Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This is a general question regarding the assumptions used to value a QDRO for a defined benefit monthly accrual.

Is it appropriate to use the current year Applicable Table with the current 417(e) rates for both a public and a private pension plan payment.  Or, is there some other industry standard that is used.  Does it make a difference if the plan does not allow a single lump sum payment to the alternate payee?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your question is unclear.  We don't value QDROs.  We value defined benefit plans in most cases using the PBGC 4044 discount rates at https://www.pbgc.gov/prac/interest/ida.

But we also have to assume a COLA rate, assume the age at which the Participant will retire, and use mortality tables like the UP-94 to determine the Participant's life expectancy.

These valuations are generally made by actuaries.  I am not aware of any actuaries that use the 417(e) mortality rates.  

Attached find a publication from the American Academy of Actuaries dealing with actuarial mortality assumptions.

In most cases the computation are very speculative and State law will prefer an if, and and when allocation of pension benefits via a QDRO.

David       

Actuarial Mortality Assumptions.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some actuaries value QDROs; we do this because one party to a divorce or separation wants to know the value of a DB plan (or multiple plans) which is considered part of the "marital property".  There is an entire Actuarial Standard of Practice devoted to this topic.  (FYI, Actuarial Standards of Practice are issued by the Actuarial Standards Board.)

The original question is answered as, "it depends", with attention to the framework presented in ASOP 34.  It might be appropriate to use the 417 basis.  However, an experienced actuary will inquire (probably to the attorney rather than to the divorcing party) about:  Is the actuary acting as an agent of the attorney?  Should actuarial parameters be selected by the actuary or the attorney?  Should a unisex basis be used?  Should the discount rate be based on a particular set of (perhaps, independent) criteria?  Should ancillaries be included?  Are there plan provisions (eg, death benefits) that might affect the choice of parameters?  Etc.  These questions are relevant whether or not the plan is covered by ERISA.  The experienced actuary will ask many other questions also.  (I have.)

Of course, whatever form of communication is produced by the actuary might include alternatives and/or ranges (if requested by the attorney) and will document all the decisions made, including who made them.

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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...