Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Hi,

 

Thank you as always. Someone mentioned to me that he was on a conference call with an actuary that works for the PBGC. The actuary suggested, as a remedy for overfunding (since the 417 (e) rates have gone up to the 5% range and lump sums have gone down) to amend the plan's equivalence to the 2% range and this would help raise the liabilties and reduce the overfunding. 

Is this reasonable to use an interest rate that is quite low,  for the plan equivalence,  and is considerably lower than the current 417(e) rates? Can it be justified?

This could help solve many overfunded plans, and especially owner only plans (that don't mind raisingvthe liabities fir themselves). Thank you.  

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...