Anyone still using 83 IAM for actuarial equivalence

[Guest Doogie61]

I was curious is anybody is still using 83 IAM these days or have you all switched to a more "modern" table?

[Andy the Actuary]

Sure, in fact some plans still use '71 GA. (None of the plans I work with, however, use the Wigglesworth Table!) The good news --not withstanding equity -- is that use of older mortality tables provides greater margin for mortality improvement, since they provide for a greater reduction for the death benefit.

Modernizing mortality tables has a cost. The Plan sponsor will want to know how much. In smaller plans, the most reliable answer is "I don't know."

If a new plan and you stick with a standard table (or more modern) as delineated in the 401(a)(4) regs., presumbably the selection is reasonable. Somehow, this is all supposed to be flushed out by application of the relative values regulations -- You know: That piece of paper no one reads.

[SoCalActuary]

I was curious is anybody is still using 83 IAM these days or have you all switched to a more "modern" table?

I don't use the table on any new plans. but we still have existing plans based on this table, typically using the female table value.

The effect is much less valuable than previously, mostly because 415 regulations limit the maximum distribution to the current published table for 417(e). So a table producing more valuable actuarial equivalence is really just a form of reverse discrimination, since the participant at 415 limit does not get to use the table, while all others get to use it.