david rigby

Data as of 11/30/2016 (Wednesday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.01 4.01 Aa 4.06 4.07 4.07 A 4.22 4.26 4.24 Baa 4.77 4.86 4.82 Avg 4.35 4.30 4.33 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.66 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.17 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.84

Consistency in administrative practices is a good practice. If the proposed change would benefit NHCEs, that might be a good argument in favor of a change.

Please see private message sent to Plan4Retirement.

You posted this in the message forum titled, "Retirement Plans in General". Let's be clear, is this related to a retirement plan of any type? (If you want this discussion moved to another forum, any of the Moderators can move it for you.)

Hey Austin, maybe your scenario would be of interest to Derrin Watson for his Q&A column.

"...5 years of participation..."? Is that the precise language in the document?

While it might be good administrative policy to encourage actives to commence benefit payment at NRA, I think you cannot force the distribution for anyone whose benefit value exceeds $5,000.

Just so we understand the orginal post, what exactly is meant by "...a 12,000 AB at age 55..."? Specifically, is it an early retirement benefit payable assuming actual DOR = 55? Benefit earned thru age 55, but payable at a later NRA? Something else?

If the distribution form(s) (ie, the form already sent to participant) discloses the IRA, then you (probably) don't have to give participant any additional notice. But if the distrib. form does not mention the IRA default, additional communication might be advisable (even if not required). There might be value in doing so, because it may spur the participant to action.

If the sponsor does not want to change to daily valuation, ask if they want to change to quarterly. If so, then make sure you can get whatever information you need on that basis. Not a perfect solution, but it avoids the pitfalls of a "special valuation".

Can your amendment that awards 100% vesting refer to those who were participants on June 30?

Eat more chicken!

Caution. If the owners are "splitting up" with some negative attitudes, some of the employees might reflect those negative attitudes. - If each owner expects to "take half of the existing employees", don't overlook that the employees also have the ability to say No. - If the owners expect a particular employee to work for owner A, that employee might decide to work for owner B. - The "spinoff" mentioned above might anticipate a particular split of employees, but that might not reflect actual results.

A few pithy sayings to remember: - Price is what you pay. Value is what you get. - If you really do put a small value upon yourself, rest assured that the world will not raise your price. - Your clients will remember your quality of service long after they have forgotten your price. - Low Price, Prompt Service, High Quality. Pick 2 because you can’t have all three.

Data as of 10/31/2016 (Monday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.61 3.61 Aa 3.65 3.74 3.70 A 3.83 3.89 3.86 Baa 4.38 4.51 4.45 Avg 3.95 3.94 3.95 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.17 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.57 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.34

If a partial termination, those A participants should get vested anyway. Is this relevant to your situation?

One thing the attorney will probably do is ask if the QDRO was ever delivered and/or acknowledged by the plan sponsor. Just saying it "was written" is insufficient. That's important because the sponsor cannot be accountable for following an order it never received.

Yeah, that happened to me, sort of.

After further reading and thought, I agree with AndyH. In particular: - SFAS88, paragraph 11, uses the phrase "...for the plan for the year..." - ASC715-30-35-82 uses the phrase "...for the pension plan for the year..." Done.

Be careful to check whether this has happened at some earlier date.

This might be old news to some; I've never seen it before. Sponsor has more than one DB plan, and is planning to offer a VT window in both plans. Is the Settlement threshold (service cost + interest cost) based on (a) the sum of all plans, or (b) per-plan basis? I can see an argument in favor of (a) or (b). Anyone with experience on point?

Some prior discussions might be worth reading. For example: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/56356-death-benefit-payable-to-child http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/42833-minor-beneficiary

See Tom's spreadsheet at Post #4 in this discussion thread: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/59532-new-limits/ Also, read Post #9.

This seems to be of little significance. jpod's advice is on target: Since these dates are "ancient", it's difficult to verify which is correct. Don't change anything until you have confirmed which is the correct date.

... and some (like myself) who may provide a wealth of non-useful information.