Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-25-2016, 12:04 PM   #61
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 2,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Hitter View Post
just saw this on yahoo


"Companies urge retiring workers to leave something behind—their money"


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/compan...125400740.html
Yeah, we had a whole thread here based on that article. Oh, wait...
__________________

__________________
...with no reasonable expectation for ER, I'm just here auditing the AP class.Retired 8/1/15.
jazz4cash is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 01-25-2016, 12:08 PM   #62
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 4,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazz4cash View Post
Yeah, we had a whole thread here based on that article. Oh, wait...
haha yeah pretty much - maybe those guys lurked our thread...
__________________

__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2016, 02:17 PM   #63
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBSC View Post
Everyone's situation is unique. For me, I do not compare the stable value fund to 7-10 year treasuries (IEF). I compare it to money market funds and high yield savings accounts so 1.58% after expenses is fine for my situation.
+1

Yes, comparing a stable value fund offering day by day, penalty free in and out privileges to 7 - 10 year treasuries is silly. Totally apples to oranges.

I monitor my son's 401k for him (Fidelity based) and note that the interest for the first qtr for the stable value fund is 2.98%. Sweet.

Unfortunately, the MegaCorp 401k that I've left intact through my first ten years of retirement does not offer a stable value fund. It does have a reasonable selection of low cost index funds though. For now, I'm content leaving my money in the 401k.

DW's 403b did not offer any compelling reasons to stay. She moved to a rollover IRA asap upon retiring.

Each situation seems different.
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2016, 02:25 PM   #64
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Hitter View Post
uh....401k plans aren't subject to spousal consent for distributions
+1

I also think that's the way it works. I'm sure mathjak did not mean to mislead, but it does seem that dbp's, dcp's, cash bal pensions, 401k's 403b's, the various IRA types, etc., all have nuances the owner should understand.
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2016, 02:50 PM   #65
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,413
they absolutely can not terminate the plan and make final distributions without spousal consent forms .


As a general rule, married participants must receive the written consent of their spouse prior to taking distribution from a
qualified plan. your spouse must be made aware of any changes .

changing custodians does not require spousal consent but terminating the plan or taking a loan or money out does in most states . i know in ours it does . i went through it .
__________________
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2016, 03:00 PM   #66
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 4,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
they absolutely can not terminate the plan and make final distributions without spousal consent forms .
sorry but you are incorrect


generally you only need spousal consent for money purchase pension plans, which is a DC plan that requires a QJSA form of benefit

https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans...etirement-Plan


https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans...n-Terminations


defined benefit plans are a whole different ball game
__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2016, 03:05 PM   #67
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 4,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
As a general rule, married participants must receive the written consent of their spouse prior to taking distribution from a qualified plan. your spouse must be made aware of any changes .
not in every 401k or profit sharing plan - if I quit my job I could take my entire balance and spend it on something frivolous if I wanted to without spousal consent

now there is a push to force DC plans to offer spousal consent upon distribution, since lump sum distributions contribute to poverty for that very reason
__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2016, 03:08 PM   #68
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 4,098
https://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04...09.html#d0e195

read 4.72.9

A profit sharing plan, including a 401(k) plan, may avoid the standard QJSA and QPSA rules if the following three conditions are satisfied:

• The plan provides that 100% of the participant's vested account balance will be paid to the surviving spouse if the participant dies before the ASD;

• The participant does not elect a life annuity (most of these plans don't offer them anyway); and

• The participant's account balance does not include any money subject to the standard survivor benefit rules (e.g., transfers from a money purchase or a defined benefit plan).

__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2016, 03:20 PM   #69
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,413
if a dc plan terminates you will likely run in to the same snags with the forms . they will not break up the plan at least in our state regardless of any of the above conditions . the above conditions assumes a custodian is handling the money . there is no more custodian if your plan terminates because the company folds or is taken over .
__________________
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2016, 03:21 PM   #70
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 4,098
for missing participants in a DC plan termination, I'm certain you can default them into an IRA once you've done a diligent search

several companies do that for a fee - rollover systems for example


again, terminating a DB plan is totally different
__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2016, 03:24 PM   #71
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 4,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
if a dc plan terminates you will likely run in to the same snags with the forms . they will not break up the plan at least in our state regardless of any of the above conditions . the above conditions assumes a custodian is handling the money . there is no more custodian if your plan terminates because the company folds or is taken over .
if you have a public sector DC plan the rules can be very different - my comments relate to private sector DC plans


private sector qualified plans are covered by federal, not state law
__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2016, 03:34 PM   #72
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,413
mine too relate to private sector plan terminations . in fact here is the rules i see on it when a plan is "abandoned " as it is called . .

Q: Do I have to give spousal election forms to participants whose distributions exceed the plan's de minimis cash-out level if the participants are just rolling over their distributions to another employer-sponsored plan or an individual retirement account?

A: Yes. A rollover of an amount exceeding a plan's de minimis cash-out level is an optional form of distribution that, when elected by a married participant, is subject to spousal consent. The plan may have a cash-out level of up to $5,000 without spousal consent. Distributions from the plan must comply with the written terms of the plan as well as the requirements of ERISA.
__________________
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2016, 03:35 PM   #73
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 4,098
that's a true statement for defined benefit plans, not all defined contribution plans though


can you show the source citation for that q/a? I bet it related to a defined benefit plan
__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2016, 08:54 PM   #74
Full time employment: Posting here.
Markola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet View Post
What does "exempt" mean in the context of this chart. It looks like it means "exempt" from being taken by creditors during bankruptcy. I wonder what it means regarding law suites.

You mention Minnesota's protections are crap. All I see is "yes" and "yes" under TIRA and Roth IRA. Almost all the states show that. What is "crap" about Minnesota's protections?

My state, Illinois, also shows "yes" - "yes." But I'd expect anything involving gov't in Illinois to be crap as demonstrated regularly.
Yes, Illinois appears from this to be one of the states with strong protections completely exempting IRAs and Roths from creditors. I don't know if that includes liability law suits, but seems a good bet if financial damages are awarded against you. It is probably possible for most anyone to go bankrupt for medical reasons, if the matter is grave enough. If you read the fine print by Minnesota, it says our IRAs are exempt only to $69,000, which is virtually nothing. It also says a court decides what amount is reasonable for me to live on. No thanks. As a Minnesotan, then, it seems an extra moat around assets can be had by keeping one's funds in an ERISA account (401k, 403b, etc.) vs an IRA. We have another moat, too, which is a liability policy.

When you really start Googling this confusing topic, it is also hinted that everyone is subject to a $1 million limit of protection in an IRA, even in Illinois, so it might be worth trying to understand. i am no attorney so cannot say.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
__________________
Markola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2016, 09:16 PM   #75
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Kerrville,Tx
Posts: 2,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markola View Post
Yes, Illinois appears from this to be one of the states with strong protections completely exempting IRAs and Roths from creditors. I don't know if that includes liability law suits, but seems a good bet if financial damages are awarded against you. It is probably possible for most anyone to go bankrupt for medical reasons, if the matter is grave enough. If you read the fine print by Minnesota, it says our IRAs are exempt only to $69,000, which is virtually nothing. It also says a court decides what amount is reasonable for me to live on. No thanks. As a Minnesotan, then, it seems an extra moat around assets can be had by keeping one's funds in an ERISA account (401k, 403b, etc.) vs an IRA. We have another moat, too, which is a liability policy.

When you really start Googling this confusing topic, it is also hinted that everyone is subject to a $1 million limit of protection in an IRA, even in Illinois, so it might be worth trying to understand. i am no attorney so cannot say.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
In general if you loose a big lawsuit you do like companies do and declare Bankruptcy. Then the various bankruptcy rules determine how what you had is parceled out. In particular the creditors can not be paid with exempt assets such as 401ks, defined benfit pension, social security and in some states the equity in the house you live in.
__________________
meierlde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2016, 01:58 PM   #76
Full time employment: Posting here.
Pilot2013's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Greenville
Posts: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
they absolutely can not terminate the plan and make final distributions without spousal consent forms .


As a general rule, married participants must receive the written consent of their spouse prior to taking distribution from a
qualified plan. your spouse must be made aware of any changes .

changing custodians does not require spousal consent but terminating the plan or taking a loan or money out does in most states . i know in ours it does . i went through it .
Not in mine. I have made several "in-service withdrawals" with no notification or consent from spouse.
__________________
Pilot2013 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2016, 03:29 PM   #77
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: North
Posts: 714
I compared the fees on my employers 401k plan, along with the investment options, and in the past three companies I've worked for I've rolled over because 1.Fees were higher than Vanguard 2. Investment Options were not as diverse and IMO limiting my growth opportunities


I do realize later in life there could be benefits as mentioned above, but none of mine offer a stable value fund with a rate worth considering.
__________________
AA (Stock/Bond/Cash ): 99/0/1% MIX (Small/Mid/Large): 50/25/25% BLEND(US/Foreign): 100/0%, (Value/Growth/Blend): X/X/X% REIT (Real Estate Equity): 50% of Assets

FIRE in 2031 @ 50yrs old (+/- 2yrs) w/ a hypothetical $2.5mil portfolio, 3 appreciated homes worth $1.0mil and rental income to fund my gap years until RMD. Assets will go to an inherited IRA where I plan on watching the investments grow until I die or the trust gets executed.
kgtest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2016, 03:47 PM   #78
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 458
My megacorp fees are quite low and I'm in index funds for the majority of it. BUT the largest factor in me leaving it the company 401k plan is the rule of 55 like many other posters have mentioned.


In discussion with co-workers not many know of this rule. Others get it confused with "rule of 72t". Lots of things to consider!
__________________
supernova72 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2016, 07:41 PM   #79
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
growing_older's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,608
Quote:
Not in mine. I have made several "in-service withdrawals" with no notification or consent from spouse.
Assuming you really do have a spouse and this wasn't a flip comment, then nothing is probably amiss and there will probably be no problems. But if your spouse later wants to contest these withdrawals and claims they were done without notification or consent, then the plan may have to answer to a claim for damages. It's their problem if that ever comes up.
__________________
growing_older is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2016, 05:15 AM   #80
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,413
yep , a plan being terminated for non payment to the custodian is very different from in service withdrawals or even taking money out when the plan exists .

the state take's possession and they cover their butt . they want spouses to know there is no plan and money they have claim to has no custodian looking after it .
__________________

__________________
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Leaving a 401k with a previous employer. halcyon Young Dreamers 29 01-19-2015 12:39 PM
Is a company's pension fund "separate" from company ? Delawaredave5 FIRE and Money 10 08-05-2013 10:21 AM
Title Insurance Company - Does it matter which company issue the policy? Disappointed FIRE and Money 6 02-07-2012 12:02 PM
Can a company off both 401k and Roth 401k bode316 Young Dreamers 11 01-22-2008 12:40 PM
New Company has no 401K - what to do with old 401k? farmboy42 Young Dreamers 9 08-22-2007 09:19 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:43 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.