Demosthenes

As an option, If you work with the vendor, they'll help you set up reference marks in the margins that will tell the folder/stuffers how many pages for this participatnt's statement. Requires a bit more versatile reporting tool than a simple "convert to pdf" application. Most vendors will point you to a reporting package that is compatible with thier print/mail faciliaty. word of caution, to make it economical, statement volumes need to be fairly high.

A quick search of recent news articles has turned up the following list of companies that have suspended their ER match. Sears http://www.businessinsurance.com/cgi-bin/n...05&id=14914 Motorola http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/37071614.html Starbucks http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/37071614.html Fed Ex http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/37071614.html GM http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/37071614.html Ford http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/37071614.html NCR http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/37071614.html GateHouse Media http://www.planadviser.com/investing/article.php/3436 Denver Post http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/...29/daily19.html Eastman Kodak http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/your-mon...1retire.html?hp Resorts International http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/your-mon...1retire.html?hp Unisys http://www.usnews.com/blogs/planning-to-re...401k-match.html Is this just media hype, some high profile companies that make for a good sound byte or half column article, or are folks seeing the same thing in their practices? Trying to determine if the trend is widespread enough to justify an attempt to study and quantify the effects of reduced in flows on various market sectors. I'm also wondering how many of these Companies eliminated DB plans and swapped in a 401(k) or enhanced 401(k) plan, in order to soften the blow.

A quick Google; Worrell Enterprises looks to have been a family publishing operation with a number of newspaper outlet. A cursory search indicates that Worrell Enterprises was acquired by Media General in two pieces, one in 1986, another in 1995. Media General (NYSE:MEG) is still alive and kicking.

I have seen TPA's sign Letters of intent with Mutual Fund Companies whereby the Mutual Fund Company waives loads if the TPA places X$ in the fund in Y time, usually $1.0m in one year. It can be part of a sub accounting agreement with the fund company or a separate letter agreement. The problem is that if the TPA doesn't hit the minimum deposit level, the loads are applied retroactively. Not a pretty sight

Couple of quick thoughts, Method - straight purchase or earn out? I'd go with an earn out that way the current owners have an incentive to work for a smooth transition. Quality of receivables - age of receivables and likelihood of actually collecting is far more important that their appearance on the balance sheet. Letters of intent - are minimums to qualify for no load purchases unsatisfied? How long does the grace period run and how likely is it that you will meet the minimums?

Looks like a blatant ploy by the broker to get in front of a lot of prospects in a captive audience setting. Flame away if you like but IMHO the insurance agent is trying to direct sell to the participants and make the employer foot the bill for the appointments.

So, the sales rep proposes that you separate your group into a high and low risk group with separate coverages. The high risk group gets better coverage, the low risk group presumably gets equivalent coverage and yet your overall costs decline? Nice trick, I'd like to know how it's done too. As far as being non-discriminatory, it may be ERISA non-discriminatory by design but who is likely to end up in the high risk group? Older workers, overweight workers, black workers, anyone with a statistically larger chance of becoming a claimant. ERISA may not be your only worry, the bad PR could be a nightmare.

It may be that the plan is using an accounting method sometimes known as unitized or equivalent share accounting. If that's the case, the fund is actually a mix of shares and cash which buys and sells units based on a unit value that fluctuates based on the change in share price and value of any uninvested cash. The nuts and bolts of unitized accounting are too long for a message board but your Plan Administrator or Schwab should be able to provide explanations and illustrations. Although this method of accounting has become less common as recordkeeping and trading systems have become more sophisticated, it is still used and can have the advantage of lower administrative costs. The most visible disadvantage is the one your already seeing, the unit value and share price are not equal to one another and it's difficult for participants to track changes in value.

http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=111397,00.html Terminating a SEP If the time comes when a SEP no longer suits the purposes of your business, consult with your financial institution partner to determine if another type of retirement plan (or, perhaps, no plan at all) might better suit your needs. To terminate a SEP, notify the financial institution that you chose to handle the SEP that you will no longer be making contributions and that you want to terminate the contract or agreement with it. It is a good idea to notify your employees that the plan has been discontinued. You do not need to give any notice to the IRS that the SEP has been terminated

This is a related party sale and IMHO does constitute a wash sale, see http://www.fairmark.com/capgain/wash/related.htm "The tax law doesn't allow you to claim a loss when you sell stock (or anything else) to a family member, or to an entity controlled by you or your family (such as a corporation, partnership or trust). This rule may apply if you try to avoid the wash sale rule by purchasing replacement stock in an IRA, or having your spouse buy replacement property. The result can be worse than if the wash sale rule applied." Section 9(a)(1)(A) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the purpose of creating a false or misleading appearance of active trading in any security registered on a national securities exchange, or a false or misleading appearance with respect to the market for any such security, (A) to effect any transaction in such security which involves no change in the beneficial ownership thereof http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p550.pdf

If this is a defined contribution plan where you have made a loan of the participant's vested interest to the participant, the operation of the loans after default, and the impact of that loan on the remaining vested balance, indicates a serious defect in the Plan's operation. My advice is to engage ERISA counsel immediately.

If I'm reading this correctly, you are contending that the accruing interest is absorbing the participants remaining dollar balance? e.g Participant has a 10k balance, takes a 5k loan, still has 5k in cash in the plan. They then terminate. Interetst on the loan accrues at 10%/year. In 10 years the loan now has 5k principle, 5k in accrued interest. 5k in accrued interest wipes out 5k in remaining cash. Is that the theory?

If she is an independant contractor, then she is no longer an employee and has, in fact, separated from service. She has terminated her employment. The key determinant is whether or not the independant contractor rules apply. Payment by 1099 is certainly a good sign, a W-2 by the Employer would be a bad sign. The IRS has devoted a lot of effort to defining employees. common law employees, and contractors. Here's a basic primer http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/articl...d=99921,00.html But, the employer has to make that call. I'd request that the employer certify that this individual has terminated employment and have the employer request the distribution. Employee versus Contractor is a snake pit, it's been abused by every industry out there and the IRS finds it ripe for manipulation. Having been a Contractor for about the last 3 years (really, really really! Different companies, assignments and everything!!!), I've seen a lot of variation and I can say that the former employee who sits in the same desk doing the same job as a contractor, is least likely to pass the sniff test from the IRS. But again, the employer is the one crawling out on that limb.

Couple of starter locations. National Center for Employee Ownership http://www.nceo.org/ Financial Accounting Standards Board http://www.fasb.org/ Search for Employee Stock Option Plans If you really want the nuts and guts, you may have to go to the paid services, but this will at least give you a flavor P.S. Are you in the Northeast or did you make the transition to the South?

Just looking for some opinions; Assume it's web delivered, encrypted, all the neccessary permissions can be obtained etc. If there was a company capable of providing an electronic feed of Self Directed Brokerage Account info, how much demand would there be for that product? Would it be something you'd be willing to pay for or would it result in a fee reduction to the Plan Sponsor? Would it give a registered rep an advantage in the market, either because of advantageous pricing or just because it makes broker A better to work with than broker B?

Different share classes have very different attributes and it is unusual to have 2 classes of the same fund in a Plan. Let me guess, one class is an A share with a front end load and the other is a B share with a back end load? Hope the funds have the kind of performance neccessary to justify the loads. But I digress, why not abbreviate the name and put the ticker symbol in the reports? For Example, Smith Barney Large Cap Value Class A is SBCIX and Class B is SBCCX.

The Employer has to put the plan back in the same place it would have been had the error not occurred. What you are proposing has the Plan bearing the brunt of the Employer's error. In this context, corrections are not contributions. IMHO, this is absolutely a prohibited transaction. If it wasn't, Company's could just pocket the deferrals and draw down the forfeitures account.

I'd have to agree with Belgarath, even if you're right, the pain is going to outweigh the gain. States can't place a tax lien on qualified assets. States can't tax or demand withholding for non-residents. States can and do demand withholding on qualified plan distributions made to residents. As a practical argument, I am not aware of a firm with a national reach that does not do withholding in the mandatory states of IA, KS, MA, ME, OK & VT (and potentially MD). Nor am I aware of a regional firm that does not at least do withholding for mandatory states within their footprint. So technically you may be correct, but as someone once said "God fights on the side of the heaviest artillery" and the States seem to have the big guns.

Haven't seen the ML or SSB documents, but generally, the SEP Plan documents do not specify the investments. In the brokerage world the custodial and customer agreements/account application contain any investment limits/restrictions. 5305-SEP would be a good choice, it's portable, easy to maintain (pretty close to zero).

Sorry folks, I've been on the road the last couple of days. Let me start out by saying, "That'll teach me to make sweeping generalizations" mbozek, you're right TIAA-CREF is a tough competitor. They certainly have an expense advantage because of their status as a non-profit and I think their culture truly puts the customer's interests above that of the company and its sales force. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the prevailing attitude of annuity providers and their sales forces. Before I generalize again, let me also say that a number of reps recognize the situation and do not approve. http://forums.registeredrep.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=669&PN=1 That said, I'll throw out some contenders for the throne. Best view is to copy and paste these comma separated values into word pad, save the file and pull them up in Excel. All numbers are sourced from www.morningstar.com Fund (Ticker),Morningstar Category,1,3,10,Sales,CDSC,Expense Ratio Vanguard STAR (VGSTX),Moderate Allocation,8.39,6.84,10.31,None,None,0 Dimensional U.S. Large Cap Value III (DFUVX),Mid-cap Value ,12.11,7.54,12.8,None,None,0.19 Vanguard Value Index (VIVAX),Large Value ,13.18,7.17,10.57,None,None,0.21 Glenmede Large Cap Value (GTMEX),Large Value ,15.29,7.95,10.44,None,None,0.29 Vanguard Wellington (VWELX),Moderate Allocation,9.43,6.89,11.06,None,None,0.31 Vanguard Equity-Income (VEIPX),Large Value ,10.89,5.25,11.09,None,None,0.32 Vanguard Windsor II (VWNFX),Large Value ,13.84,7.88,12.19,None,None,0.36 American Beacon Lg Cap Value AMR (AAGAX),Large Value ,15.71,9.87,11.27,None,None,0.38 Columbia Small Company Index Z (ISCIX),Small Growth and Value,10,6.28,11.87,None,None,0.41 Vanguard Growth & Income (VQNPX),Large Growth and Value ,6.83,4.68,10.75,None,None,0.42 California Investment S&P MidCap Idx (SPMIX),Mid-cap Growth and Value ,9.13,6.39,14.48,None,None,0.49 Federated Mid-Cap Index (FMDCX),Mid-cap Growth and Value ,9.15,6.16,13.58,None,None,0.49 Dreyfus MidCap Index (PESPX),Mid-cap Growth and Value ,9.26,6.23,13.84,None,None,0.5

Why is the Trustee participating in this fiasco at all? This is unauthorized activity in a brokerage account, (unless the broker holds Power of Attorney) something the SEC and NASD do not take lightly. Have the trustee contact the Broker-Dealer, tell them there's 10 k withdrawn that the I, the Trustee, didn't authorize. Instruct them to replace it immediately and make the distribution to the participant. Compounding the broker's error with hh or "odd" withholding doesn't do the Trustee any favors. The plan and Trustees did nothing wrong here, try to keep it that way. Should the SEC or NASD disciplinary arms get involved, the Trustee wants to be as far away from this situation as possible.

I'll happily badmouth any company that makes a habit of selling accumulation phase annuities. Except for very special circumstances (the individual has funded every other tax deferred option open to them), heavily loaded, underperforming annuities are not a good choice. Show me an annuity and I'll show you at least a dozen mutual funds with better performance, lower expenses, and at least equal, if not lower, risk.

That's because there are two kinds of mathematics, math in the real world and math inside the Beltway. One always comes up with the same answer given the same problem, the other tends to impart spin to any problem and answer. Reminds me of an old joke; Three applicants for a job meet with the CEO who says "I only have one question for each of you, what is 2 plus 2?" The first applicant pulls out his TI scientific calculator, performs various functions and confidently announces "The answer is 4." The second applicant, a finance major pulls out his laptop starts Excel, runs various scenarios and says "The answer is conclusively 4". The third applicant, a government economist, looks back at the CEO and slyly says "What do you want it to be?" With apologies to mathematicians, finance majors, and some governement economists.

Careful, Careful! Point 1 Redemption fees generally hit active traders who tend to have higher balances and are probably in your HCE group. Point 2 Funds implemented redemption fees because timers tend to damage the buy and hold group in the funds. Reimbursing the trader gives them a free ride and negates the intent of the Fund manager. While the reimbursement wouldn't seem to violate the letter, it certainly flies in the face of the spirit. Point 3 Anybody trading their retirement account often enough to get tagged with a redemption fee probably needs some education on speculation versus investment and long term versus short term trading strategy. Of course none of this is going to change the mind of the participant in question who is probably a physician and is convinced that they are the spiritual heir of Peter Lynch.

The only place I've ever heard anything like this was where the service techs were classed as independent contractors making the tool purchase a deductible business expense. Happened to my brother-in-law who turned a wrench for years. The whole thing fell apart because the "employer" couldn't pass the independant contractor requirements in the code. As you can imagine, the whole thing ended badly.