Andy the Actuary

Hold on, hold on. DB plan or DC plan? The answer may differ. If DB plan real mess because life will have to be recreated (assuming no valuations performed) and there may be accumulated funding deficiencies.

That is because you didn't see him play. Here's how he ranked in goals against average during his sojourn with the Blues. 1995-86 - 17 1996-97 - 19 1997-98 - 18 1998-99 - 17 The question isn't how great were the Edmondton Oilers with Fuhr in goal; rather, how great would they have been with Terry Sawchuck in goal? I must say this banter is far more interesting and exciting than Social Security!!!

Which is worse? 1. Consistent season long mediocrity? Or 2. Fantastic season play, with a playoff swoon (ala my Sharks?) So 1. Despair? versus 2. Hope and failure? I'd opt for a third choice: Hope and Crosby.

Plante and Hall were the last of the consistently able net minders ever to sport the Blue Note. It's been mediocrity for the last 40 years and I ain't just whistling Dixie.

Hyperbole by Andy t.a. Monsieur Plante was only 41 at the time - a veritable child next to Chris Chelios.

Worst I ever witnessed was Georgie Morrison [who?] taking a slap shot from 12 feet out and hitting Rangers's Ed Giacomin in the forehead. Giacomin skated off the ice, got stitched up, and returned in a few minutes to finish the game. Then there was the 1970 playoff game where Boston's Fred Stanfield's point shot hit 96 year old Jacques Plante in the mask and Plante ended up in the hospital with a concussion. You spoke of psychiatric wards. I believe Detroit's Roger Crozier couldn't stand the heat in the goal mouth and ended up needing help. I remember watching him circa 62 when he starred for the St. Louis Braves, a Blackhawks minor league team. Who else was on that team whose name you might recall? Some center ice man named Esposito! We were such a rummy town that there was nylon mesh rather than Plexiglas protecting the fans from flying pucks.

Anyone who allows the general public to shoot hard rubber objects at his face and does not wear a protective mask probably wouldn't know one way or the other whether he is collecting SS.

In 1965, aged 90 years and with no heirs, Jeanne Calment (1875-1997) signed a deal to sell her former apartment to lawyer André-François Raffray, on a contingency contract. Raffray, then aged 47 years, agreed to pay her a monthly sum of 2,500 francs until she died. Raffray ended up paying Calment the equivalent of more than $180,000, which was more than double the apartment's value. After Raffray's death from cancer at the age of 77, in 1995, his widow continued the payments until Calment's death at age 122.

The first Social Security recipient • Ida Fuller retired in November, 1939 • Received the first check in January, 1940 • She contributed $22 in taxes from 1937 through 1939 • Her first check was for $22.54 • Ida Fuller died in December 1974 • She lived just over 100 years • In that time she collected Social Security payments totaling $20,944.42

so use December's rate.

It sounds like this would be the January rate for a calendar year plan. Often times plans are drafted without regard to whether or not they can be administered. This would mean that if you provide a participant in December or before with a January payment date that the lump sum would be an estimate and would need to be recalculated once the January rate is known.

Would you mind if I rephrased? "Not being covered by the PBGC equates to there being no knights (whose armor is generously shined by many who neither live nor will ever live in the kingdom) to step in and make things right for some but not all."

If in Ghana they legislated a Retirement Equity Act, would it be known as Ghana-REA?

Please note that Andy t.a. appears much the way he writes -- with a dangling participle. And you can look it up. . .

1 1/2 (after-tax) cents: DB plans may continue to exist for some time for at least the following: (1) Frozen plans that can't get funded (2) Single employer union plans (3) Multiemployer plans (4) Municipal and state government employer plans (5) Educational employer plans (6) Professional service corporations plans (7) One-person plans Without manifold change to underlying law, FASB, and public perceptions, do not look for an employer with any critical mass of employees to be adopting DB plans. In short, unless you're planning to focus on (6) and (7), there may be very little EA work.

(1) The Plan defines the Normal Retirement Benefit as 1% x FASNRD x Min (svcnrd, 25). (2) The Plan defines the Accrued Benefit as (1) x svc / svcnrd where FASNRD is determined at time of determining accrued benefit rather than at NRD and svcnrd is a projected amount. (3) The Plan provides in the early retirement section that for an employee who retires from active service after age 55 and 10 years of service calculate the early retirement benefit as the amount computed under (1) with svcnrd determined as svc and FASNRD is determined at the time for determining the accrued benefit. I.e., eliminate the proration. So, a participant is age 57 and has completed 12 years of service, then I would consider his accrued benefit to be the greater of (1) and (2), which means (2). But what about someone who is age 45? We would determine his accrued benefit in accordance with (1) but then when valuing the funding target, recalculate the benefit when we loop to age 55? Obviously, if the participant left today, formula (1) would apply. This would mean if there were no pre-retirement decrements, we would value his accrued benefit using only formula (2)? I have been assured over the years (though not necessarily am I convinced) that the we are talking about an early retirement subsidy rather than backloading.

Before you bust your chops, suggest that you visit with large consulting firms to assure you are training for a vocation for which there will be demand.

Can you suggest a way to do this when the factor -- .865 -- applies at all pension start ages? I.e., pension starts at age 55, use .865; pension starts at age 62, use .865. The mortality table could be the 1951 GA or 1937 standard annuity table for all I know.

Couldn't the same be said of any plan that was overfunded prior to 2008? Shouldn't the assets have been moved to money market funds to ensure preservation of principal?

Back in the good old days (they were more old than good!), it was common practice to fund a DB plan by purchasing paid-up deferred annuities. Each year, additional annuity contracts would be purchased for increase in accrued benefit. Thus, the Plan was fully insured and except for some final benefits cost, was pretty routine to terminate. So, presuming the Plan/Trust so permits, the Plan can still fund with paid-up annuities. Suppose we have a frozen non-collectively bargained single employer frozen DB plan that is covered by the PBGC. The Plan has not been amended to terminate. An annuity quote is obtained and the Plan is sufficiently funded to purchase nonparticipating annuities with precisely zed dollars remaining. Could this annuity purchase be effected as an investment decision? If so, could the plan then be terminated without the PBGC having conniption fits? Same questions but annuities are purchased only for those in pay status and terminated vesteds?

Escrow account into money market is appealing. Crediting a reasonable interest rate is a splendid pre-ERISA recommendation. It would work if the Plan were amended, which should likely happen anyway.

A participant elected payout under a 20 C & L starting 1/1/2004. Participant died 12/31/2008. Client has been unable to locate designated beneficiary. Attorney has advised not to pay survivor benefit to estate lest beneficiary show up at a later date and the plan could be on the hook for paying the death benefit twice. Presumably, this is sound advice? In any event, participant received 60 payments so 180 payments are due. Suppose on 1/1/2013 beneficiary is located. What should be paid to beneficiary? [the plan is silent] (a) 180 payments starting 1/1/2013 (b) 48 back payments plus 132 payments commencing 1/1/2013 © 48 back payments accumulated with interest plus 132 payments commencing 1/1/2013. If ©, what interest rate should be used when the plan -- which is 3,000 years old -- states a single non-age specific factor (.865) for conversion to 20 C&L and the underlying interest rate (and mortality table) is not stated in the plan?

Andy t. a.'s law of probability: If there is a 50% chance (a coin toss) of acting correctly on a proposition, there is a 100% chance I will act incorrectly. Thus, if you drive with me, it is advised not to let me decide whether to turn left or right.

If put on extension, the filing would be due 11/15/2010 and you still might not have 2010 forms. It's paper so suggest using the 2009 forms. You could, of course, contact the IRS (give them my regards). The more perplexing question would be what if an electronic filing were required?

Thought whether or not can use credit balance depends only on the numbers as prescribed under 430 as of the preceding year valuation date and not by whether or not the plan is certified under 436. Is there some linkage between 430 and 436 that I have overlooked?