake) that it is the "plan representative" making this determination. Not appropriate to have the "notary" involved.

I wonder how the plan assets performed in the same time period.

Don't know if it is up to date, but here is a page from CIGNA: http://www.cigna.com/professional/pdf/CPA_iidw0201.PDF This link can take you to each state's revenue department: http://www.sisterstates.com/

Let's be careful about the original post. It implied that disqualification means all asset would be distributed. Maybe. Depends on the terms of the plan. Another caution is timing. The question might be refering to a new plan. Most new plans contain language that states its existence is contingent upon attaining initial qualified status. If such qualification is denied (rather than a disqualification), then the plan provisions will probably dictate what to do, such as "reverse" all payments made to the trust.

Top heavy regs. 1.416 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html Not sure from the original post if someone is defining officer by reference to the compensation. In Q&A T-12, it points out that you consider officers if the comp exceeds a certain limit. But also see Q&A T-13, which points out that an officer is not determined by title.

Thanks MGB for the unrounded amounts. Of course, all of those amounts will round to $11,000, which is the point.

Having the ER hold onto the certificate sounds like a bad idea. Has ER sent certified/registered letter to EE requesting contact? Try some friendly leverage.

...but don't forget to also save some for short term needs. Outside the IRA.

I may not be eloquent, but I'll defend the SOA, an organization whose purpose is education not lobbying. I am proud of my SOA membership, and proudly advocate a strong educational program for all actuaries, no matter what specialty they may choose. Some, but not all actuaries (yes even in the pension arena), use their strong background in mathematics and statistics on a regular basis. Just because some actuaries don't, or don't want to, does not advocate in favor of lowering the educational standards for the profession. Actuaries must maintain high standards in this area precisely because the number of our members is so low (at least as compared to other professions). Due to much of this strong background, many of us believe that we are uniquely qualified for certain types of tasks and assignments. I don't want to lose that.

I look forward to reading the article, when you post a link. Most readers of these Boards consider the Boards to be a very important information sharing vehicle. And we are glad to provide help. All we ask is balanced reporting and accurate quoting. Not stated, but if you desire additional input from (or about) certain readers, click on "profile" to send an email.

Jon, if available, can you provide links to these opinion letters? Thanks.

Disagree. I think the language of ERISA section 204(h) is plain, and its applicability to a money purchase plan is also plain. I don't see any difference whether MP plan is "converted" or "merged". I see no relevance about HCE's either. However, I'm curious about your phrase "...all contribute the maximum to the MP...". What does this mean?

There has NEVER been an actuarial exam that adequately covers the material on the syllabus. (This is not a bad thing, just a fact.) The only way to do so would be to increase both the number of questions and the exam time.

Also, note that many of the public statements made by the plaintiff's attorney use the flammatory word "kickback". Not really accurate, but it is a word that gather attention and emotion.

Browse around. Try some search engines. Try newpapers where a story might appear. http://www.investmentnews.com/ http://www.pionline.com/ http://www.ctnow.com/

I was given an article from the January 7, 2002 issue of Investment News. Suit has been filed in federal court in Hartford Conn.