fidu Posted April 19, 2002 Posted April 19, 2002 Is there any requirement for an ERISA governed fund to hold a specific amount of cash reserves based upon amount/value of company stock the fund holds? thank you. enjoy the weekend!
MWeddell Posted April 19, 2002 Posted April 19, 2002 None that I'm aware of. For plans intended to satisfy the ERISA 404© rules, there's a requirement that the company stock trades be able to settle promptly. (I'm paraphrasing from memory, so look it up if this is relevant.) That may indirectly require that there be a cash component if the stock is thinly traded so that trades may not always settle promptly.
mbozek Posted April 20, 2002 Posted April 20, 2002 Why does the plan need to hold cash for stock redemptions in a 401(k) plan? If the stock is publicly traded the SEC requires that the buyer produce cash for the purchase within three business days. If the emplyee terminates the stock is distributed as part of a distribution. In a dc plan all assets must be allocated to participant's accounts so how can the plan hold a reserve of cash? mjb
Guest dmj1998 Posted April 22, 2002 Posted April 22, 2002 mbozek - i think fidu is referring to the cash portion of a unitized stock fund. if a plan holds stock in shares only, participants must wait the T+3 settlement period before they can purchase another investment. if the plan has a unitized stock fund, it is treated like any other mutual fund and allows for same day trading. in the unitized fund, the only investments are company stock and a small cash portion to handle redemptions. fidu - i don't know of any requirements for cash positions in these funds. i would think that a prudent level would be dictated by the level of historical activity that participants have with the fund.
fidu Posted April 22, 2002 Author Posted April 22, 2002 After looking into this further, I still have not found any requirement regarding required cash reserves in connection with a plan holding company stock. Thus, I concur with all posted answers - so thanks, and as an funny, interesting (and true) aside to the T+1 issue, after speaking with bankers in India, they tell me the trade settlement process is sooooooooo sloooooooooo it is commonly referred to as T+ ..........................Bisquits. in other words, there is little no situation that follows our current T+3 settlement process. thanks again.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now