Guest Doogie61 Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 Assume for a moment I have statistics to prove a 58 or 55 retirement age is "reasonable"... How do you calculate the Max 415 pension at say 58 or dare I say 55? My plan uses for actuarial equivalence.... 5.5 Pre (no mortality) 5% Post 83 GAM Thanks in advance!
ScottR Posted September 26, 2009 Posted September 26, 2009 Assume for a moment I have statistics to prove a 58 or 55 retirement age is "reasonable"...How do you calculate the Max 415 pension at say 58 or dare I say 55? My plan uses for actuarial equivalence.... 5.5 Pre (no mortality) 5% Post 83 GAM Thanks in advance! Max monthly benefit at 58 = (195k/12) x (APR62/APR58) / (1.055^4), where APRs are based on 83GAM, 5%. A second calc should be done based on the current 417e mortality table and 5% interest. The 415 limit is the lesser of the two results. I'm pretty sure it would be the first one. ... Scott
SoCalActuary Posted September 26, 2009 Posted September 26, 2009 Maybe. If NRA is 62 or greater, I agree. If NRA is 55, then the benefit is discounted at 5.0%, because that is the rate applicable to the post-retirement period. If a lump sum is to be paid, then the 417(e) mortality and 5.5% is used to cap the lump sum amount. Assume for a moment I have statistics to prove a 58 or 55 retirement age is "reasonable"...How do you calculate the Max 415 pension at say 58 or dare I say 55? My plan uses for actuarial equivalence.... 5.5 Pre (no mortality) 5% Post 83 GAM Thanks in advance! Max monthly benefit at 58 = (195k/12) x (APR62/APR58) / (1.055^4), where APRs are based on 83GAM, 5%. A second calc should be done based on the current 417e mortality table and 5% interest. The 415 limit is the lesser of the two results. I'm pretty sure it would be the first one. ... Scott
Andy the Actuary Posted September 26, 2009 Posted September 26, 2009 This question raises the peripheral question: Suppose plan specifies actuarial equivalence as pre-retirement 6.00% and no mortality and post as 1983GAM and 5.00%. Forget about 415. Suppose plan says that NRA is 65 but can retire early at 55. How do you calculate reduction at 55? (a) a65(5%)/1.05^10/a55(5%) (b) a65(5%)/1.06^10/a55(6%) © a65/(5%)/1.06^10/a55(5%) My vote has always been ©. Breaking the calculation into two pieces, we'd first ask, what is the present value of the pension. Ans: a65(5%)/1.06^10. Now, to convert this present value to an immediate pension, we would divide by a55(5%). Any other arguments? (Thanks to Mike Preston for his editing.) The material provided and the opinions expressed in this post are for general informational purposes only and should not be used or relied upon as the basis for any action or inaction. You should obtain appropriate tax, legal, or other professional advice.
Mike Preston Posted September 27, 2009 Posted September 27, 2009 This question raises the periferal question: Suppose plan specifies actuarial equivalence as pre-retirement 6.00% and no mortality and post as 1983GAM and 5.00%. Forget about 415. Suppose plan says that NRA is 65 but can retire early at 55. How do you calculate reduction at 55? (a) a65(5%)/1.05^5/a55(5%) (b) a65(5%)/1.06^5/a55(6%) © a65/(5%)/1.06^5/a55(5%) My vote has always been ©. Breaking the calculation into two pieces, we'd first ask, what is the present value of the pension. Ans: a65(5%)/1.06^5. Now, to convert this present value to an immediate pension, we would divide by a55(5%). Any other arguments? How about a comment or two: 1) peripheral 2) ^10 Other than that, it is still an open question as to whether the pre-retirement interest rate or the post-retirement interest rate should be used in discounting from retirement age to early retirement age when dealing solely with actuarial equivalence. I would say (b) is silly because you are using 6% in a post-retirement sense and nothing in your description would allow that. Which leaves us with (a) versus © and I think that most with go with ©. I certainly do. However, I've seen some that argue (a) and with a contemporaneous SPD that gives an example that matches up to (a) I don't think a participant would be successful challenging it. But, I suppose, one never knows.
Mike Preston Posted September 27, 2009 Posted September 27, 2009 As far as the rest of this thread goes, there is a lot of information missing in order to do a proper calculation: compensation history; years of participation; actuarial equivalence and 415 factors as of the transition date with respect to the 415 regulations (typically 12/31/2007); retirement age under the plan; early retirement factors under the plan (if different from the actuarial equivalence factors).
Andy the Actuary Posted September 27, 2009 Posted September 27, 2009 1) peripheral2) ^10 Thank you for correcting my (a) sloppyness (b) slopiness © slop. I have edited the post to reflect your corrections. The material provided and the opinions expressed in this post are for general informational purposes only and should not be used or relied upon as the basis for any action or inaction. You should obtain appropriate tax, legal, or other professional 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