dmb Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 Has there been any news on which mortality tables will be used for funding and lump sums after 2017? Unless we missed something, we would expect to hear something soon regarding this matter. We know the proposed regs are out, but nothing final yet. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lois Baker Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 Looks like final regs were sent to OMB on August 9, but review could take a while -- see https://benefitslink.com/news/index.cgi/view/20170816-136885 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david rigby Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 ... and the lobbying effort has been pretty high. This is one recent letter https://www.americanbenefitscouncil.org/pub/?id=7135af29-dd10-6e4f-6362-20d794d1329e I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My 2 cents Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 There is nothing about the proposed tables that any enrolled actuary could have difficulty in using. The proposed regs include totally static tables (varying only by age and sex, with or without the small plan combination of pre-retirement and post-retirement rates, as had been the case for each prior year). Who can't do calculations using a static mortality table (even if the q's differ from any prior table)? There is no requirement to use dynamic projections, no requirement to use a 2-dimensional projection scale (not that most practitioners would have been unable to handle that - all of the major vendor systems have been programmed to handle that and most accounting firms have been demanding the use of such rates for ASC-960 and ASC-715 purposes for the past year or two) and, for plans under 500 participants, no requirement to use separate pre-retirement and post-retirement rates. Granted that the proposed basis needs to have hearings etc., but people should be poised to implement them quickly when they are finalized. Always check with your actuary first! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acm_acm Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 On 9/12/2017 at 11:03 AM, My 2 cents said: There is nothing about the proposed tables that any enrolled actuary could have difficulty in using. The proposed regs include totally static tables (varying only by age and sex, with or without the small plan combination of pre-retirement and post-retirement rates, as had been the case for each prior year). Who can't do calculations using a static mortality table (even if the q's differ from any prior table)? There is no requirement to use dynamic projections, no requirement to use a 2-dimensional projection scale (not that most practitioners would have been unable to handle that - all of the major vendor systems have been programmed to handle that and most accounting firms have been demanding the use of such rates for ASC-960 and ASC-715 purposes for the past year or two) and, for plans under 500 participants, no requirement to use separate pre-retirement and post-retirement rates. Granted that the proposed basis needs to have hearings etc., but people should be poised to implement them quickly when they are finalized. But the ABC is sooooooo concerned that the tables will hurt participants, so we have to delay their use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My 2 cents Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 1 hour ago, acm_acm said: But the ABC is sooooooo concerned that the tables will hurt participants, so we have to delay their use. I thought everyone was bent out of shape thinking that the new tables would cost employers more? How would they hurt participants? Always check with your actuary first! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david rigby Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 The "...hurt participants..." reasoning is based on a stronger incentive for sponsors to freeze or terminate the plan. I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My 2 cents Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 19 minutes ago, david rigby said: The "...hurt participants..." reasoning is based on a stronger incentive for sponsors to freeze or terminate the plan. Sigh. As if they didn't already. Always check with your actuary first! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now