The newsletter also includes a brief description of certain plan amendments that plan sponsors might be required, or might wish, to make before the end of the 2010 plan year. (The Segal Group, Inc.)

Tags:   retirement

130 pages. See Section II.b. Option Group B: Simplifying Savings and Retirement Incentives. (The President?s Economic Recovery Advisory Board)

Tags:   retirement plan types

17 pages. Excerpt: "The [August 27, 2010 phone] Forum will focus on potential abusive schemes and new emerging issues including insurance funded plans, schemes involving defined benefit pension plans, S Corporation ESOP abuses, ROBS compliance issues, reversion and distribution schemes, management company promotions, abuses involving union plans and other issues of concern. IRS EP will also discuss strategies to proactively detect and deter abuse, including the use of Promoter Investigations." (U.S. Internal Revenue Service)

Tags:   retirement

A recent IRS study found that 401(k) Plans are the most most non-compliant plan type in the retirement plan universe. Since 401(k) plans have become the most.

Tags:   retirement blogs

31 pages. Excerpt: "Avaneesh Bhagat, Employee Plans Voluntary Compliance Program Coordinator, will conduct the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System . . . Phone Forum. Avaneesh will discuss recurring issues found in ECPRS. Attendees are encouraged to submit questions in advance at ep.phoneforum@irs.gov. Also, it is anticipated that there will be time for live questions." (U.S. Internal Revenue Service)

Tags:   retirement

Excerpt: "The Forum will focus on potential abusive schemes and new emerging issues including insurance funded plans, schemes involving defined benefit pension plans, S Corporation ESOP abuses, ROBS compliance issues, reversion and distribution schemes, management company promotions, abuses involving union plans and other issues of concern." (Internal Revenue Service)

Tags:   retirement

Barclays Approval, New Jersey Settles, Basel Rules: Compliance Bloomberg ... list of counterparties used for reverse repurchase agreements to add money market funds managed by 14 firms including Fidelity Investments and Goldman ...

Tags:   fidelity

Fidelity Investments® Survey Finds Majority of Employers Rethinking Health ... Business Wire (press release) The group's specialties include retirement and health care plan consulting, custom data administration, compliance, employee communication and human ... and more »

Tags:   fidelity

The issue of financial regulation has taken center stage over the past few weeks. This was inevitable given the circumstances surrounding the recession: a bursting bubble in the real estate market exacerbated by rampant greed and a total lack of transparency on Wall Street. If history has taught us anything, it’s that capitalism thinks and acts much faster than regulation. After the damage is already done, regulators scramble to assign blame and over-regulate to compensate for their own glaring errors. My article today pertains to my end of the industry: financial planning and investment advice. While advisors are typically regulated by either FINRA and/or the SEC, there is a huge amount of confusion about the standards advisors need to follow when it comes to selling products and offering investment advice. There is also confusion about ‘who is’ an advisor because there is no state-issued designation for financial planners the way there is for accountants and financial analysts. The closest thing we have is the Certified Financial Planner (CFP) which is controversial among industry professionals for a variety of reasons ranging from the ethical requirements to the fees. As our field grows continues be in great demand, it’s important that regulators maintain some clear-cut rules and regulations for financial professionals in the business of giving advice. First, the issue of “suitability” vs. “fiduciary” standards has been lingering for a while. This pertains to both financial planners and any other industry professional with a license to give advice. As it stands, investment advisors have a license which stockbrokers don’t have, and are held to a higher “fiduciary” standard. They are expected to act in the best interests of their clients. I am an investment advisor and embrace that responsibility. On the other hand, stockbrokers are not held to a fiduciary standard. They are simply required to make sure their recommendations are “suitable” for clients, even if their recommendations aren’t the best, or the best ...

Tags:   retirement blogs

It certainly looks that way to me. Throughout my eight years in the financial planning profession I’ve watched the rapid transition from commission and transaction-based business models into fee models. Back in the 80’s and 90’s it was standard practice to buy and sell stocks and pay commissions to your broker based on the dollar value of your transaction. The same applied to other financial products which worked on a commission schedule. Nowadays, commissions tend to raise eyebrows, even in cases where the commission may be reasonable, hard-earned, or perhaps work out cheaper for the client in the long-run. It doesn’t even matter so much what the fee model is. There are the true fee-only advisors (NAPFA folks) who believe fees should be charged by the hour, for the full year, or based on specific services such as creating financial plans. These people may earn less than other advisors but they rarely have a conflict of interest with their clients. In my conversations with financial planners the more common fee model, asset-based fees, also happens to be the more natural transition for traditional brokers who are being urged by their firms to convert from a commission model to a fee model. In the asset-based fee model advisors slap an annual fee on a brokerage account typically ranging from 1 – 2% and the client never has to pay a commission for any stock or other product purchased inside. This system is marketable to clients because the fee received by the advisor is correlated to the performance of the account. It provides an incentive for the advisor to track progress and not simply become complacent after receiving a commission. In the sort of volatile trading environment we’ve been in for a while now it can help clients to receive ongoing advice without having to worry about paying fees for each phone call or meeting. Most services ranging from quarterly portfolio reviews to financial plans are typically included with the annual fee. This system is also good because it allows the planner to earn a ...

Tags:   retirement blogs