Guest RBlaine Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 In valuations using the 100% LS option, I've been calculating the FT as follows: A) PVAB at NRA using the plan rates of 5.5% pre/post and GAR 94 post ret only B) PVAB at NRA using 430 rates and Applicable Mortality Table for the valuaton year (i.e. if NRA is 5 years from val date, PVAB at NRA is calculated using the second segment rate for 15 years and 3rd segment rate thereafter) Greater of A or B is then discounted to the valuation date using the appropriate interest rate (1st segment rate from the above example) Now, throw in that the LS in A or B has to be limited to the 415 max LS. Now, I have the min {415 max LS at NRA, max (A,B)}, which is then discounted as above. Seems right so far and I've matched the results from running ProVal with these calculations. Now, however, I'm not matching the Proval results and I wonder if it is just coincidence that I did before (i.e the 415 Max LS I was calculating was higher than A and B above), if I have something set up in ProVal incorrectly or if I'm just doing it wrong in my spreadsheet. Here is my confusion: For a small plan we can use 5.5% and the Applicable Mortality Table to get the Max 415 LS, right? Now for calculating the PVAB at NRA, I have been using the AB (which is the lesser of the AB by plan formula or 415 max LO annuity) * the annuity factor at NRA. This is the number I have compared to the 415 Max LS which is calculated by the Max 415 LO annuity * Min (5.5%/Applicable mortality factor, Plan rates factor). Now, I'm wondering if the LS I should be calculating in A and B above using the plan AB withOUT limiting it ot the 415 max LO annuity. They way I've been doing it seems to be using the 415 limits twice. I think part of the reason 2008 matched fine is because the mortality table used for 415 max LS = plan mortality. Probably, the 2009 checks I have done did not get to the 415 limits and any error wouldn't have shown up, yet.
Blinky the 3-eyed Fish Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 Post a real number example. "What's in the big salad?" "Big lettuce, big carrots, tomatoes like volleyballs."
mwyatt Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 Think there is a further wrinkle on the 415 max lump sum, in that it is the lesser of your plan actuarial equivalence assumptions (w/o 417 minimum taken into account) and 415/417 mort @ 5.5%. What are your plan's assumptions in the document?
Guest RBlaine Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 DoH 01/01/1980 DoP 01/01/2005 Salary always > $250,000 NRA 62 Benefit formula 20% * Years of Participation Final Average three salary Plan LS Actuarial Equivalence - 5.5% GAR 94 415 Max LS AE - 5.5% 417(e) Applicable Mortality 01/01/2009 415 Max $ Benefit = 195,000 Formula benefit = 225,000 * 20% * 4 = 180,000 415 Max $ = 195,000 * .40 = 78,000 Plan LS AE age 62 APR 12.1225594 (APR using 430 rates and 417e table is less than this) 415 Max LS AE age 62 APR 12.33754824 415 Max LS: Option 1: Min (78,000 * 12.1225594 = 945,560, 78,000 * 12.33754824 = 962,329) = 945,560 Option 2: Min (78,000 * 12.33754824 = 962,329, 180,000 * 12.225594 = 2,182,061) = 962,329
Blinky the 3-eyed Fish Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 It's option 3 (I didn't check your APR's so I am just going with those numbers): Compute plan lump sum using plan benefit and plan AE (you already stated that 430 rates will yield a lower LS, so I went with that) - $180,000 * 12.1225594 = $2,182,061 Compare this to 415 LS limit which is the lesser of that computed using 5.5% & applicable mortality or plan's AE: $962,329 or $945,560 = $945,560 Now take the lesser of $2,182,061 or $945,560 = $945,560. Same concept as laid out in Rev. Rul. 98-1. "What's in the big salad?" "Big lettuce, big carrots, tomatoes like volleyballs."
Guest RBlaine Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 It's option 3 (I didn't check your APR's so I am just going with those numbers):Compute plan lump sum using plan benefit and plan AE (you already stated that 430 rates will yield a lower LS, so I went with that) - $180,000 * 12.1225594 = $2,182,061 Compare this to 415 LS limit which is the lesser of that computed using 5.5% & applicable mortality or plan's AE: $962,329 or $945,560 = $945,560 Now take the lesser of $2,182,061 or $945,560 = $945,560. Same concept as laid out in Rev. Rul. 98-1. Thanks, I think I just have ProVal set up incorrectly and it was hidden last year since the 415 mortality table was the same as my Plan AE table.
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