Warning: Don't let administrators act as custodian – Part 3 January 15, 2009
Posted by Jeff Nabers in : Self Directed IRA Solo 401k , 2comments
*** This is Part 3 of a series about the dangers of letting an administrator act as custodian. Make sure you read Part 1 and Part 2 first to make sense of this post. ***
The illegitimate custodian test
Ask “Who should the check be payable to for the rollover contribution or transfer?”
Ask “If my IRA buys real estate and rents it out, to whom should the tenant make the rent checks payable?”
Ask “If my IRA owns real estate that needs repairs, who issues and signs the check to the repairmen?”
These questions will tell you who is actually serving as custodian. For instance, if you live in TX and unregulated company Dotrust is marketing its self-directed IRA services to you, the answer to one or more of the questions above will probably be something like Dotrust of Texas, Inc. If this is the case, ask to see its bank or trust charter – if it is an illegitimate custodian it won’t have one, and it will insist that another bank is technically the custodian. It not only matters who’s the custodian on the paperwork is; but it also matters who is acting as custodian as uncovered by the answers to the 3 questions above.
Why would somebody operate an illegitimate custodian company?
First of all, if it’s a franchise operation, the franchisee might not even know that he or she is part of an illegitimate IRA custodian scheme. Secondly, there can be a lot of profit to be made in an illegitimate IRA custodian scheme. The company can earn interest off of your IRA funds, and it may pass only some (or even none) of that interest earned on to you. It may also be able to earn higher interest rates when it collectively has custody of hundreds of millions of dollars in funds.
Surprised?
You may be thinking “This sounds like a company I’ve run into. But it promotes and and advertises and has been in the business for decades… it can’t be illegitimate, can it????”
Many high-profile schemes have been shut down. The private annuity trust scheme was promoted for over a decade before the IRS shut it down. Additionally, being in business for decades doesn’t guarantee that business is legitimate. Look at Bernie Madoff.
Madoff may be a harsh comparison. Those involved in an illegitimate IRA custodian scheme may not be knowingly harming anyone. They may even be attorneys or CPAs. They may believe they’ve merely created a loophole for themselves with the “stepped transaction” arrangement. They may be good people. But the bottom line is that there are significant risks you take in using their services, and you will pay the consequences if uncovered by the authorities. In my opinion, it never makes sense to use an illegitimate custodian because there are dozens of regulated/legitimate self-directed IRA custodians out there. There should be a balance between risk and reward. There is significant risk of using an unregulated/illegitimate custodian, and it offers no unique reward that isn’t offered by other self-directed IRA custodians.
Confused? If you have a self-directed IRA or are thinking of opening one at a custodian company, perform the illegitimate custodian test as described above.
Subscribe :: 
del.icio.us :: 
Digg this :: 
Stumble it :: 
facebook
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: [What are these icons for?]
Warning: Don't let administrators act as custodian – Part 2 January 13, 2009
Posted by Jeff Nabers in : Self Directed IRA Solo 401k , add a comment
*** This is Part 2 of a series about the dangers of letting an administrator act as custodian. Make sure you read Part 1 first to make sense of this post. ***
Signs that your custodian may not really be a custodian
- They sometimes call themselves an administrator. “Administrator” is an accurate label for any company who provides record keeping services. Being an “administrator” doesn’t require any regulation. These types of companies may expand their services to include asset custody without actually registering as a bank or trust company.
- Their name contains the word “trust” attached to other letters or words. A legitimate custodian usually has the word “bank” or “trust” as a separate word included in its name. In most states, the word “trust” is a restricted word for naming companies – just like the word “bank”. This means that you can’t start a company called “ABC Bank” unless it’s registered as a bank. You also can’t start a company called “XYZ Trust Company” without being a registered trust company. An illegitimate custodian might get around this by calling themselves Trustus rather than Trust Us, Dotrust rather than Do Trust, or Safetrust rather than Safe Trust. You see, if trust is attached to another word instead of used as a separate word, then it sneakily gets around the naming restrictions.
- They have dozens of offices all around the country. Expanding to dozens of cities across the country can (more…)
Warning: Don't let administrators act as custodian January 7, 2009
Posted by Jeff Nabers in : Self Directed IRA Solo 401k , 4comments
To have a self-directed IRA, unlike a Solo 401k, you must have a self-directed IRA custodian… and you should stay away from unregulated companies masquerading as a custodian. A self-directed IRA custodian is one that will have less investment restrictions than the more common tradition stocks/bonds/funds brokerage-type custodian, and they usually allow investment into real estate, private companies, and other alternative assets.
An IRA is technically a trust, and a custodian is basically a trustee who performs fewer duties than a trustee usually would. As the name suggests, the sole duty is custody-holding assets and/or property on behalf of the trust.
The Internal Revenue Code says that the IRA custodian role can only be served by:
- A bank
- A trust company (this is the most common type of company to serve as self directed IRA custodian)
- A company specially & specifically approved by the IRS (this is very rare)
So, essentially, in the self directed IRA market, most custodians are chartered as (more…)
Why to self-trustee your Solo 401k plan: An argument for direct possession of your assets December 18, 2008
Posted by Jeff Nabers in : Money, Personal Enjoyment, Personal Productivity, Precious Metals, real estate, Self Directed IRA Solo 401k , add a comment
We have seen some unbelievable things over the past few years… especially the past few months. The only thing certain is that there is a lot of uncertainty ahead. If you haven’t already done so, right now I strongly suggest you watch the 30 minute condensed version of the film I.O.U.S.A. This film features David Walker, the former U.S. Comptroller General… aka the chief accountant of the government. He tried to fix the government’s financial problems, but Dick Cheney and others told him he needed to stop because they didn’t need solving. So he stepped down from his position and decided to prove to the world just how bad of shape our government really is in.
Today some people, including congressmen, are promoting some very extreme ideas. Some of these ideas involve the government “nationalizing” (or “confiscating” for those of us who speak directly) the assets of the people. Some plans even call for confiscation of retirement account assets specifically. In one scheme called the “Guaranteed Retirement Account” all retirement assets would be liquidated and handed over the Social Security Administration for investment management in a program that would provide a guaranteed return of 3% per year. This kind of silliness doesn’t need to be gratified by anything more than a brief response:
- We’ve already seen how well the Social Security Administration manages money. It simply doesn’t. There is no money. There is no account. It just hands its income straight over to the general spending account of the government, and (not surprisingly) it gets spent!
- Liquidating $16 trillion is impossible. It would crash the securities market entirely, and $16 trillion would not be withdrawn. If you started liquidating people’s retirement accounts alphabetically by name, those with names that start with letters n through z would receive little to nothing because of the price free fall created by the first half of the mass sell off.
- The real world cost of living increases do not jive with published CPI figures, and there is often a discrepancy of much more than a few percent. A 3% return on investment would likely be a steady loss of principal when accurately indexing for inflation.
While we may not see that particular scheme enacted into law, it can’t be ignored that this type of solution is being considered. This government theft approach isn’t unheard of. In fact, Argentina just did it! Don’t forget that (more…)
