david rigby

Incorrect. It means somebody did it wrong, not that the table is invalid.

Alas... I already told you.

Alas, you seem to have missed the point, again. 1. The "numbers" suggested by Doug and SoCal are reasonable guesses. 2. They are guesses, but your original post asks that it be compared to what? A "right" answer? 3. The universe of 6/30 measurement dates is much less than at 12/31. 4. It is theoretically incorrect to determine a discount rate based solely on reference to one or more indexes, or based on comparison to whatever others are doing. But you want a prediction. Here's mine: auditors will put increasing emphasis on the objective criteria and mechanism for choosing a discount rate (or salary scale, etc) and will be signing off on the process rather than the result. More of this in 2006 than in 2005; I expect to see much more at the end of 2007.

See duplicate post http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=36182

Generally, plans sponsored by governmental entities are not subject to ERISA. But there may be plan provisions and/or state laws that are relevant.

Have you considered contacting the clown, or perhaps the prior actuary? Sure there is, exactly what the defintion states. Don't know if it was done correctly, but we should not assume a table is invalid just because it is not "standard". The purpose of (any) scale is to permit the modification of any table, thus creating a new table.

Ouch! Go Braves!

SOA table Manager. http://library.soa.org:8080/xtbml/jsp/index.jsp Click on "Catalog of all available titles" Scale G is tables 908 and 909. 83 IAM Basic, Female = table 823 83 IAM Basic, Male = table 824 83 IAM, Female = table 829 83 IAM, Male = table 830 If you need to know how to proceed, or which table is most suitable to your situation, or how to apply the projection scale, I am available for hire.

Aside to tuni88: you may have missed the point. There is no single correct rate, especially because there are so many different opinions about rounding. There may not even be a correct range. Whether or not 6.25% will be "prevailing" is something we will know only after we see public filings or surveys. Please note Doug's correct comment and the significance of setting the rate that is most apppropriate for each plan. Each plan's duration and cash flows is the correct starting point, not an external market index.BTW, I post Moody's rates here each month. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=27329

Q&A90-15 did not include the G/L in the question. Probably because it should be obvious that you do it first (assuming last year's method is not a spread-gain method), as described by SoCal.

I'm available to provide some actuarial services. Better me than Ned.

Possibly this "hybrid" is already a prior change; perhaps the plan offered unlimited LS until X date? If so, that is defacto evidence that 411(d)(6) was considered when it was changed. You may not like the option, but if it's there for 411(d)(6) reasons, you've got it (unless all affected participants are now gone).

At the end of December, Moody's Aa rate was 5.72%. At the end of June, it was 6.10%. Can we assume that market rates are 40-50 basis points higher? Maybe. Although that may not be the best technique to determine a discount rate, it can't hurt to include it in the discussion. Of course, you can find your own discount rate by doing some cash flow matching; not necessarily easily done, and possibly not worth the effort.

Go for it.

Are you sure it's a money purchase plan? Are you sure the plan/sponsor is subject to the J&S rules?

404(a)(4) issue?

Of course that is the silly example. But sometimes, XYZ Actuarial Co. assigns Actuary B because Actuary A is no longer employed with XYZ. And the IRS does not draw a bright line between these situations.

You can complete the form via this link (save and print on your own network). http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f5558.pdf

Perhaps I missed it somewhere, but what kind of plan is this? DB or DC? (Some of your description sounds like a DB plan, but such cannot have "separate accounts", or any accounts for that matter.)

Maybe. Is that employee a participant? Is that employee over NRA? (See parenthetical phrase in second paragraph of "FACTS", or second sentence of second parargraph of "ANALYSIS".) The default is to assume the severance of employment is ER-initiated. However, finding an employee embezzling from you (for example) does not mean a firing is initiated by the ER. Hence the last sentence in the second paragraph of "ANALYSIS".

ERISA sec. 4041(e) is part of Title IV-Plan Termination Insurance. See section 4021 for plans which are exempt from the entire title. If your plan is exempt, see IRC 414, and search these Message Boards for similar discusions (there are several).

I've seen nothing since, GrayBook or otherwise. There are several discussion threads on this topic on this Message Board, but they will likely point you to the same result. Although it sometimes (not always) seems silly, I see no reason not to follow the advice in Q&A 92-36.

June 29, 2007 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.73 5.73 Aa 6.12 6.08 6.10 A 6.24 6.30 6.27 Baa 6.46 6.78 6.62 Avg 6.27 6.22 6.25 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 4.86 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 4.98 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 5.19

REA: August 23, 1984 (or thereabouts) If the plan does not charge the participant/VT for the cost of the pre-ret death benefit, I think the answer to the original question is "No".