LIBOR Posted May 12, 2004 Posted May 12, 2004 A plan that uses the EAN method for funding is amended to enhance everyone's accrued benefit to date by giving an extra year of servce - this type of amendment is utilized frequently with "window" programs for a targeted subset. Question : we are accustomed to defining the amendment base as the difference of a "before" vs "after" EAN Accrued Liability where the Accrued Liability is defined in terms of the projected benefit ; but where the amendment deals with an accrued benefit, I'm not sure how the base should be defined ? Any thoughts are appreciated !!
david rigby Posted May 12, 2004 Posted May 12, 2004 Not sure that this should alter the correct procedure. The amendment base is the change in Unfunded Accrued Liability. Not sure that increasing a benefit via this type of amendment is a good idea. 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.
LIBOR Posted May 12, 2004 Author Posted May 12, 2004 So, would you say that the AL after amendment is based on the projected benefit using (total service to retirement + 1) ?
david rigby Posted May 12, 2004 Posted May 12, 2004 Maybe. Probably important to review the plan amendment, and other plan provisions. For example, does the plan use "fractional rule"? Again, I have reservations about an amendment that changes PS to PS+1. However, what really is happening? Did the plan previously define credited svc from DOP (for example, DOH plus one year) and the amendment is to redefine credited service from DOH? If so, I suggest your original description of the amendment is misleading. If that is not what happened, but it could apply, then that definition will be much "cleaner". Consider it. 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.
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