Greg Judd

Or at least figured based on decent historical health cost information (for the case, or like businesses, or from resources provided by actuarial firms), combined with reasonable info on turnover/headcount variation. If camann lifted the veil & gave us his/her COBRA rate - rounded to the nearest $10, or even $50 - we'd have a better idea if we're nearing the ticket window, if not actually into the ballpark. Adding their basis for making the "100% + admin fees" calculation could be handy, too....

Good catch Michael, & also points up the more general issue of internal mgmt preferences & capabilities. If a small biz isn't run by a person who enjoys mulling financial issues, self-funding could be a bit like undergoing root canal. On the other hand, if they like holding onto the $ they make....sort of an opportunity cost determination.

I'm not a lawyer, but entertain this interpretation anyway; the law's aimed only at contributions vested & non-forfeitable at the time of contribution. That isn't the case with your plan - so no withholding applies. Now-does that mean the value of the contribution isn't taxable to the recipient (rather than the company making the contribution)? Oops, more homework for you....

Too easy - a potential chicken (thanks to One Foggy Site). Love how the place has livened up lately...be-gawk!

Laffin! I also like Kristina's admonition to not be snippy...where have I heard that one before? The thread's certainly very much on topic; we have more means by which to communicate intent than ever, but no more controls over confirmation that the "call to action" is understood the way it's intended. Too bad there's no voting receipt a la many benefit plans' use of a transaction confirmation document) . That'd have numerous possibilities, one being a 30-day satisfaction guarantee....

LaffIN, G!! & doing it in a NICE way....

Thanks G, even tho you could have (probably should have) suggested I cool my jets as well. Mike, no intent to slam, just jostle a bit. You're amongst colleagues here. As G's suggested, you'll find even the reasonable folk here will disagree frequently - to say nothing of the unreasonable types, like me!

Laffin! If we look at it directly, will we go blind?

Originally posted by Mike Engelhardt As opposed to the previous opinions, my experience has been that insurance company and third-party administrators are prone to make mistakes. I know, because my profession is auditing the performance of such organizations. Gee, no other pros here, Mike. & if by "prone", you really mean "every claims processor does make some mistakes", you'll find no one disputing that here. I can assure you that if you rely on the "credibility" of the insurer or the size of the organization, then there is a substantial chance mistakes will happen, incorrect amounts will be paid, and when this is eventually discovered, it will be very difficult to be reimbursed for. Uh...you mean 'whether or not you rely on the credibility of the organization' mistakes will happen, right? Mistakes will happen regardless. Auditing does make sense. That's not in question. Frequency & urgency is. MH: Again, I disagree with previous opinions regarding the cost of doing such an audit. Should a fiduciary question the accuracy of claims being paid, and especially if there are employee contributions being collected from members, then there is an added importance for you to investigate. a) I can't find any "previous opinions regarding the cost of doing such an audit." I can find suggestions that the cost/benefit is worth keeping in mind. The potential cost (financial risk to sponsor) of mismanaging a group plan subsumes the risks entailed by not auditing with sufficient diligence or frequency. Squandering $ on inappropriate services arguably carries risk as well. b) "Should a fiduciary, blah blah...." This is from your marketing material, right? It's good business practice to audit claims. How soon you need to from assumption of responsibility for claims, & how often, is the topic at hand. In case you're not clear, jthomp02, Mike's basically agreeing with the rest of us. To recap: a) periodic claims audits - good idea; b) frequency & commencement depends on, among other things, run rate to budget (if you have decent projections of claims for your group), reputation of the firm you've hired, c) determine the audit intensity you need (usually correlates with cost) by the complexity of your plans, volume of your claims, & your trust level with the claims processor. Your inclusion of other factors may vary.

The "more choices" trend has a life of its own, one fed by the same democratizing forces that drive our (apologies to any non-US participants) government. It'll continue, & it'll work more or less ok. To Kirk's point about compliance issues; law generally follows behavior rather than leads--pols will follow the pack & come up with rules that basically fit the habits "we" want to have. Kudos on another solid thread topic, tschenk.

There you go again, Kip! This is the kind of thread that makes Dave's little coffee shop the place it is (can't be the coffee...)!

Love it, Kip!

a) you can't. b) they do. c) depends how much assurance you need that claims are processed accurately. Ask your organization's finance staff for their thoughts here; there's no particular magic to audit standards, & by doing so you'll have internal corroboration of your approach. Your claims processor's reputation, client list, years in business, complexity of your plan, # of participants/claim volume, etc may enter into your formula for appropriate audit frequency.

Unless you're doing all your own admin, your service provider should be able to provide an SPD for you, or give you a template/draft to do it yourself.

Software outfits seem to like $1 for $1--in a very few cases, more than $1 for $1--hereabouts. While many were edging towards faster vesting, anecdotal evidence suggests some are "rethinking" that direction. Can't imagine why.... Hardware firms appear more pragmatic - matching at lower % of contribution &/or % of pay. Possibly more a function of company/industry maturity (?)

Ok, ok, if pax is doing it, it must be alright. But isn't the fee issue the tail of the dog? I'd think sponsor stability/reliability would be paramount--& even then its a complicating factor, since the 'several funds' mentioned also have mgmt that may goof up. It just seems that leaving the $ in the plan adds a layer of expense/mgmt risk that is tough to justify.

Now here's a challenge! OK, I'll go first: Advantages of a contribution cutback lottery for plan sponsor management-- 1) enhanced employee appreciation of mgmt team's sense of humor 2) potential to broaden company's product line ("mfgr of brass-plated widgets, & industry-leading qualified plan compliance gaming innovator") 3) most novel excuse for late filing of 1999 5500s ("well, the auditors spent so much time convulsed in laughter over our plan's testing provisions they took twice as long as expected to complete their work") Who's up?

Just send the 'balance-leavers' a newsclipping or 3 with their termination papers, or their periodic plan statements, about about the funny biznez that occasionally happens with sponsor mgmt of 4k assets....that might do the trick. It still astounds me that people would leave their balances behind. Do they also leave their wallets in their desks when they leave a job?

richard - love it! Just imagining your post in the 401k lottery thread, with this kind of bite added....

richard, you're among friends here, & you're essentially anonymous. G'head, call this 'solution' what it is--stupid. & I'm with Kirk on the technical flaws with the thing.

As is common among us benezoiks, all here have jumped in on the technical niceties of Mr. Prince's firm's hare-brained 'solution' to testing issues, and not spent any time pondering the colossal stupidity of the thing from an employee's perspective. Let's see, as a plan participant I'm marched into a 'lottery' in which, if I "win", my deferrals are summarily yanked...hmmm, yeah, I can really get behind the mgmt that came up with that one.... I'd love to hear the watercooler chitchat on this thing. Based on SJ's description of the situation, her husband got little or no advance word that this is how testing issues would be dealt with--which if you're management is understandable; how would you like to get up in front of any group of employees who might be impacted & explain this one?

Teague, before going to talk with someone frankly interested in selling you something (maybe anything), check with local business groups/trade associations in your area. Talk with people you know--maybe existing clients--who are running similar size businesses, in similar fields (knowledge/skill-intensive workforces). Ask 'em what they're doing re: benefits/pay, in general terms--benefits as % of pay, for instance. Tell em you're just doing a reality check. You may be surprised how much you'll learn. Then go talk to the brokers, 401k experts, etc. Ask them how they're compensated (commissions, fees, finders [for 'no-cost' administrators], etc) I'm a group broker, & brokers can help at the right time. But going in cold isn't the right time, for you.

I'm inclined to agree with Jon here. That doesn't make me any less frustrated by the whole situation. Writing the letters to PWBA/DOL, following thru, may provide some stress relief, tho. Luck to you, Dan E.

Short answer is yes, depending on how 'growth' your spouse's growth component was. If you proxy it with NASDAQ, could have been ~20% dip; if S&P, less. If your spouse's investment vehicle's a publicly listed mutual fund, go somewhere like BigCharts & run an interactive year-to-date chart displaying its performance compared w/one of the indices. As always, your mileage may vary. Try somewhere around here, at DOL's Pension & Welfare Benefits Administration site. You'll probably want to give the plan a fair shot at responding first, tho; they're your best bet for prompt action (fewer due process levels to engage). [Edited by Greg Judd on 09-27-2000 at 03:06 PM]