GBurns

Since this is a single employer single participant episode, it probably is not so bad. But what if it was not? do-it-yourself might be good for the rare person but for the majority it leads to future problems. This Thread is an example of such problems. If a competent advisor had been used there most likely would have been no need for the thread, nor would there have been any filing penalties due etc. Even in this simple case the penalties might outwiegh the cost of the advisor. What would have been the case if there were larger plans involved or there was already an audit in progress?

Saying thank you does not sufficiently convey my appreciation for this info. Please read my apology on the other Thread.

Joel, Let me here make a public apology for having dumped on you. I should not have done so, not only because it was of no real consequence that you used multiple names, but also this was neither the place nor time. George

Back in the 1980's, possibly early 1990s, there was a lawsuit by college professors against CREF over the restrictions that were placed on invested funds. Does any one remember the case and can any give me a cite etc?

"In my view no-load includes no surrender charges" ?? Are you now setting standards and definitions? "Most observers still consider TIAA-CREF to be a no-load provider " It does not matter what anyone thinks, the facts and TIAA speak for themselves. No load can have surrender charges. No sales load does not mean no surrender charge. So says TIAA, your selected provider, and nothing you or any observer think can change the fact that at least 1 current no load from TIAA does have a surrender charge. In the past there were many more, but that is beside the point. The issue is closed since TIAA says that they do have a no load with surrender charge. mbozek, To which LS or to which post are you referring?

No insult was meant, but I was pointing out your questionable practice of using multiple names within the same thread, giving the appearance that of more opinions. That I find insulting, as a reader and poster to this Forum. What were you trying to do? Get more support for your own self? Populate the Forum? It is as near to schizophrenia as you can get to argue with or hold a detailed conversation with yourself. The surrender charges have to do with the Traditional Annuity contract it has to do with their Group Retirement Annuities of which the Traditional is 1. The reference to Group Retirement Annuities is even in bold print on the link. There are other pages within their website that give further information, but are not needed for this discussion. ALL that is needed was that link to show that regardlwess of what you say and think TIAA-CREF itself states that they do have products that have surrender charges. These products are no load products. Only 1 example is needed to show that using your selected provider, a no load investment can have a surrender charge. Do you yet get it? TIAA-CREF itself says that at least 1 of their no load products has a surrender charge so no load does not mean no surrender charge.

How true. I really had a difficult time keeping away from the overall picture and focusing on the buzzwords. I am still astonished at what people buy and why. I am not saying that anything is wrong with 412(i) plans, just the sales pitch and buying logic. It reminds me of those who save money because they bought on sale something that they did not want and cannot use, But it was on sale, "I got 50% off".

I was not aware that anyone was thinking of anything that was to be "temporarily operated outside of the written terms of the plan ". The posts were all regarding something permanent.

Doesn't your answer to ircreader depend on what he means by QSERP? If the DB scenario that you illustrate is not a safe harbor, would it retain its qualification with what you outlined? As Richard pointed out in a previous thread what you are proposing is "tricky" testing, will not work for many groups and is not for the faint of heart. There have been changes since Richard's thread way back in 2000 in particular the IRS attack on split dollar, COLI, tax shelters and executive compensation issues. Now this law change. It would be prudent to expect more in the same direction. pax, You are correct that in that scenario There is not yet a "distribution event", but does it matter that it is only deferred in time? However, could the IRS view such a "contribution" by the employer as a distribution or constructive receipt? Could it be viewed as an impermissable contribution or accrual?

Joel, Peace and Hope, pinstripes and any other names that I have missed, Do I sense schizephrenia? Rather than reply to each of your alter egos, I will make 1 reply for simplicity. Yes, the TRS itself is not a 403(b) but a 401(a) defined benefit plan. The issues of whether we are talking about ORP or TRS or something else was addressed by WDIK and my response to WDIK. We really do not know what ACollins has/had and there has been no further information. So like may threads we discuss the post in general terms and very often segue to something from a responder. No one said surrender charges were based on age although is very many annuities that is so. TIAA-CREF uses a limited number of products in this area, a major product is their GRA. The GRA has a surrender charge. As per their website: http://www.tiaa-cref.org/administrators/em.../term_with.html As per TIAA-CREF if you do not take the money in 120 days and pay the 2.5% you can only take it out over the extended option which is usually FIVE (5) to NINE (9) Years. So being no-load does not mean no surrender charge. No surrender charge does not mean that there is no penalty. Being no-load since 1918 means nothing and if the Association of American Professors (or whatever the proper name is) had not sued successfully, participants would not have been able to cash out or even transfer or rollover. Having your money locked away from you until you reach retirement age is worse than any surrender charge. As per the lawsuit lack of access and reduced earnings were just as bad and even worse than a 100% surrender charge. In any case you still have not shown where no load out performs load. In fact 1 of your posts showed that load did not affect performance. But as usual you never have any supporting facts.

You might want to run your question through www.changeofstatus.com and while there look at the examples provided in the Treas Regs etc.

Are you implying that Plans that needed changes made no changes in writing for GUST amendments?

AndyH Therein lies the problem. The Wyatt description is fairly similar to the PwC description but the Wyatt plan is freely avialable but the PwC that MGB refers to is proprietary. Notice that Wyatt does not mention "copyright". So not knowing for sure what animal we would be talking about I asked ircreader (in the 1st reply), What do you regard as QSERPs? No reply so far. I guess we will have to wait and see what the IRS says about the issue.

If elections, loans, transfers, distributions and almost everything else has to be in the PD etc and the plan has to be operated according to its PD, Why would automatic rollovers not be treated like everything else and be required to be in writing? In any case, How would you amend anything without there being writing? How would you explain the amendment to plan participants and plan administrators? How would you provide proof of amendment in an audit? Since you could not do any of these verbally, it seems that the amendment must be in writing.

If "The net effect is to move nonqualified SERP benefits into the qualified plan" then without even bothering to have to rationalize any substance over form issues, there a distribution event from a SERP. Therefore I cannot see why it would be exempted from the new law. As you describe it I cannot agree that "is not accrued over time under a formula" There is a formula, namely "A regular, qualified plan (usually at a large organization) runs a 401(a)(4) discrimination test. The outcome of that test will show how much more the HCEs could accrue without violating the test. The outcome of that test will show how much more the HCEs could accrue without violating the test". Whether it is done every year or ad hoc should not matter.

Well, isn't it his bill and his FSA account ? Unless your PD says otherwise why not? Didn't you issue a paycheck etc after he died? So why not an FSA check?

The contribution "charge" applies to all employees with similar situations. The employer could also deny such coverage or make the spouse's employer's coverage be primary, which would have the same effect.

Joel, Read the posts again. ACollins gave the parameters, he/she stated what he/she was facing not what could or might have been. He/she already has something and it is not TIAA-CREF. He/she does not have TIAA-CREF so TIAA-CREF has no relevance. By the way, Which TIAA-CREF product that would have been available to ACollins in a Texas TRS or ORP that would have no surrender charge under age 59 1/2 ?

That is not the topic. You were the person advocating no-load without giving any reasons. All you have been asked is to give reasoning in the form of facts. Stop trying your usual tactic of changing the subject whenever you cannot support your statements.

Then you have a potential problem for the Board of Trustees and the D&O insurance carrier if this is reported by the affected employee. Unfortunately, I do not think that is suits any current employee to complain about the President of any org, the Board would never listen. So if you are not the affected employee (and who wants to keep their job) forget about it. Or make an anonymous report to the federal Dept Of Labor's division that enforces HIPAA compliance and civil rights violations.

As you do quite often you take things out of context without even using it to prove a point. I take the viewpoint that no item (no-load, load, high commission annuity, low commission annuity etc) is better than than another item just because of the load, no-load or commission. Each product must be looked at on its own merits and not be blindly dumped because it does not fit someone's niche. If load is not an indicator of performance then load (or lack) is not a primary issue and should not be used to exclude an item from being considered. It does not matter what you pay, it only matters what you get. Investment performance is determined by return not acquisition cost.

Does the Welfare Fund have its own FEIN etc? Does it have separate Trustess and mamangement etc? If it does not, then it would not be a separate entity. If it is a separate entity then you could consider CG, ASG or co-sponsor issues.

Instead of answering the question you posted "Over the years many studies have shown that paying a commission to ACQUIRE an investment has nothing to do with investment performance". THAT is exactly the point, the commision (or no load) has no relevance to the performance. So you have shown that no load makes no difference. Re the article. It is a self serving article and only promotes the very limited experience of 1 individual who has a bias. It serves no purpose in this discussion. Is there anything that shows that the advice of a fee-only advisor leads to better investment performance? I bet not.

Definitely NO. This supervisor should be disciplined severely. If this supervisor treats such info in this manner, I can only shudder at what else might have been told to others. If this company places any value on its proprietary material and processes or has trade secrtes that it wishes to protect, it runs a great risk keeping this supervisor. Keeping this Supervisor also would be setting a bad example and establishing a precedent that could create a problem in the future when the company might have to try to either discipline an employee or seek legal protection for its trade secrets etc. HIPAA aside, there is much more at stake.

While it is still not clear what ircreader means by QSERP, the many articles address NQDC in general including SERPs. Unless QSERP is being used to mean 401(k), DB and DC pension plans etc, the articles are applicable. Since ircreader has not responded, What do you think was meant? Many of the articles are available by scrolling back through Benefits Buzz over the last few weeks. Here a few: http://www.mwe.com/info/news/wp1004a.pdf http://www.vonbriesen.com/resourcelibrary/...ation_plans.pdf http://www.kilpatrickstockton.com/publicat...ert10.18.04.pdf