Interpretation of act. equiv. mortality table

[Gary]

A Plan defines act equiv mortality as GAM1971; 5 yr setback for females. Any thoughts on what this translates to? And if a plan uses sex distinct tables for lump sums, would they be required to make up a shortfall to males or ask females to make a payment back to the plan?

[david rigby]

I would interpret that language as meaning the 1971 table for males, but use the same table with a 5 year setback for females.

As far as your question about sex distinct lump sums, I would be surprised if there is a qualified plan that defines lump sum equivalence with sex distinct tables. If you have such a plan, is it there a possibility that it might not be qualified anyway?

[Guest JAREL]

I would look to see how this has been administered. The plan cannot use different actuarial equivalent factors for male and female participants. It may be administered using the female table set back 5 years or it may be using the male table with all contingent annuitants' ages set back 5 years, or something else altogether.

[AndyH]

I've seen a few (takeover) DB plans recently with sex distinct act equiv. Mostly decent size plans (couple hundred participants). In each case the document was done by a law firm, and there were FDL's from a few years ago. I think we've typically ignored the setback for payouts.

[Guest Don N]

I agree with pax

[Guest Harry O]

I'm not an actuary, but I've been told that some sex distinct tables use a female setback to make them equivalent to a unisex table.

[Larry M]

[just some additional comments:]

Some plan documents state two separate uses for actuarial equivalence.

One is the classic definition for benefit purposes and, after the Manhart and Norris decisions, these should provide the same benefits for male and female particpants.

The other definition, which I believe is a misuse, states the assumptions which are to be used for funding purposes. [in my opinion, the plan document can not dictate the assumptions to be used by the plan's actuary for funding.]

With respect to Gary's question, it is possible the drafter/scribe tried to define it as the 1971 Group Annuity Mortality table for Females, set back 5 years.

In any event we seem to have unanimous consensus the same AE must be used to determine benfits for all participants.