Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Pension - Social Security
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

DW Simpson International Actuarial Jobs
Canada  Asia  Australia  Bermuda  Latin America  Europe


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-03-2012, 02:43 PM
Fuzzy's Avatar
Fuzzy Fuzzy is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Far from the madding crowd...but closer than I used to be
Studying for the "final" exam
Favorite beer: Carlsberg
Posts: 626
Default

...after you eat lunch, you'll just have to go again...
__________________
"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia." (Charles Schulz)
"We created an environment where we didn't know what we were doing, but it was legal and making profits."(Bill Sharon, chief executive of Sorms)
"As soon as we solve one problem, another one appears. So let's try to keep this one going for as long as possible." (Pepper...and Salt, WSJ, 5/4/2011)
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-03-2012, 04:31 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 92,976
Blog Entries: 6
Default

True enough.

And here's the afternoon link dump ---

CALIFORNIA

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...port-says.html

Quote:
Feb. 1 (Bloomberg) -- The California State Teachers’ Retirement System, with higher contributions from teachers, school districts and the state, may have all the money needed to pay its obligations, 52 years from now, according to a new report.

Calstrs, whose $144.8 billion in assets make it the second- largest U.S. public pension, had only 71 percent of what it needs to cover forecast benefits as of June 30, 2010, down from 78 percent a year earlier, according to a statement. The shortfall amounts to $56 billion.

The fund would be at 100 percent by 2064 if new teachers were required to put 12.2 percent of their salaries toward retirement, from 8 percent now, phased in beginning in 2016, according to one projection in a report to the board. Current teachers would contribute 10 percent; school districts, 14.5 percent of payroll, from 8.25 percent; and the state, 3.1 percent of its budget for teacher payroll, now about 2 percent.

“This is really the governor and the Legislature’s decision,” Ed Derman, the fund’s deputy chief executive officer, said on a conference call with reporters yesterday. “We’re here to help you do this, but you’ve got to solve the problem.”

Full funding by 2064 would also require Calstrs’ investments to earn an average annual return of 7.75 percent. Actuaries have recommended lowering the rate to 7.5 percent.
That's quite the funding plan.

Let's see what's happening with that discount rate:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...e-to-7-5-.html
Quote:
The California State Teachers’ Retirement System, the second-largest U.S. public pension, cut its assumed annual rate of return to 7.5 percent from 7.75 percent, the second reduction since 2010.

The board of the $144.8 billion fund voted yesterday to adopt an actuary’s recommendation to lower its investment forecast because of what a staff report called “dramatic market declines” beginning in 2008.

The change means the plan will need larger contributions from taxpayers, teachers, school districts, or a combination of all three, to cover pension costs. The fund had 71 percent of what it needs to pay future benefits as of June 30, 2010. Lowering the rate adds $5.9 billion to its $56 billion shortfall, according to Milliman Inc., the fund’s consulting actuary.
http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_wo...gislators.html
Quote:
Gov. Jerry Brown has sent language for his 12-point pension reform plan to the Legislature's Conference Committee on Public Employee Pensions.

The proposals are divided into two groups. The constitutional amendment Brown offered broadly outlines the pension changes more narrowly defined in the language to change state law. The governor's plan won't go forward without two-thirds of the Legislature voting to put the constitutional changes on the Nov. 6 ballot, which would then need voter approval from a majority.

The changes would kick in Jan. 1, 2013. Labor agreements that contradict the governor's plan would prevail until the pacts expire.
The statutory language includes these proposals:

• Ends additional retirement service credit purchases, or "airtime."
• Forfeits all or part of pensions for elected officials or civil servants convicted of a felony associated with their offices or jobs.
• Ends retroactive pension enhancements.
• Ends "pension holidays" for employers and employees.
• Mandates that all employees pay "at least one-half" the normal costs for defined benefit plans or the defined portion of a hybrid plan. Employers may not pick up the employee share.
• Limits the hours and wages for retirees who return to government work.
• Calculates benefits based on a 36-month average of an employees' wages.
• Narrows the definition of wages that can be included for pension calculation purposes.
• Establishes a hybrid pension system for new hires. It would replace 75 percent of an employee's income after 30 years of service and a "normal" retirement age of 57 for public safety employees or, for all other workers, 35 years of service at age 67.
• Sets 5 years and 52 years old as the minimum length of service and age that safety classes can qualify for retirement, 57 years old for all other groups.
• Eliminates seats on the CalPERS Board of Administration now occupied by a member of State Personnel Board and an insurance industry representative
• Gives CalPERS board membership to the Department of Finance director.
• Adds an independent health insurance expert and a representative from a contracting agency to the CalPERS board, both appointed by the governor.
• Adds three public representatives to CalPERS' board, two appointed by the governor and one jointly appointed by the Assembly speaker and the Senate Rules Committee.
• Sets 25 years of service as the threshold to receive 100 percent of the state's retiree health benefit. Applies to new hires only.
NEW YORK
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ayor-says.html

Quote:
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg may have expected an easier time balancing next year’s $70 billion budget after trimming a $4.6 billion deficit to $2 billion in November. Now a new pension formula may widen that gap.

New York owes its five pensions about $2 billion more than previously budgeted because officials have been too optimistic in assuming an 8 percent return on fund investments, Chief Actuary Robert North has determined. A more realistic expectation would be 7 percent, North said.

New York officials and union leaders who sit on the pension boards now must figure out how North’s calculation might be accommodated in a budget the mayor has described as already cut “close to the bone.” Bloomberg will discuss the impact of using a lower rate tomorrow when he presents his fiscal 2013 budget to the City Council, said a person with direct knowledge of his plan who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly about it.

“The problem is to balance responsible funding of the pensions while remaining sensitive to the city’s capacity to pay,” North said today in an interview.
RHODE ISLAND
http://blogs.wpri.com/2012/02/02/tav...ust-literally/
Quote:
“Bankruptcy.”

Providence Mayor Angel Taveras uttered the dreaded word – against the advice of his advisers, he said – not once, not twice, but probably more than a dozen times during a dire press conference Thursday morning.

Without major concessions from tax-exempt institutions and city retirees within the next few months, Taveras will be forced to seek a painful supplemental tax increase on Providence residents – and even that may not be enough to forestall a Chapter 9 filing by Providence’s capital. House Speaker Gordon Fox, who stood beside him at the gathering, said the impact would be devastating for all of Rhode Island.

Taveras’s message was aimed at three audiences: Brown University and the other nonprofits, all of which he wants to pony up more for the city; city retirees, whom he said need to sacrifice their 6% COLAs and lifetime Blue Cross coverage; and the General Assembly, reluctant to tackle municipal pensions after last fall’s bruising debate.
IDAHO
http://www.nwcn.com/home/?fId=138541...&fDomain=10227
Quote:
Idaho's legislators are thinking of changing their own benefits when it comes to their pension funds, putting themselves on level ground with other elected officials in the state. A proposed bill would change how legislator benefits are calculated with the Public Employee Retirement System of Idaho (PERSI).

No other elected official can do this'
Some current legislators say some former state lawmakers are benefiting from years of legislative service, then padding their retirements with high paying appointments. Representative Dennis Lake, a Republican from Blackfoot, is running a bill (HB 444) to change the more than 20-year-old law that allows lawmakers that perk.
As it stands now, a legislator's finale retirement benefits are determined by two factors: The amount of time spent working for the state and their highest earnings for 3 and a half consecutive years.

"No one else has this. No other elected official can do this," Representative Dennis Lake (R-Blackfoot) said.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-06-2012, 01:53 PM
Spectrum Spectrum is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wading Through Reality
Posts: 378
Default

From Providence "city retirees, whom he said need to sacrifice their 6% COLAs and lifetime Blue Cross coverage". 6% COLAs !?! No wonder they are going bankrupt. Those 6% COLAs might have been appropriate in the 1980s but someone needs to take a look at inflation over the last 20 years. They could easily drop that to 2% without a peep of complaint.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-06-2012, 02:02 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 92,976
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectrum View Post
From Providence "city retirees, whom he said need to sacrifice their 6% COLAs and lifetime Blue Cross coverage". 6% COLAs !?! No wonder they are going bankrupt. Those 6% COLAs might have been appropriate in the 1980s but someone needs to take a look at inflation over the last 20 years. They could easily drop that to 2% without a peep of complaint.
Well, it may drop to negative percent soon.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-06-2012, 03:17 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 92,976
Blog Entries: 6
Default

WASHINGTON

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/f...ts-draws-foes/


Quote:
A Southwest Washington lawmaker’s plan to cut retirement benefits to future state employees received plenty of flak during a public hearing on Thursday.

State Sen. Joseph Zarelli, R-Ridgefield, said his bill would save the state $2.3 billion over 25 years.
....
Part of Plan 3 is a defined-contribution plan, allowing employees to contribute between 5 and 15 percent of their pay into a retirement fund. Under the other part of Plan 3, the employer contributes a defined benefit that, for each year of service, puts 1 percent of the employee’s final average salary into their pension fund.

Currently, new state employees get to pick between Plan 3 and Plan 2. Under Plan 2, employees get a 2 percent defined benefit from their employer instead of 1 percent. Additionally, the employer matches whatever the employee is required to put into the retirement plan. This required contribution fluctuates and is decided by the Office of the State Actuary.

Under current rules, if a new employee does not choose a plan after their 90th day on the job, they are automatically enrolled in Plan 3.

Retirement plans for certified teachers, classified school staff, and local and state government workers are the largest public pension plans in the state. The state has eight retirement groups. Washington State Patrol workers have a retirement system, as do judges, judicial staff, police officers and firefighters. The law enforcement staff included in Zarelli’s bill are those employees who do not qualify for the state’s Law Enforcement Officers’ and Fire Fighters’ Retirement System.
....
Don Carlson of the state’s Select Committee on Pension Policy said that he didn’t support all parts of the bill, but he could support eliminating the current early retirement benefits.

“We’re living longer and doing well at age 65 and 70,” he said.
NEW YORK
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/p...VXgKKBgh6AO1BM
Quote:
Pensions and fringe benefits for uniformed workers are going to cost the city more next year than their actual salaries, Mayor Bloomberg revealed yesterday as he made another strong pitch for Albany to enact pension reforms.

“There’s no one in the private sector that comes even remotely close to that,” the mayor declared during a presentation of the $70.3 billion preliminary city budget for fiscal year 2013, which starts on July 1.

Budget documents show that the salaries of the four uniformed forces — police, fire, correction and sanitation — totaled $7.617 billion in fiscal 2012, and are projected to drop slightly to $7.468 billion by next year.

Benefits and pensions are heading in the other direction — $7.497 billion in 2012 vs. $7.63 billion in 2013.

One union official pointed out that the Fire Department hasn’t hired anyone for three years because of a court order, resulting in a lower payroll that is bound to go up when the order is lifted. He contended that it thus makes the mayor’s comparison of payroll vs. pensions and benefits not very meaningful.
....
In an ironic twist, Bloomberg was able to plug part of a projected $2 billion deficit for 2013 with money he had socked away for higher pension bills that didn’t materialize.

Anticipating that actuary Robert North Jr. would reduce the expected rate of return of the city’s five pension funds from 8 to 7 percent a year, officials set aside what was expected to be an extra $1 billion a year for the costs that would have resulted.

But North decided to spread out the city’s payments over 22 years, so the tab came to only $575 million the first year, leaving Bloomberg with a windfall of $425 million.

More on that "windfall"
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/s...z3RnwbjL7NKwQN
Quote:
In a bizarre political power play, city union leaders say they want to raid funds that Mayor Bloomberg set aside to cover massive pension costs to give workers raises instead, The Post has learned.

No dice, the mayor retorted.

Bloomberg said he’s being fiscally prudent by putting up to $1 billion in reserve to cover additional pension costs. He said the additional money dedicated to pensions was required by actions recommended by the city’s pension analyst.
....
City Actuary Robert North Jr. proposed reducing the assumed rate of return of the city’s five pension funds’ investments from 8 to 7 percent.

The lower the rate of return, the more the city has to chip in.

Anticipating North’s move, Bloomberg has socked away $1 billion in the budget to cover the added costs.

But the change requires approval from the state Legislature, where the unions wield influence.

Labor leaders are suggesting they will block the change in Albany. They want a higher rate of return so the city can devote more city funds to raises instead of pensions.

“I don’t know if the 7 percent number can be done without us,” Nenespoli said. “We have attorneys looking at it now. We feel it’s not necessary to go to 7 percent. In 43 cities [where the rate of return was reduced] it did not go down a full point.”
RHODE ISLAND
Mish on the Providence situation:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogsp...and-faces.html
Quote:
Check that out: The entire budget is $619 million, and the city has a shortfall of over $2 billion.

Taveras is barking up the wrong tree arguing "Our firefighters, police officers, teachers and taxpayers have all sacrificed in the last year and helped Providence avoid catastrophe".

It is the firefighters, police officers, and teachers unions (and of course corrupt politicians willing to buy votes) that are responsible for this mess. The only group that can claim to have sacrificed is non-union taxpayers. However, much of the rest of Taveras' comments ring true.
....
Restoring Equity

I would like to see a bankruptcy judge reduce McLaughlin's pension to the average of his last 10 years' salary. Teachers and others on the low end of the benefit scale should be the hit the least. That would be reasonably equitable.

Spare me the sap about legal contacts and promises. Those contracts and pension benefits were bought with bribes and dishonesty with no one looking out for the taxpayer. Fraudulent, self-serving contracts with no one representing the taxpayer should not be legally enforceable (and indeed they weren't for Central Falls).
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-08-2012, 02:30 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 92,976
Blog Entries: 6
Default

ILLINOIS

http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x392...cher-contracts

Quote:
State government’s top three Democrats – Cullerton, House Speaker Michael Madigan and Gov. Pat Quinn – have floated the idea of local school districts paying for teachers’ pension benefits, which the state pays for today.

The idea is intended to be one component of an overall pension reform plan, which could also feature concessions by public employee unions in exchange for some sort of mechanism to make sure the state pays what it owes to the systems, said Cullerton, a Chicago Democrat.

Legislatures and governors have shorted the pension systems for decades. As a result, the state now owes the systems $85 billion.
....
Cullerton said current pension funding is unfair because Chicagoans pay the cost of their teachers’ pensions via their local property taxes and then pay again, through state income and sales taxes, for the pensions of downstate and suburban teachers. More than half of the state’s annual pension obligations are for the Teachers’ Retirement System, the pension system that covers educators outside Chicago.

As a result, most school districts can give pay raises to teachers without considering their impact on the state’s pension liability.

“It’s bad public policy,” Cullerton said.

School districts say additional pension payments would blow a hole in their budgets.
No kidding.

But get this bit:
Quote:
Depending on the other components of a pension bill, Cullerton said, the state could also consider revising its current goal of having the pension systems funded at 90 percent by 2045. That level was “artificially determined in 1995,” he said.

“I always thought 80 (percent) was the acceptable percentage,” Cullerton said. “A hundred percent would be if everybody retired on the same day, that’s how much money you’d have to have. Well, that doesn’t happen.”
Oh dear lord.

just

THAT'S NOT WHAT THAT PERCENTAGE MEANS

Hey -- SOA or AAA? This would be a great time to make a call to Cullerton or his staff. Or just call the media.

Reaction in Peoria to the first bit (not the fundedness idiocy)
http://www.pjstar.com/news/x50589581...nsion-proposal
Quote:
Taxpayers, teachers and, ultimately, children could lose, area school officials warned Tuesday, if local school districts are required to help clean up the under-funded mess in the state's Teachers Retirement System.

....
The impact would "obviously be huge," said Dave Kinney, comptroller for Peoria School District 150, the area's largest school district. "They're talking about making the districts pay more but, right now, they're not giving us what they owe us in general state aid."

Kinney said District 150 will pay almost $10 million this year for its share of teacher pension costs. The state is supposed to pay roughly $15 million.

Like Kinney, school administrators contacted expressed a mixture of frustration and uncertainty about the latest attempts to resolve long-standing shortfalls in the Teachers Retirement System.

"What bothers me most is this is happening because they mismanaged the pension fund in the past," Rolf Sivertsen, superintendent of Midland Community Unit School District 7, said of state legislators. "They missed payments, they delayed payments or they borrowed to make payments."

Sivertsen said he is certain school districts will raise taxes if they have to pay the employers' share of teacher pensions currently handled by the state. Districts with property tax caps face a different challenge.

Other school officials were less willing to predict tax increases, but several mentioned the possibility of redistributing funds and shifting priorities in ways that would probably reduce student services.

Sivertsen also pointed out significant differences between many downstate teacher pensions and suburban Chicago pensions. In some suburban Chicago districts, gym teachers might retire on 75 percent of a $150,000 salary, he said, all because the district, flush with property tax revenues, didn't have to worry about pension costs when salaries were negotiated.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-08-2012, 02:36 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 92,976
Blog Entries: 6
Default

MARYLAND

Something similar to the Illinois situation
http://www.gazette.net/article/20120...mplate=gazette
Quote:
As Maryland legislators debate the merits of shifting some of the cost of teacher pensions from the state to counties, Montgomery politicians are arming themselves with financial data to fight the proposal.

Montgomery County Council President Roger Berliner (D-Dist.1) of Potomac and county Chief Administrative Officer Timothy Firestine briefed members of the county’s state delegation Friday on Montgomery’s economy.

Shifting half of Maryland’s teacher pension responsibilities would cost Montgomery County more than it pays for its departments of transportation, housing and environmental protection — combined — in the first year alone, Berliner said.
....
Gov. Martin O’Malley’s budget proposes the legislature shift $239 million in teacher pensions costs to local governments. Cost include pensions for K-12 teachers, K-12 librarians and community college teachers, according to the Maryland Department of Legislative Services. O’Malley’s plan includes $244 million in revenue to soften the blow, which includes an increase in the income tax for the state’s high earners. For Montgomery, the cost is estimated by the state at $351 million in the first five years
GENERAL

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ers/52991858/1

Quote:
Lawmakers in nine states — Idaho, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey and South Carolina— are advancing legislation to scale back their own pensions by closing loopholes and lucrative retirement plans that have let thousands of former lawmakers earn more in retirement than while in office.

Legislators in three states — Idaho, Iowa and South Carolina — are seeking to end special pension perks that USA TODAY revealed in a September investigation. That story described how more than 4,100 legislators in 33 states were positioned to benefit from special retirement laws they and their predecessors enacted.

Gov. Nikki Haley and nine South Carolina lawmakers are pushing to close the legislators-only retirement plan, which lets lawmakers collect a legislative pension while remaining in office. Haley, a Republican, called for an end to the practice after USA TODAY disclosed it in September, and said last month in her State of the State speech, "We need to shut down the General Assembly's own retirement system."
FEDERAL
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...AvQ_story.html

Quote:
The next step in that march will be taken Tuesday afternoon when the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee considers, and probably approves with a party-line vote, the Securing Annuities for Federal Employees Act.

Don’t be confused by the name of the bill. It certainly does not make federal employees feel more secure about their annuities.

In the first bullet of a news release about his legislation, Rep. Dennis A. Ross (R-Fla.) says it would calculate federal retirement on an employee’s highest five earning years instead of the highest three, as is currently done. That would apply to workers hired after this year and who do not have at least five years of previous federal service. Members of Congress would be included.

Other provisions would increase contributions by employees to their pensions by 1.5 percent over three years (“an immediate decrease in the take-home pay of two million hard-working Americans,” says the Federal Managers Association) and decrease the multiplier used in annuity calculations, resulting in many federal employees paying more for smaller retirement programs.
....
Moving from the high three to the high five would take thousands of dollars from an individual’s retirement income, compared with the way the system works today.

The Congressional Budget Office provided this estimate of just how big the hole would be over five years in a 2009 report: “The resulting initial pensions would be about 3 percent smaller for most new civilian retirees, saving the federal government $1.2 billion over five years. The average new CSRS [Civil Service Retirement System] retiree would receive $1,424 less in 2010 and $7,148 less over five years than under current law. The average new FERS [Federal Employees Retirement System] retiree would receive $462 less in 2010 and $2,322 less over five years.”

Of course, those figures would only multiply over the years of a worker’s retirement.

And remember, federal employees already are doing their part through the current two-year freeze on basic federal pay that is saving the government $60 billion over 10 years.

Although employees on the payroll now would not be hit by moving to a high-five system, they remain in danger of getting their retirement pockets picked by Ross’s legislation and another bill approved by the full House in December.

Those measures seek to eliminate the FERS supplement for most workers who retire after this year. This would save the government an estimated $1.6 billion to $1.8 billion over 10 years — which is to say, that’s the amount federal workers would lose.

This retirement supplement is paid when FERS-covered employees retire before age 62. It duplicates the Social Security benefit they earned during their years of federal employment and is paid until they can begin drawing Social Security at 62.
Yes, but the Social Security benefit they "earned" to receive before age 62 is 0.

I assume they mean it gives them some payment that is on a par with what they'd get from SocSec starting at age 62.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-08-2012, 02:45 PM
Devil's Advocate Devil's Advocate is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,139
Default

I hate hate hate being in a DB plan now. I have zero idea if its a good deal or if I'll get anything in 30 years. At least with the DC I saw my balance and it was mine.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-08-2012, 02:49 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 92,976
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Well, one can have DC funds stolen, but generally when that happens, people end up in jail.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-08-2012, 03:04 PM
Duffer's Avatar
Duffer Duffer is offline
Member
ASPPA COPA
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Teeing off
Studying for Blues guitar
Posts: 1,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate View Post
I hate hate hate being in a DB plan now. I have zero idea if its a good deal or if I'll get anything in 30 years. At least with the DC I saw my balance and it was mine.
Young actuaries (notably high intelligence) typically feel like you do.
Older actuaries with more experience of economic downturns feel differently. Pension actuaries serving older participants definitely see the difference. You will change your position as you age.
__________________
*Humor Disclaimer: Funny or not, some of the above may be intended as humor. No offense is ever intended, but if offended please accept this disclaimer as a blanket apology. If you remain offended, you’re on your own. Ask your doctor if this humor is right for you. Common side effects include forehead slapping, eye rolling, knee pounding, and occasional gastric symptoms. No TARP funds were used for this disclaimer. If you can get cash for this clunker notify me immediately!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.70105 seconds with 10 queries