Leaderboard

Slacker

Lexus, your determination is laudable. And I wish you luck, but you are asking a lot of people here to respond to so many questions at once. What if you tried to do it in bite size pieces? Anything that folks can answer within a few minutes. I'll bite off the first piece: "-Accrued Plan Benefit = $2,807, which appears to be calculated using 5% & 1994 GAR Is there any specific reasons why the 5% &1994 assumption used?" Unless things are very strange in your document, there is absolutely no tie between the calculation of the accrued benefit and a set (any set) of actuarial assumptions. None. So, it is difficult to answer the actual question you posed because it is based on a false premise. The assumptions you mention might be the assumptions required in the case where a participant reaches one year beyond NRA (73 in your example) to determine the actuarially equivalent benefit commencing at age 73 equal to what was accrued at age 72. If it is, then the answer to your question is one that you will get over and over again: RTFD [Read the fantastic document].