david rigby

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.

Possibly something at the BLS or EBSA? http://www.bls.gov/crp/ http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2016/benefits_retirement.htm https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/researchers/statistics/retirement-bulletins/private-pension-plan Center for Retirement Research (Boston College) http://crr.bc.edu// Pension Research Council http://www.pensionresearchcouncil.org/ Pension Rights Center http://www.pensionrights.org/ Let us know if you find something worth sharing.

Minor caution: It can be a payroll system issue. A payroll system should include test(s) to make sure only those eligible for catch-up exceed the 401k limit, and also include the appropriate total (k-limit + catch-up limit). But otherwise, what rcline46 said.

Agreed, that is interesting. Likely, there is some practicality behind the reasoning, or some lobbying. Nevertheless, it seems to be overkill to worry about "appointment" vs. "termination", etc. Hakuna Matata.

...because it's eligible for rollover.

Peter's Q is illustrating a point about "termination" of the service provider. While his hypothetical situation is not the usual understanding of that phrase, IMHO that section of Schedule C should not be omitted when there is only a one-year service agreement. Note this sentence in the instructions: "Include a description of any material disputes or matters of disagreement concerning the termination, even if resolved prior to the termination." Thus, the point of this item on the Schedule C is not to identify the service provider, but to identify problems or disagreements between the service provider and the plan sponsor. The timing, as described by My2Cents, seems appropriate.

IMHO, your premise (plan termination) is not one of the conditions being addressed by the Notice. See, for example, the fifth paragraph of the Background section. Then notice the first sentence of the next paragraph, which appears to be concerned with an ongoing plan. Therefore, your lump sum payout on plan termination is not affected by this Notice. But, if I've read it wrong, please let me know.

Data as of 09/30/2016 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.44 3.44 Aa 3.46 3.51 3.49 A 3.64 3.68 3.66 Baa 4.26 4.31 4.29 Avg 3.79 3.74 3.77 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.03 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.38 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.10

Just my opinion, but that question sounds like part of your service agreement.

Lots of variations. For example, the average age of the population affects this sensitivity, as well as the relative amounts of liability at each age. (Some plans have no retirees, some plans have many.) The expected asset return may be part of your analysis, but it varies based on how the assets are invested, and does not affect the plan liability (usually).

Is the claim (in the original post) supported by the SSA instructions? Perhaps whoever is making this "you don't have to file" statement is willing to supply his/her reasoning and/or cite(s).

Certain only? Possible, but unusual. Is this a qualified plan?