New Pooled Registered Pension Plan details?
The general idea of the PRPP is so that small business who cannot afford to offer a plan alone will be able to pool resources with others along with self-employed to create voluntary, defined-contribution pension plans that would be managed by private sector financial institutions. The PRPP concept would offer more options to individuals as well  as   small and medium-sized businesses - Tax Rules for Pooled Registered Pension Plans  You can also find an overview here THE NEW PRPP – A Pension for the Pension-Less
Correct.  Prior to 2011, new members under the pension plans in IL had automatic annual step-ups of 3%.  Historic, annual pension payouts are growing at 2x the rate of inflation for anyone grandfathered in.  Not to mention that many are taking multiple pensions or have [previously used tricks like taking a job for 1 day to raise their lifetime pension income payout level](http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/opinion/editorials/ct-teacher-pension-court-edit-0324-20150323-story.html?i10c.referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F).  The unions and democrats basically raped the state and the taxpayer has been clueless until the chickens came home to roost.  The state is so blue/democratic that Gov. Rauner is almost at a disadvantage by default.  He's fighting an uphill battle. First of all depending on the type of IRA you may not have to pay taxes on withdrawals in the US at all. If you are withdrawing your principle from a Roth IRA then you don't owe taxes. Only when you withdraw the gains do you pay taxes on it. You have two options for withdrawals: Lump Sum Withdrawal: If you take a lump sum withdrawal you will owe taxes to the US (30% for non-resident aliens of the US), and according to DTAA; Article 23, you will file your taxes with India declaring your IRA or 401(k) withdrawal proceeds and claim credit on the taxes you paid to the US.  Monthly Pension Withdrawal: You can also receive monthly pension payments and you will only be taxed in the country in which you are a resident of. This is according to DTAA, Article 20. You would then have to submit necessary documentation to your payer in the US so that they do not withhold any taxes in the US. Just as a side note it might be just better to keep the money where it is and let it grow or roll it over to a Roth IRA if you are currently in a lower tax bracket for maximum savings of your principle. Here is a link with more detailed information of what I provided you: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-01-25/news/30663129_1_taxable-income-nri-401k-plan "The gross liabilities (benefit obligation) will still be there, regardless. They are *future* benefits.  Sure, you can increase funding to the plan to eliminate the *net* pension liability, but why? The new assets would earn very little. The shortfall is not an excessively large risk. The only reason seems to be the ""all-consuming focus on immediate results"" which is more rhetoric than reality in this case." The biggest problem is that the rate of return for a completely immunized program is really low.  Especially, now, given the low rate of return, the cost of such a program makes it nearly unfeasible, unless you assumed a ridiculously low rate of return (&lt;1% return).  As it is, they're assuming a 4.5% rate of return, which is about 2% above inflation, a very very conservative forecast.    Plus, not every pension plan could immunize their plans.  All that does is shift interest rate risk (btw, not the only type of risk that exists, there's credit risk as well.  To get rid of both, you'd be getting marginally above 0% return, not something you can run a pension plan on).  So, you'd have to have someone or some set of people that have a very large and very unnatural interest rate risk.  If you had a large move in rates, it would demolish those people, which would completely invalidate those hedges.  It's much better for the economy on whole that pension plans are able to take credit and interest rate risk. I would lean towards taking the lump-sum too if that were my situation. However, the value of the sum offered is likely lower than the value of the pension plan would have paid out - otherwise how would it be any advantage to offer it?  So, uncertainty about receiving the benefits is reduced, but you're still likely taking a loss vs what was promised. It's better then the pension plan going completely insolvent and paying nothing, but no reason for celebration either. "Forbes has an article investigating this. Here are the key parts: On line at the bottom of the list of funds there is an entire screen   of grey-faded micro print which includes this telling disclosure: TD Ameritrade receives remuneration from certain ETFs (exchange-traded     funds) that participate in the commission-free ETF program for     shareholder, administrative and/or other services. In other words, TD Ameritrade is now enforcing a pay-to-play for their   so-called commission-free exchange-traded funds. They are willing to   forego their $6.95 trading commission in favor of remuneration   directly from the ETF vendors. Because Vanguard refuses to pay such   money to custodians, they are no longer being allowed to play. and Joseph Giannone, a TD Ameritrade spokesman, was quoted as saying,   ""With any business decision, client needs are paramount, but the   underlying economics of programs can’t be ignored. ... In line with   industry practices, certain providers pay servicing, administrative or   other fees. Vanguard elected not to be a part of the new program."" So basically it sounds like Vanguard, and presumably iShares as well, were unwilling to pay TD Ameritrade to continue offering their ETFs commission-free." An employer can decide that the employee funds are automatically vested. The new company could have had a more aggressive vesting schedule and grandfathered in all the employees of the company they acquired. This could have been part of the purchase negoaitaions.   I would be surprised if they did it for employees that left years ago, especially if they were beyond the return period. I wouldn't keep money in a plan with a former employer just in case it happens. Check the plan documents to see all the verbiage regarding vesting here is a paragraph from one: You will receive one year of vesting service for each calendar year   during which you complete 850 or more hours of service. Once you have   five years of service, your account is fully vested and any future   Company contributions made to your account will be immediately vested.   Full vesting also occurs at age 59½, total disability or death while   employed by the Company. If you leave the Company prior to 100%   vesting, any unvested portion of your Plan account will be forfeited. "I've been down the consolidation route too (of a handful of DC pensions; the DB ones I've not touched, and you would indeed need advice to move those around). What you should be comparing against is: what's the cheapest possible thing you could be doing?  Monevators' online platform list will give you an idea of SIPP costs (if your pot is big enough and you're a buy-and-hold person, ATS' flat-fee model means costs can become arbitrarily close to zero percent), and if you're happy to be invested in something like Vanguard Lifestrategy, Target Retirement or vanilla index trackers then charges on those will be something like 0.1%-0.4%.  Savings of 0.5-1.0% per year add up over pension saving timescales, but only you can decide whether whatever extra the adviser is offering vs. a more DIY approach is worth it for you. Are you absolutely sure that 0.75% pa fee isn't on top of whatever charges are built into the funds he'll invest you in?  For the £1000 fee, advisers claim to have high costs per customer because of ""regulatory burdens""; this is why there's talk of an ""advice gap"" these days: if you only have a small sum to invest, the fixed costs of advice become intolerable.  IMHO, nutmeg are still quite expensive for what they offer too (although still probably cheaper than any ""advised"" route)."