Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Thursday, September 03, 2009
ASEA & Nationwide - Fun, Food & Frolic
The Alabama State Employees Association is in a bit of trouble:
Scott Dauenhauer CFP, MSFP, AIF
In a report posted on the state personnel Web site on Aug. 21, the Alabama Securities Commission, the state’s securities regulator, described how the folks who run the employees association hit up their plan provider, Nationwide Retirement Solutions of Columbus, Ohio, for millions in, ahem, “endorsement fees.”
Some of those fees took the form of a Napa Valley vineyard tour, player slots for a celebrity golf tournament, first-class airfare, souvenirs, Chicago Cubs baseball tickets and, for the executive director, a handsome boost in salary. Other goodies made it onto the Alabama perk list, too, but you get the idea.
Scott Dauenhauer CFP, MSFP, AIF
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
TDS Poaching Reps?
Word is that Bob Lotter, the new TDS owner is making good on his promise to close districts to his representatives only and he's poaching the reps of his competitors. At least one competitor says that 10 reps went to Lotter after Lotter told the reps that he would be the one controlling access to the districts.
In a letter Lotter wrote last month he alludes to this control, which is not legal in California - good luck Bob.
Scott Dauenhauer CFP, MSFP, AIF
In a letter Lotter wrote last month he alludes to this control, which is not legal in California - good luck Bob.
Scott Dauenhauer CFP, MSFP, AIF
ZUK-ING...Uh, Maybe Not So Objective and Independent
Recently ZUK financial, a 403(b) product sales company sent a letter to districts that misrepresented the CalSTRS 403bComply program. ZUK attempted to paint themselves as objective and without conflicts, while stating that CalSTRS has conflicts of interest. ZUK greatly misrepresents the CalSTRS programs and fails to mention how CalSTRS manages conflicts (of which there are few). DISCLOSURE: I do consulting work for CalSTRS.
Of course ZUK wasn't so quick to point out their own conflicts (the fact that they represent many 403(b) vendors and sell products from TPA's/Remitters that they recommend to school districts). On their own website they state:
Hmmm, unbiased and objective might be traits of a company that did not accept commissions from companies that will be in the compliance programs they recommend (or the products of TPA's they recommend), of course that is not the ZUK offering. What are the chances that ZUK offers up the CalSTRS 403bComply program? Zero. Instead they will offer ING, Great American and their newest employee's company Envoy - entities they have some degree of control over so that they can come in and provide "education." Education from ZUK will not be "objective or unbiased," as the people providing it are sales representatives of 403(b) products.
Don't believe me, you need to look no further than ZUK's own website. It states clearly "ZUK financial group, a representative of ING." If they are representing ING, how can they be representing YOU? This isn't an attempt to demean or even pass judgement on ING (whose product I have not reviewed), simply to point out that ZUK is NOT unbiased and objective using reasonable definitions of the terms.
I don't have a problem with ZUK wanting to sell 403(b) products (other than the fact that my clients were sold a bunch of terrible annuities from Great American when they were with ZUK), but I do have a problem when they send out letters lying or misrepresenting other programs and then put themselves forward as the objective and unbiased solution when nothing could be further from the truth.
If you want further proof of where ZUK's loyalties are, simply pull up their website and copy the names of the representatives and then goto the California Insurance website and look them up, you'll see who they really represent - Insurance companies.
Scott Dauenhauer
Of course ZUK wasn't so quick to point out their own conflicts (the fact that they represent many 403(b) vendors and sell products from TPA's/Remitters that they recommend to school districts). On their own website they state:
"Zuk Solutions is not a one size fits all program, but a customized, comprehensive, unbiased and objective partner ensuring total transparency and the latest and best business practices."
Hmmm, unbiased and objective might be traits of a company that did not accept commissions from companies that will be in the compliance programs they recommend (or the products of TPA's they recommend), of course that is not the ZUK offering. What are the chances that ZUK offers up the CalSTRS 403bComply program? Zero. Instead they will offer ING, Great American and their newest employee's company Envoy - entities they have some degree of control over so that they can come in and provide "education." Education from ZUK will not be "objective or unbiased," as the people providing it are sales representatives of 403(b) products.
Don't believe me, you need to look no further than ZUK's own website. It states clearly "ZUK financial group, a representative of ING." If they are representing ING, how can they be representing YOU? This isn't an attempt to demean or even pass judgement on ING (whose product I have not reviewed), simply to point out that ZUK is NOT unbiased and objective using reasonable definitions of the terms.
I don't have a problem with ZUK wanting to sell 403(b) products (other than the fact that my clients were sold a bunch of terrible annuities from Great American when they were with ZUK), but I do have a problem when they send out letters lying or misrepresenting other programs and then put themselves forward as the objective and unbiased solution when nothing could be further from the truth.
If you want further proof of where ZUK's loyalties are, simply pull up their website and copy the names of the representatives and then goto the California Insurance website and look them up, you'll see who they really represent - Insurance companies.
Scott Dauenhauer
Friday, August 28, 2009
Tax Deferred Services Sues Former Affiliates
So I was checking to see if Tax Deferred Services had filed any lawsuits lately (Bob Lotter threatened to sue me several times on a phone call a few weeks ago and you might say I'm a bit paranoid, he's the new money man behind TDS).
Guess what I found, TDS made good on their promise to sue their former reps. You can track it by clicking the link below and entering the case number below. I've embedded the documents that have been posted so far, there is a hearing scheduled September 15th.
Some interesting things to note is that National Benefit Services is somehow involved in this whole mess, though its unclear to exactly what extent. It appears Great American Plan Administrators and NBS along with an unnamed Florida TPA were all trying to get the business from the reps who used to work with TDS.
The first doc is just the complaint and should load quicker, the second doc is all the filings thus far and is about 221 pages, so give it some time.
I'm not done reading the documents, but will certainly be updating you on what I find.
Case Lookup
Insert 34-2009-00055591 to bring up the case documents
TDS Compalint
Tax Deferred Services Lawsuit
Scott Dauenhauer CFP, MSFP, AIF
Guess what I found, TDS made good on their promise to sue their former reps. You can track it by clicking the link below and entering the case number below. I've embedded the documents that have been posted so far, there is a hearing scheduled September 15th.
Some interesting things to note is that National Benefit Services is somehow involved in this whole mess, though its unclear to exactly what extent. It appears Great American Plan Administrators and NBS along with an unnamed Florida TPA were all trying to get the business from the reps who used to work with TDS.
The first doc is just the complaint and should load quicker, the second doc is all the filings thus far and is about 221 pages, so give it some time.
I'm not done reading the documents, but will certainly be updating you on what I find.
Case Lookup
Insert 34-2009-00055591 to bring up the case documents
TDS Compalint
Tax Deferred Services Lawsuit
Scott Dauenhauer CFP, MSFP, AIF
Thursday, August 20, 2009
TDS Not Requiring New Vendor Agreements?
Tax Deferred Services has begun sending out letters and contracts to school districts stating that they are going to start charging for their "compliance" services. However, the preferred method of charging is for TDS to charge the vendor the $3 fee (see my previous post on this topic). As a consultant to the California Teachers Retirement System's 403(b) program (Pension2) I was concerned that they would need to sign a new "vendor agreement."
After a call by CalSTRS to TDS the response was that they would use the existing agreement and not require a new one. This is strange and further proof that TDS is more interested in creating a revenue stream than actually protecting the school districts and providing competent compliance services.
If you were going to charge vendors for your compliance services, wouldn't it be nice to have that in writing? Lets say that TDS receives about $40 million a month in contributions from their school districts (a number that I've been led to believe is about right). While for certain this number will and probably already is plummeting do to employers canceling their contracts with TDS, lets pretend it only falls by half to $20 million. We'll also assume that the average contribution amount is $1,000 (its actually far lower), thus about 20,000 potential participant contributions to charge on. At $3 per participant contribution you are looking at $60,000 per month (less in the summer months) in revenue.
Wouldn't you want that revenue secured by a contract?
Call me crazy, but I would want an agreement in place with the vendors that are supposed to be paying me. This is just one more reason that I don't believe this company can be taken serious when it comes to handling district money and 403(b) compliance.
Scott Dauenhauer AIF
After a call by CalSTRS to TDS the response was that they would use the existing agreement and not require a new one. This is strange and further proof that TDS is more interested in creating a revenue stream than actually protecting the school districts and providing competent compliance services.
If you were going to charge vendors for your compliance services, wouldn't it be nice to have that in writing? Lets say that TDS receives about $40 million a month in contributions from their school districts (a number that I've been led to believe is about right). While for certain this number will and probably already is plummeting do to employers canceling their contracts with TDS, lets pretend it only falls by half to $20 million. We'll also assume that the average contribution amount is $1,000 (its actually far lower), thus about 20,000 potential participant contributions to charge on. At $3 per participant contribution you are looking at $60,000 per month (less in the summer months) in revenue.
Wouldn't you want that revenue secured by a contract?
Call me crazy, but I would want an agreement in place with the vendors that are supposed to be paying me. This is just one more reason that I don't believe this company can be taken serious when it comes to handling district money and 403(b) compliance.
Scott Dauenhauer AIF
Friday, August 14, 2009
TDS to Charge Vendors $3 for "Compliance"
Below is a letter written to Business Managers who use Tax Deferred Services. In it TDS reveals that they are in the process of moving from giving away services for free to charging vendors $3 per contributing plan participant per month.
Here we have a company that has admitted to compliance service issues who now wants to charge 50% more than compliance firms who have had full systems in place at least since the beginning of the year. They are attempting to get the districts to go along with trusting them by saying that they are going to charge vendors and thus the districts still won't pay. Of course this will lead to fewer vendors and higher costs for the participants.
In addition, the way the letter is worded it seems to indicate that it is the vendor charging for the processing of contributions,
Let's be very clear, vendors do not charge for compliance or for processing participants contributions (okay, they do charge administrative fees as either part of the embedded expenses or via a spread). It is Tax Deferred Services charging for "processing....contributions," and then passing these charges onto the vendor, who then may pass the costs onto the participant. Keep in mind, in the long term, the fees will always be passed to the participant as the vendor MUST cover the new costs somehow. I don't have a problem with a compliance firm charging a fee (though I do not consider TDS a compliance firm) for their services, in fact I encourage it. However, that fee should be charged to the employer or employee. In fact, in California an employer is not allowed to charge vendors for compliance.
The pertinent sections of AB 2462 is as follows, Ed Code Section 44041.5 (b):
I've bolded the applicable sections, 44041.5 used to read "without charge..", it was changed to "with or without charge.." in order to give school districts flexibility in how they pay for their deferred compensation programs. They could pass it on to the employee (assuming the collective bargaining units agree) or pay for it themselves. It does not state that they can charge vendors. It does say that they "may collect that cost from the organization, entity, or employee requesting or authorizing the deduction." This is the line that presumably TDS and others are using to say "gotcha" we can charge vendors. However, there is nobody other than the employee who can "request....or authorize" a deduction (the vendor can't) and thus this fee can only be collected from the employee, not the vendor. So how are the "vendor charging TPA's" getting around this? Notice that the Ed Code states "may collect these costs from the participating employee, the employee's participant account, or...". this is the key. The TPA's tell the vendor (with a wink and a nod) that they must debit the client account for the compliance fee, but if they choose to, the vendor can pay that fee on behalf of the participant. Thus, vendor pays and the TPA gets their fee - the participant however is left holding the bag - being forced to change vendors or pay higher costs or accept lower interest credits so that their vendor can pay the fee. At the end of the day the participant gets hurt, it would be much better if the participant paid the fee directly.
To give you an idea of the vendor reduction taking place when the vendors are required to pay, the FBC in San Diego charges vendors and according to their website they have 37 vendors available (there is some duplication in that number) versus the CalSTRS 403bComply program, which the employer or employee pays - the number of vendors is at 57 and includes Vanguard (The FBC does not at this point). Full Disclosure: I am a consultant to CalSTRS for Comply and Pension2. The employer/employee pay option allows for more choices (54% more in this case) and lower cost options (Vanguard). The new TDS chairman told me that "choice" was the single most important aspect of a deferred compensation plan (which I won't address now) yet he wants to push a model where choices are greatly reduced and fees for participants will have to rise.
So there you have it, vendors are charged 50% more than the marketplace cost for unproven "compliance" and participant choice is greatly reduced. If that is the plan you want, I guess you should stick with the new Tax Deferred Services. Maybe the new motto should be "Less choice, higher costs, same lousy services!"
The document below is what was sent out.
Scott Dauenhauer CFP, MSFP, AIF
TDS Fee Changes
Here we have a company that has admitted to compliance service issues who now wants to charge 50% more than compliance firms who have had full systems in place at least since the beginning of the year. They are attempting to get the districts to go along with trusting them by saying that they are going to charge vendors and thus the districts still won't pay. Of course this will lead to fewer vendors and higher costs for the participants.
In addition, the way the letter is worded it seems to indicate that it is the vendor charging for the processing of contributions,
"Some vendors may pass the additional costs on to the participants. In these cases, we require the vendor to notify the participant in advance and allow them to redirect their contributions to a vendor who does not charge for processing their contributions (emphasis added)."
Let's be very clear, vendors do not charge for compliance or for processing participants contributions (okay, they do charge administrative fees as either part of the embedded expenses or via a spread). It is Tax Deferred Services charging for "processing....contributions," and then passing these charges onto the vendor, who then may pass the costs onto the participant. Keep in mind, in the long term, the fees will always be passed to the participant as the vendor MUST cover the new costs somehow. I don't have a problem with a compliance firm charging a fee (though I do not consider TDS a compliance firm) for their services, in fact I encourage it. However, that fee should be charged to the employer or employee. In fact, in California an employer is not allowed to charge vendors for compliance.
The pertinent sections of AB 2462 is as follows, Ed Code Section 44041.5 (b):
"For purposes of a deferred compensation plan authorized by Section 403(b) or 457 of the Internal Revenue Code or an
annuity program authorized by Section 403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code that is offered by the school district which
provides for investments in corporate stocks, bonds, securities, mutual funds, or annuities, except as prohibited by the California Constitution, the governing board of each school district when drawing an order for the salary payment due to an employees of the district shall, with or without charge, reduce the order by the amount which it has been requested in a revocable written authorization by the employee to deduct for participating in a deferred compensation plan or annuity program offered by the school district. The governing board shall determine the cost of performing the requested deduction and may collect that cost from the organization, entity, or employee requesting or authorizing the deduction. For purposes of this subdivision, the governing board of a school district is entitled to include in the amounts reducing the order the costs of any compliance or administrative services that are required to perform the requested deduction in compliance with federal or state law, and may collect these costs from the participating employee, the employee’s participant account, or the organization or entity authorizing the deduction."
I've bolded the applicable sections, 44041.5 used to read "without charge..", it was changed to "with or without charge.." in order to give school districts flexibility in how they pay for their deferred compensation programs. They could pass it on to the employee (assuming the collective bargaining units agree) or pay for it themselves. It does not state that they can charge vendors. It does say that they "may collect that cost from the organization, entity, or employee requesting or authorizing the deduction." This is the line that presumably TDS and others are using to say "gotcha" we can charge vendors. However, there is nobody other than the employee who can "request....or authorize" a deduction (the vendor can't) and thus this fee can only be collected from the employee, not the vendor. So how are the "vendor charging TPA's" getting around this? Notice that the Ed Code states "may collect these costs from the participating employee, the employee's participant account, or...". this is the key. The TPA's tell the vendor (with a wink and a nod) that they must debit the client account for the compliance fee, but if they choose to, the vendor can pay that fee on behalf of the participant. Thus, vendor pays and the TPA gets their fee - the participant however is left holding the bag - being forced to change vendors or pay higher costs or accept lower interest credits so that their vendor can pay the fee. At the end of the day the participant gets hurt, it would be much better if the participant paid the fee directly.
To give you an idea of the vendor reduction taking place when the vendors are required to pay, the FBC in San Diego charges vendors and according to their website they have 37 vendors available (there is some duplication in that number) versus the CalSTRS 403bComply program, which the employer or employee pays - the number of vendors is at 57 and includes Vanguard (The FBC does not at this point). Full Disclosure: I am a consultant to CalSTRS for Comply and Pension2. The employer/employee pay option allows for more choices (54% more in this case) and lower cost options (Vanguard). The new TDS chairman told me that "choice" was the single most important aspect of a deferred compensation plan (which I won't address now) yet he wants to push a model where choices are greatly reduced and fees for participants will have to rise.
So there you have it, vendors are charged 50% more than the marketplace cost for unproven "compliance" and participant choice is greatly reduced. If that is the plan you want, I guess you should stick with the new Tax Deferred Services. Maybe the new motto should be "Less choice, higher costs, same lousy services!"
The document below is what was sent out.
Scott Dauenhauer CFP, MSFP, AIF
TDS Fee Changes
Monday, August 10, 2009
Start using Mint.com to manage your money today!
"I highly recommend this website to anyone who wants to track their personal finances online. I've used it for about a year and love it."
Why you'll love Mint.com:
* Easy --set up in minutes
* All your accounts in one place
* Alerts for bills, fees, budgets, and low balances
* Personalized savings
* Complete security and privacy
* Easy --set up in minutes
* All your accounts in one place
* Alerts for bills, fees, budgets, and low balances
* Personalized savings
* Complete security and privacy
SDCOE's FBC Subpoena's Me In Advisor Lawsuit
The sue happy Fringe Benefit Consortium, a subsidiary of the San Diego County Office of Education has served me with a subpoena to appear for a deposition in their case against Barry Allred, Christopher Dougherty, Chris Furtado, Mary Seki, Lori Lin, and Michael Zeiger. I believe the defendants are countersuing the FBC.
Dan Puplava's attorney was CC'd on this subpoena, for those of you who read this blog you know that he threatened me for linking to the San Diego Union Tribune article that was not friendly toward his client (Dan Puplava).
There is no reason for my name to be pulled into this lawsuit.
FBC
Dan Puplava's attorney was CC'd on this subpoena, for those of you who read this blog you know that he threatened me for linking to the San Diego Union Tribune article that was not friendly toward his client (Dan Puplava).
There is no reason for my name to be pulled into this lawsuit.
FBC
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Lots of Changes in California TPA's
Though there have been no press releases, my sources have told me that much is ado in the world of California Compliance TPA's.
Keenan has sold Envoy Plan Services (and Retirement Solutions Group) to Zuk Financial Group, closing around September 1st.
Tax Deferred Services has apparently been sold to the Newport Beach company R.A. Lotter, though no press release has been found.
Gatekeeper seemed to almost go out of business after major compliance nightmares and not sending money in a timely fashion, but was scooped up by CPI Qualified Plan consultants.....who then sold out to CUNA (Credit Union Backoffice).
The FBC had some problems of their own when the San Diego Union Tribune published a piece that pointed to one of the employees being involved in what appears to be less than ethical behavior (you can read about that on this blog).
Lots of action, it isn't clear to me how the participant will benefit from any of these transactions, the likelihood is that they will be offered more commission based products with what appear to be an endorsement from the employer.
Scott Dauenhauer CFP, MSFP, AIF
www.meridianwealth.com
Keenan has sold Envoy Plan Services (and Retirement Solutions Group) to Zuk Financial Group, closing around September 1st.
Tax Deferred Services has apparently been sold to the Newport Beach company R.A. Lotter, though no press release has been found.
Gatekeeper seemed to almost go out of business after major compliance nightmares and not sending money in a timely fashion, but was scooped up by CPI Qualified Plan consultants.....who then sold out to CUNA (Credit Union Backoffice).
The FBC had some problems of their own when the San Diego Union Tribune published a piece that pointed to one of the employees being involved in what appears to be less than ethical behavior (you can read about that on this blog).
Lots of action, it isn't clear to me how the participant will benefit from any of these transactions, the likelihood is that they will be offered more commission based products with what appear to be an endorsement from the employer.
Scott Dauenhauer CFP, MSFP, AIF
www.meridianwealth.com
FBC/Nationwide Exchange Out Form for 403(b)
From the FBCRetire.com website:
Outgoing Exchange Form
To obtain this form, please contact your FBC / Nationwide Retirement Specialist.
Use this form to transfer or exchange your FBC / Nationwide 403(b) account to another approved vendor.
Fax the completed form to (800) 597-8206.
You see, the FBC is going to require that you speak with one of their "registered reps" before they allow you to move money out of their 403(b) plan - they make money from the plan and have a vested interest in keeping you in the plan. Even if you somehow obtain a form on your own (which is the purpose of this post) you will probably receive a call trying to "save" the assets from leaving. Ironically, the representatives that are touted as CFP's and advisors are not allowed to give investment advice. Of course, this doesn't stop them from doing so. Last year a client of mine was given the advice of putting 25% in the American Growth Fund, 25% in American Capital World Growth and Income, 25% in one of the American Balanced funds and 25% in the Vanguard Short Term Bond Index. The "advisor" told my client that things could get bad.....yet my clients allocation to stocks was increased by this move (keep in mind I like Vanguard and American). So, FBC reps DO give advice, they just aren't supposed to and it DOESN'T appear to be very good.
If you want to get your money out of the FBC/Nationwide plan and don't want to talk with one of their "advisors", you can utilize this attached form (unless of course they change it.....at which point I'll find it and post again).
Complain to your employer that this practice of withholding forms so that an FBC paid advisor can try to talk you out of moving your money is unethical in my opinion and should be stopped.
Scott Dauenhauer CFP, MSFP, AIF
FBC - Outgoing Exchange Form
Outgoing Exchange Form
To obtain this form, please contact your FBC / Nationwide Retirement Specialist.
Use this form to transfer or exchange your FBC / Nationwide 403(b) account to another approved vendor.
Fax the completed form to (800) 597-8206.
You see, the FBC is going to require that you speak with one of their "registered reps" before they allow you to move money out of their 403(b) plan - they make money from the plan and have a vested interest in keeping you in the plan. Even if you somehow obtain a form on your own (which is the purpose of this post) you will probably receive a call trying to "save" the assets from leaving. Ironically, the representatives that are touted as CFP's and advisors are not allowed to give investment advice. Of course, this doesn't stop them from doing so. Last year a client of mine was given the advice of putting 25% in the American Growth Fund, 25% in American Capital World Growth and Income, 25% in one of the American Balanced funds and 25% in the Vanguard Short Term Bond Index. The "advisor" told my client that things could get bad.....yet my clients allocation to stocks was increased by this move (keep in mind I like Vanguard and American). So, FBC reps DO give advice, they just aren't supposed to and it DOESN'T appear to be very good.
If you want to get your money out of the FBC/Nationwide plan and don't want to talk with one of their "advisors", you can utilize this attached form (unless of course they change it.....at which point I'll find it and post again).
Complain to your employer that this practice of withholding forms so that an FBC paid advisor can try to talk you out of moving your money is unethical in my opinion and should be stopped.
Scott Dauenhauer CFP, MSFP, AIF
FBC - Outgoing Exchange Form
Friday, July 10, 2009
Puplava Threatens Me With Legal Action
So I post a link to an article from the Union Tribune regarding potential nefarious activities by a county official, Dan Puplava (click on the above title to go to that post). Today I get a letter from his attorney threatening me if I don't remove the link and the picture (that of a what the attorney says is a Used Car Salesman). Funny, I'm pretty sure that I can link to articles from other publications as long as those publications don't mind me linking to them.
Just so everyone is aware, I have extended a generous offer to Mr. Puplava to tell his side of the story - I'll post it word for word. Of course there are many questions that I'd also like for him to answer that I'm sure he won't.
Anyway, thought you'd be interested to see how some are yet again attempting to censor me....this time for something I didn't even write.
Scott Dauenhauer CFP, MSFP, AIF
Just so everyone is aware, I have extended a generous offer to Mr. Puplava to tell his side of the story - I'll post it word for word. Of course there are many questions that I'd also like for him to answer that I'm sure he won't.
Anyway, thought you'd be interested to see how some are yet again attempting to censor me....this time for something I didn't even write.
Scott Dauenhauer CFP, MSFP, AIF
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Alabama cancels compensation plan with Nationwide
It seems what is at issue are payments Nationwide makes to the Union that some feel were not properly disclosed.
Scott Dauenhauer CFP, MSFP, AIF
www.meridianwealth.com
Scott Dauenhauer CFP, MSFP, AIF
www.meridianwealth.com
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Gatekeeper Acquired by CPI
Gatekeeper, a 403(b) Third Party Administrator that has come under scrutiny lately for slow payments to vendors has been acquired by CPIQualified Plan Consultants.
Plansponsor reported:
Fred Schneyer – 05/13/2009
CPI Qualified Plan Consultants, a Great Bend, Kansas-based third-party administrator (TPA) and recordkeeper, agreed to acquire Gatekeeper Administration & Consulting, a Flagstaff, Arizona-based TPA specializing in the education industry.
A CPI news release said the combined companies intend to provide CPI Common Remitter Services through a newly organized operations division under the management of Theresa Leiker, manager of Government and Tax Exempt Services at CPI. The deal is expected to be finalized no later than July 31.
As director of Retirement Consulting Services for Public Educators, Tamara Middleton, President/CEO of Gatekeeper, will be establishing a new CPI consulting division to focus on 403(b) and 457 plans within the public education sector, according to the news release.
The CPI 403(b) Gatekeeper Services will feature multiple service levels that will allow plan sponsors to decide how much or how little daily involvement they will have with the administrative aspects of their 403(b) retirement plans.
Scott Dauenhauer CFP, MSFP, AIF
Plansponsor reported:
Fred Schneyer – 05/13/2009
CPI Qualified Plan Consultants, a Great Bend, Kansas-based third-party administrator (TPA) and recordkeeper, agreed to acquire Gatekeeper Administration & Consulting, a Flagstaff, Arizona-based TPA specializing in the education industry.
A CPI news release said the combined companies intend to provide CPI Common Remitter Services through a newly organized operations division under the management of Theresa Leiker, manager of Government and Tax Exempt Services at CPI. The deal is expected to be finalized no later than July 31.
As director of Retirement Consulting Services for Public Educators, Tamara Middleton, President/CEO of Gatekeeper, will be establishing a new CPI consulting division to focus on 403(b) and 457 plans within the public education sector, according to the news release.
The CPI 403(b) Gatekeeper Services will feature multiple service levels that will allow plan sponsors to decide how much or how little daily involvement they will have with the administrative aspects of their 403(b) retirement plans.
Scott Dauenhauer CFP, MSFP, AIF
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Insurance Lead Program attempts to "Plant Thoughts"
Here are a few highlights:
Join Dean Cipriano, President of Insurance Selling Systems, as he reveals his cutting-edge subconscious selling techniques that some experts have said are too powerful, too persuasive, and should be banned.
We weren't sure that we should even have this free telephone seminar because of the controversy surrounding the topic. You see, there is an underground selling technique that is so powerful that, if used improperly, can be used to influence someone against their will. Traditional sales trainers don’t teach it because most of them are unaware that it exists.
But we decided to have the call because our goal is to help you gain every advantage possible…and the simple yet powerful breakthrough sales techniques you'll discover will not only give you a HUGE advantage, but will help you close sales faster, and dramatically increase your commissions.
On this 70-minute call, you will discover:
How to plant thoughts in your prospect's mind!
Instantly know what your prospect is thinking!
Compel prospects to agree with you and say "yes!"
Discover one simple phrase that melts away prospect resistance!
Develop rapport with anyone in 4 minutes or less! Even in your marketing message.
Five easy steps to skyrocketing your sales!
How to subconsciously influence your prospects!
How to get qualified leads to respond to your advertisements as if they were in a hypnotic trance.
Why you should never disqualify people before using this simple technique... (You are losing a lot of sales if you don't do this.)
How to become a sales superstar who earns huge commissions with literally no extra work or effort!
If any of this sounds interesting to you... you OWE it to yourself to attend this upcoming free teleseminar, where I'm going to reveal every mind boggling secret about my little known, but amazing lead methods and hypnotic sales techniques that will Explode Your Commissions like a fireworks display on the fourth of July!
During This Eye-Opening Teleseminar You're Going To Be Exposed To The Most Electrifying Lead Techniques And Astonishing Selling Methods Ever Created!
Do these guys sound like Fiduciaries?
What a farce.
Scott Dauenhauer CFP, MSFP, AIF
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Gatekeeper 403(b) Fired
Gatekeeper, the 403(b) compliance company out of Phoenix is apparently struggling with growth, usually not a bad problem to have. The problem is that its attracting headlines and not good ones. One of the problems many 403(b) TPA's are having in this new regulation environment is that the massive demand for their services is overwhelming their ability to provide those services.
I predicted a year ago that we will see several failures of "TPA's" and the loss of money, there doesn't appear to be any loss of money in this situation and the TPA has not failed.
In some cases I think the districts need to be patient, but the first rule should always be the old Reagan rule "Trust, but verify".
Scott Dauenhauer CFP, MSFP, AIF
949-916-6238
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Dan Puplava of Fringe Benefit Consortium (San Diego County Office of Education) Accused of Wrongdoing
Dan Puplava, Deferred Compensation Manager of the San Diego County Office of Education's Fringe Benefit Consortium 403(b) and 457(b) plan evidently has been earning commissions from product sales to employees and participants of San Diego County (as well as Riverside and Imperial Counties). According to the San Diego Union Tribune article "In 2006, Puplava collected at least $355,000 in commissions as a broker for AIG Financial Advisors Inc., according to documents obtained by The San Diego Union-Tribune. He was named to the 2008 Achiever's Council, an honor reserved for agents of AIG Financial Advisors whose commissions and fees exceed $250,000 a year."
This is an interesting article and a case that warrants further attention from participants and authorities.
"Puplava's work as a broker also appears to have been done at county offices. Client statements obtained by the Union-Tribune list Puplava's phone number at the county schools office as his primary contact.
“It certainly strikes me as an apparent conflict of interest,” said Ronald F. Duska, director of the Mitchell Center for Ethical Leadership at The American College in Bryn Mawr, Pa. “It just sets up incredible temptations for the guy who's supposed to be acting as a manager.”
The conflicts of interest that exist when a fiduciary of a plan is also selling products are huge and its clear that this should be examined further. The article states "The arrangement does not appear to violate federal securities laws, but it tests the limits of the state education code and has become one of the main sticking points in litigation involving the office."
The article goes on to say "Running an outside business is legal for full-time county Office of Education employees. But according to the California Department of Justice, a deferred compensation program manager is supposed to be a neutral party – not someone who profits from marketing financial products.
“The statute prohibits school employees from acting as sales agents for 403(b) vendors in return for commissions,” according to an August opinion from the Attorney General's Office analyzing the state's education code."
The reporter found documents linking AVIVA (a purveyor of fixed annuities for 403(b) plans) commissions with Puplava as well:
"Court papers also say Puplava negotiated a deal with Aviva Life and Annuity Co. that paid him 30 percent of all commissions the partnership received from Aviva. In 2006, Puplava personally collected more than $26,000 in Aviva commissions from February to October, the cross-suit says."
Puplava denies wrongdoing but has refused to go on the record, this blog has invited him to refute in writing any and all allegations against him. We have extended an offer to allow him to submit his rebuttal in writing and we will not edit it.
Puplava has also had his attorney send this blog (and its editor) a threatening letter to remove all links to the San Diego Union Tribune article. Click on the link above to be taken to the article.
Scott Dauenhauer CFP, MSFP, AIF
This is an interesting article and a case that warrants further attention from participants and authorities.
"Puplava's work as a broker also appears to have been done at county offices. Client statements obtained by the Union-Tribune list Puplava's phone number at the county schools office as his primary contact.
“It certainly strikes me as an apparent conflict of interest,” said Ronald F. Duska, director of the Mitchell Center for Ethical Leadership at The American College in Bryn Mawr, Pa. “It just sets up incredible temptations for the guy who's supposed to be acting as a manager.”
The conflicts of interest that exist when a fiduciary of a plan is also selling products are huge and its clear that this should be examined further. The article states "The arrangement does not appear to violate federal securities laws, but it tests the limits of the state education code and has become one of the main sticking points in litigation involving the office."
The article goes on to say "Running an outside business is legal for full-time county Office of Education employees. But according to the California Department of Justice, a deferred compensation program manager is supposed to be a neutral party – not someone who profits from marketing financial products.
“The statute prohibits school employees from acting as sales agents for 403(b) vendors in return for commissions,” according to an August opinion from the Attorney General's Office analyzing the state's education code."
The reporter found documents linking AVIVA (a purveyor of fixed annuities for 403(b) plans) commissions with Puplava as well:
"Court papers also say Puplava negotiated a deal with Aviva Life and Annuity Co. that paid him 30 percent of all commissions the partnership received from Aviva. In 2006, Puplava personally collected more than $26,000 in Aviva commissions from February to October, the cross-suit says."
Puplava denies wrongdoing but has refused to go on the record, this blog has invited him to refute in writing any and all allegations against him. We have extended an offer to allow him to submit his rebuttal in writing and we will not edit it.
Puplava has also had his attorney send this blog (and its editor) a threatening letter to remove all links to the San Diego Union Tribune article. Click on the link above to be taken to the article.
Scott Dauenhauer CFP, MSFP, AIF
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Some Relief for 403(b) Sponsors
403(b) plan sponsors still have to comply, but they have some relief available to them.
ScottyD
ScottyD
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)