Erik Read

I went through this exact situation a few years back. The SP passed unexpectedly, leaving the business and employees high and dry. To further complicate the issue, his wife had passed just weeks before he. The net result was, we found a distant relative, and went through legal council to have a court appoint the relative as successor trustee since the relative was the only living person able to administer the estate. The plan had basically become a part of the estate, and would have eventually reverted to the State, if no heir was found. Good luck.

How much do you want to spend? Best I've seen for daily recordkeeping with the NSCC is OmniPlus or OmniPlan - both similar to Trustmark and Quantech in the way they operate - however they are very $$$. Quantech - has it's pro's and con's - so does Trustmark(now Schwab RT systems - not sure you want the name Schwab on software in your shop). Complex calculations - I'd look at the ease of being able to "make" the software match numbers that your actuary may come up with. That's one thing I think get's over looked. Most products use different algorithms to calculate benefits, being able to make your software match someone's actual computation is a big plus in my book. Good luck - let us know what you choose.

Only exception I would have is if the employer stock is publically traded and the particpants are given access to trade any public company. I'm not sure it would qualify if the plan said that a participant cannot select XYZ Corp as an option. Are you asking if by limiting the participants so they cannot get back into the stock the plan does not comply with 404© or are you asking if by forcing the contributions to the company stock in the first place does not comply with 404©? Thanks.

Does your plan document address "prior service credit"? That's where I would turn, to see if due to the leasing arrangement the employee's prior service with a predecessor is counted. Aside from that, I'm not sure where you would find an answer specifically for a case like this. Good Luck.

My best suggestion - I know enough about them to be dangerous as we all say - is that TransAmerica has developed a program specifically for PEO's - it's the only one that I know of. If anyone know of another vendor that handles these smoothly, please post them here. PEO's get complicated very quickly. The definition of an employee is difficult in these situations, and best left to an ERISA attorney. I'd refer the client to an attorney, and work with them to design a program that works for all parties. Good Luck!

There are several alternatives similar to Investmart. If your the sponsor - check out Team401(k), they offer a recordkeeping and admin via the web that's very cutting edge, and competitive with the annuity products you've discussed. If your a TPA - check with Unified Trust Company, they have a "fiduciary ranking" service that ranks the funds available to them (almost the entire universe of fund families) with a very easy to follow scale for your sponsors to use. They do not provide Administration that I'm aware of. Good luck.

Moe - I'm thinking you post these questions just to get us all thinking. This is terrific - okay - I can see an argument on both sides, and don't know of any specific "regs" that stipulate that a partner cannot fund the plan. In practice, I would say that if the partner is writing a personal check, it should probably be made out to the partnership, and then the partnership should write a single check to the plan for a clean paper trail.

Better yet - send it softcopy through e-mail. I'm sure you can find a nice picture of a great po-boy - that ought to do.

Great question - somewhat ties back to my info - the payment is sheltered from EWP - and what I was wondering is how the admin is noting that in their software. I haven't seen much software that will flag "rollover" accounts as exempt from EWP. So you'd have to have a QDRO account set-up or something similar in order to keep track. As for the gains portion - that's one for the CPA's on the board to answer!

I would say it depends on which program you have your document developed in. If it's word - use the merge features and field codes. Then you can build an excel database or access database, and populate the word document from the information contained in the db. If it's not - I'm afraid I'm out of suggestions. Good Luck.

Let's look at it from another prospective - If your firm had the account for one spouse and the assets were being rolled over due to QDRO - you'd probalby title the source as rollover - right? If so, does your software note that the rollove amount isn't subject to EWP? If not, you'll probably need to list the source as QDRO. Next point - I don't think you'd need the two socials, just another source of assets for the participant's account - deferrals, match, discretionary, rollover and or QDRO. Right?

Considering that a loan can only be for a maximum of 50% of the vested interest in the plan, I'm assuming the remaining 50% has been distributed via the RMD's. Interesting point. The RMD is still calculated on the participants balance, which would include the loan. I would say that since the participant is making payments on the loan, that those payment might accumulate too be enough to cover the RMD in December. Other thoughts?

Went to the West Coast version. Sorry I'll miss it.

More input - The K-1 is only going to report book value, Fair Market Value is what should be used in the appraisal for the 5500, and that is what needs to be provided to you for reporting purposes.

Perfect - thanks Jon that's the feedback I wanted. The fund is in line with all provisions in the IPS, and has been reviewed by an unbaised party for suitability. I just wanted to get someone to agree. We settled on the option being okay, as long as every participant was also aware of the relationship between the sponsor and the investment option. Thanks again!

Okay - I'm thinking since so many have viewed, and I don't have anyone hazarding a guess or sugestions, that I've stumped us - pretty impressive. At any rate, here is my logic for why I think it would be allowed: Client provides research only Mutual Fund managers are not influenced by the client - they interprit the research. Fund is publically traded on a national exchange Information gatherd is available to the public, but not readily (now we're getting iffy) Anyone agree / disagree - help me out here... Thanks all.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=11996

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=11996

Have a client that provides research and analysis to a Public Mutual Fund. Client get's paid on a contract basis. Can anyone see a reason why the client shouldn't or wouldn't be able to offer the fund as an investment option in the 401(k)? Only issue I can think of goes toward insider trading, however the client does not have any influence over the way the research is used, or what is derived on the Fund Family side - so I think that would be a mute point. Any other thoughts? Thanks

Interesting questions - not sure you'll be answered directly, especially if your going to re-publish in an article. You may consider doing a blind search for "fiduciary responsability" on the board. There have been numerous cases lately, and you can find articles on most of them here. Good luck with your research.

The limitation is on the contributor, not the contributee. You can open both, but personally only contribute to one. The grandparents or other indivdual can contribute to the 529 plan. Personally - I think it's best to have both. Especially with the new laws. The Educ IRA can be used for expenses prior to college level, while the 529 can provide terrific benefits for higher Educ. Good luck!

Still a terrific topic. I may have mislead the group on the 150 cases - the TPA I worked for, had a support staff that included college interns (working for credit) that did the trust balancing, and input. I'm not sure that's still the model, but in a college town, students that need credit for an internship in the financial world, jump at just about any opportunitiy, and a spreadsheet's pretty fool proof. I agree with the "burnout" ideal. It's very easy to do, and the majority of admins I talk to, have at one point been burned out. This is probably one of the most stressful industries in the US, and least appreciated as I'm sure we all know. Keep it rolling, lets see what other TPA structures are out there.

I think there's been a missunderstanding - the oringinal post says the funds are "non-proprietary" meaning - public Mutual funds - correct? In that case, the issue that I would raise is with regard to the 12b-1 fees and sub-T/A fees being kept by the custodian or shared with the TPA, for the plans belonging to either of those organizations - on the surface, I could argue that the company is then benefitting from the use of the plan assets. Is the trail being used in leu of charging the plan for services? I think you'd be better off generating an invoice at least annually for services rendered - deducting the revenue trail, and then discounting to get to zero or rebating the balance to the plan. Touchy area - for other plans being brought to the product - I don't see any issues, as long as the plan's fiduciary's have done their homework and due diligence on your firms.

Just refreshing and pushing to the top - maybe we can get an answer or discussion going. Interesting that your new docs allow for the per payroll option... that's going to make life as an admin intersting - we'll end up with some really off the wall ACP %'s!

What a beautiful world we have now! 41% of owners comp put into a Retirement plan - I remember struggling to get past 15% in some years! GO EGTRRA!