1971 Individual Annuity Mortality Table

[Logan401]

Does anyone have a link or file they can send me for this table?

I have been trying to find it, but have not been successful.

Thank you!

[Calavera]

I am pretty sure you can find this table and many more here:

http://www.soa.org/Professional-Interests/...le-manager.aspx

[Guest GeerTom]

It's the first entry when I Google 1971 IAM. The reference is to a pdf download.

The Society of Actuaries hosts it, so if the search comes up different, go there.

[Mike Preston]

Logan, there may be a confusion. Your title implies that you are looking for a table that is somehow defined along with an interest rate. If that is the case, you are looking for a commutation table, not a mortality table. So, what exactly are you looking for?

[david rigby]

The link above is the best place to go for (almost) any mortality table. But, as Mike correctly points out, if you need more than just the table, you might need an actuary to help you identify the best way to use the table.

[Logan401]

Logan, there may be a confusion. Your title implies that you are looking for a table that is somehow defined along with an interest rate. If that is the case, you are looking for a commutation table, not a mortality table. So, what exactly are you looking for?

Hello Mike,

This is regarding cross-testing for New Comparability PS. I was searching for the actuarial Factors for each "years to testing age."

The table I use is the UP-1984 Mortality Table; 8.5% interest rate.

We are taking on a plan that uses an "8.5% interest rate for pre-retirement and post-retirement, and the 1971 Individual Annuity Mortality Table.

Thank you

[Mike Preston]

If it is just a PS plan and no DB plan is involved, you can't use pre-retirement mortality, so the mortality table doesn't really matter.

As long as nobody is beyond testing age you can use the same factors that you use. Try this:

1) Take a factor (under UP-84/8.5%) for any age.

2) Take that same factor for one year younger.

3) Divided 1) by 2)

Is the result 1.0850000000?

That same result will happen if you use 71IAM-M as the mortality table.

Do you have anybody whose age exceeds what would be their testing age?

[Logan401]

If it is just a PS plan and no DB plan is involved, you can't use pre-retirement mortality, so the mortality table doesn't really matter.

As long as nobody is beyond testing age you can use the same factors that you use. Try this:

1) Take a factor (under UP-84/8.5%) for any age.

2) Take that same factor for one year younger.

3) Divided 1) by 2)

Is the result 1.0850000000?

That same result will happen if you use 71IAM-M as the mortality table.

Do you have anybody whose age exceeds what would be their testing age?

Hi Mike,

So, what you are saying, there is no difference between the tables when it comes to cross-testing profit sharing.

Why would some PS plans choose a certain table if the results are all the same?

To answer your questions, there is one person age 66 (HCE), and one age 71 (NHCE).

Thank you

[Tom Poje]

if everyone has the same retirement age and you do not impute disparity, then it makes no difference which mortality table you use - everyone will have the same APR so it becomes a constant.

if you impute disparity then in a DC plan using 1983 IAF could make just enough of a difference.

also, in your case, bevause the retiremnt ages are different then choice of mortality will make a difference because the people will have different APRs

[Logan401]

if everyone has the same retirement age and you do not impute disparity, then it makes no difference which mortality table you use - everyone will have the same APR so it becomes a constant.

if you impute disparity then in a DC plan using 1983 IAF could make just enough of a difference.

also, in your case, because the retirement ages are different then choice of mortality will make a difference because the people will have different APRs

So I understand, what you are saying is that if everyone was < or = to age 65, then the tables have no bearing.

But, because there are 2 EEs over the plan's retirement age, that is when the tables differ.

Is this correct?

[Mike Preston]

Correct.

So, whoever you got your UP84 tables from should be willing to send you those same tables based on a different mortality table (in fact, they should have sent you all the standard mortality tables when they sent UP84, unless there is some reason that they were hardwired to UP84).

[Logan401]

I am jumping back on this one because of what I remember reading years ago.

In regards to those who are above the NRA. I have read that 1.40(a)(4)-8(b)(1) allows the current age to be disregarded in determining testing age under a cross-tested defined contribution plan.

So, if the participant has passed the normal retirement age, we can use the factor for zero years to NRA.

In this case, anyone over age 65 will be age 65 in the cross-testing.

is this the case, or am I misinterpreting?

[Mike Preston]

Not exactly. I stated earlier that you can use the same factors as long as nobody is beyond testing age. You are now saying almost the same thing but substituting NRA of 65. You are correct if NRA is 65, but if NRA is 65/5 then testing age may be 65 or higher.

[Logan401]

Hi Mike, looking back on my earlier posts I do not see that I addressed NRA=65 in the plan. I am sorry for that omission, and I thank you for your informative replies!