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


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #941  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:14 AM
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: 82,392
Blog Entries: 6
Default

STREATOR, ILLINOIS
PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS

https://www.mywebtimes.com/2018/06/1...fq0ae/#new_tab

Quote:
Streator looks at issuing bonds to curb pension crisis
City continues to assess strategies to fund pensions by 2040

Spoiler:
The Streator City
Council continues to assess strategies to ensure fire and police retirees receive their pension benefits and reduce future obligations. Their latest idea is issuing municipal bonds.

The issuance of the bonds would help the city come closer to funding 90 percent of all pension funds by 2040, as required by the state.

City Manager Scot Wrighton described the possible solution to the City Council on Tuesday that involves the city issuing general obligation bonds to make a large advance payment to its public safety pension funds.

If the large payment is made, next year’s actuarial funding calculation would decrease. The city would then add the cost of serving the bonds’ principal and interest payments to the annual tax levy.

“What this basically does is supplant the levy for pensions with a levy for bond and principal and interest payments instead,” Wrighton said. “If the interest cost of the bonds is less to service than the interest, they can gain by having the money in advance and then it could be a trade-off that works better for the pension board and therefore for the financial condition of the pensioners and the city.”

The compounded interest from the proceeds of the bond would add to the pension fund and would also improve predictability as currently the pensions are recalculated every year.

Councilman Joe Scarbeary, also an active member of the Streator Fire Department, gave a presentation explaining the plan to council members and explained the mayor of Berwyn spoke highly of the strategy.

“He said if you’re not doing it, you’re crazy. It’s free money,” Scarbeary said.

Scarbeary said even if the city considered replacing the fire department with a full volunteer staff, which was not under discussion during the meeting, the city still owes retirees.

“The city still is $9 million behind on fire and $11 (million) on police and the year 2040 is coming,” Scarbeary said.

Councilman Ed Brozak reminded council the city has “never missed a payment” and board documents stated the underfunding was due to increased benefit levels of the state and poor investment returns.

Brozak said one concern was the city’s bonding limit, which may leave it without room for future projects.

Wrighton confirmed non-home rule cities have a debt limit of around 8.625 percent of their equalized assessed value minus existing debt and other variables. The city would be unable to go over the limit without a referendum.

Wrighton also explained the strategy brings its own share of risk as poor investment could lead to a low rate of return.

The City Council planned to forward the potential strategy to Foster & Foster of Naperville, the Streator fire and police pension board actuary, to fully examine the pros and cons.

Council members will continue to assess other strategies at future meetings.
I want to highlight this one line:
Quote:
“He said if you’re not doing it, you’re crazy. It’s free money,” Scarbeary said.


That is all.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #942  
Old 06-15-2018, 02:55 PM
Locrian Locrian is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,721
Default

Quote:
It’s free money
With facts like that, who needs fiction?
__________________
Spoiler:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
The most important thing I have learned from the career forum is that the gurus in this field and keepers of supreme knowledge regarding all matters pertaining to the actuarial profession are unlettered actuarial students with < 5 years of experience.
Reply With Quote
  #943  
Old 06-16-2018, 02:37 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: 82,392
Blog Entries: 6
Default

https://www.nasdaq.com/article/publi...-swan-cm977604

Quote:
Public Employee Pensions: The Next Black Swan?

Spoiler:
In our post-Financial Crisis world, the term, “black swan” is not uncommon. It gets tossed about by financial pundits frequently, typically to describe future scenarios that have the potential to rock financial markets. The phrase was used as far back as the 2 century to describe an impossibility, as it was believed at the time that black colored swans did not exist.

Later, when black swans were actually observed in the wild, the phrase took on new meaning, instead connoting the idea that a perceived impossibility may, in fact, be possible.

Author Nassim Taleb brought the phrase into common parlance in 2001 with his “black swan theory,” which he used to explain rare but disproportionately impactful events that are extremely hard to predict. Some of the most famous events that have been described as “black swans” include the start of World War I, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the September 11, 2001 attacks, and of course the collapse of the housing market that triggered the 2008 Financial Crisis.

Interestingly, the latter example was only a “black swan” to some. For more astute observers in the financial markets, it was an obvious inevitability. The imbalances that developed in the run-up to the 2008 Financial Crisis were difficult to ignore, and for some market participants, the situation offered a “can’t lose” opportunity to profit from the correction of these imbalances. It wasn’t so much a matter of “if” but rather a matter of “when.”

The next “black swan” event may be even more obvious.

I am referring to the impending public employee pension crisis that is currently gathering steam in states and municipalities across the country. While it may or may not be the next major event to roil financial markets (who knows what could happen tomorrow?), there is no doubt that the underfunding of public pensions will ultimately have a major effect on the U.S. economy and the markets at some point in the future.

But what makes this situation so peculiar is that there really is no uncertainty regarding the probability of this eventual reckoning. Like the housing market collapse, it seems mathematically unavoidable, and the question remaining is just a timing question. And yet, the markets, politicians, and the general public seem to be ignoring it as though it simply can’t or won’t happen.

Black swan indeed.

Much has already been said and written by some about the large and growing danger that underfunded public employee pensions pose to the U.S. economy. A colleague of mine has written extensively on this topic, examining the broader issue here and delving into the specific issues facing the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago here and here. If you wish to take a more in-depth look at the issue, I encourage you to read my colleague’s work.

Whether you are an investor, pensioner, or taxpayer, I think the following considerations regarding public pension underfunding are worth remembering.

The problem is bigger than everyone thinks.

Politicians and government officials have finally begun to talk about the underfunding of public employee pensions in recent years. The size of the problem necessarily demands some amount of attention from those tasked with managing it. However, the numbers that these officials typically use when describing the problem would make a snake oil salesman blush.

Officially, the current underfunding of public employee pensions in the United States is approximately $2.0 trillion, a truly staggering figure to be sure. But even this gargantuan number likely understates the true size of the problem.

Pension obligations are calculated by actuaries who make various assumptions – life expectancy of pensioners, wage growth, inflation, and future investment returns, among others. Future investment returns are an especially important input in these calculations, as they play a major role in determining how much states and municipalities must contribute to pensions now in order to fund future benefits. Higher investment return assumptions result in lower contribution requirements on behalf of governments.

Currently, state and local governments use an average expected return assumption of 7.0% to 7.5% to calculate pension funding needs. Given that we are more than nine years into a bull market and the second longest economic expansion in U.S. history, and with interest rates still low by historic standards, assuming annualized returns of 7.0% to 7.5% seems almost reckless.

I have little confidence (maybe none at all) that future returns will come anywhere close to these assumptions. Using a more conservative and realistic expected return of 4.0%, the underfunding of public employee pensions explodes to the mind-boggling level of roughly $8.0 trillion. That represents nearly 40% of the current GDP of the United States.

There is no fix for a problem that big.

The situation is getting worse with time, not better.

With Baby Boomers retiring at accelerating rates and retirees living longer, the underfunding of public employee pensions is getting worse each year. Despite efforts by some state and local governments to bridge the pension funding gaps via tax increases, this slow-moving freight train of a problem is moving in the wrong direction, and it is gathering momentum.

There is pain ahead for everyone involved.

There is no avoiding the fact that the resolution of this crisis will be painful for a great many Americans. Indeed, the pain has already begun in many areas in the form of cutbacks in public services and increased taxes. While I cannot predict how and when this crisis will ultimately play out, I do feel confident in saying that there is likely to be some combination of benefit reductions for pensioners, municipal bond defaults, and, potentially, a Federal bailout of the public pension system.

The public employee pension problem doesn’t really have any silver lining. It is bad, it is getting worse, and it is effectively unsolvable by conventional means. However, I write about it because I believe investors need to recognize and fully understand the problem and its potential consequences in order to ready themselves for the fallout. When the pension crisis finally does come to the fore and begins wreaking havoc on the economy and markets, many will deem it a “black swan” event that couldn’t have been predicted.

But make no mistake; this black swan is standing right in front of our eyes, plainly visible to anyone willing to pay attention. I strongly encourage investors, taxpayers, and pensioners to face up to the problem and begin preparing for its consequences before it’s too late.


__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #944  
Old Yesterday, 05:08 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: 82,392
Blog Entries: 6
Default

CONNECTICUT

https://www.newhavenindependent.org/...nsion_payment/

Quote:
Unions Go To Battle Over Pension Payment

Spoiler:
At an emergency meeting, representatives from several public employee unions tried to stop an imminent raid on the pension funds they’re owed.

Patrick Cannon, a representative for New Haven’s firefighters, went on the attack early Friday morning at a joint meeting for the city’s two pension boards, criticizing the city controller for that tampering with pension payments to fix up the budget.

Cannon was responding to plans that Controller Daryl Jones had announced earlier this week to pay down a $14 million deficit this fiscal year with money that that was originally budgeted for the city’s retirement accounts.

At the end of the contentious meeting, where Cannon asked for Jones to be removed from the pension board and maybe even fired from his job, Mayor Toni Harp said she is committed to making this year’s required contribution. Or, at least, trying.

“It’s my intention that we make the payment,” she said. “Daryl, who has to make the payment, is saying he will try.”


Mayor Toni Harp: Committed to trying.
New Haven maintains two pensions, the Policemen & Firemen’s Retirement Fund (P&F) for public safety employees and the City Employees Retirement Fund (CERF) for other municipal employees (except teachers). Both are nearly broke.

As of mid-2017, P&F was funded at 40.9 percent, and CERF was funded at 34.1 percent. In real dollars, the two pensions are $412 million short of what they owe. And those figures are based on the suspect premise that the funds will generate an average yearly return of 7.5 percent on the stock market, which they’ve repeatedly failed to do in recent years.

Jones had wanted to refill the pensions by taking out a $250 million bond, a strategy that stabilized funds in Waterbury and ruined them in Bridgeport, he said. But alders shot the idea down as too risky. They worried that interest rates on the debt would outrun investment returns on the stock market.

When that didn’t happen, Jones proposed draining the funds even further.

The current fiscal year’s budget allocated $34.6 million to P&F and $21.6 million to CERF, but the city has thus far this year paid out only $24.8 million into P&F and $15.2 million into CERF. Under Jones’s proposal, part of the remaining $16.2 million would pay off cost overruns in police and fire’s overtime and school spending, totaling about $14 million.

Already put on notice by credit ratings agencies, New Haven is now teetering between two dismal outcomes, as it decides whether to catch up on budgetary overruns or pension obligations.

If it doesn’t pull from the pensions, the city would have to take on debt to close this year’s deficit, potentially leading to oversight by the Municipal Accountability Review Board, which the mayor believes would sideline her administration from controlling major financial decisions like union contracts. But if it doesn’t make the pension payments, the city’s already underfunded pensions won’t be able to cash in on a bull market, putting the funds at risk of bankrupting the city in decades to come.


Carolyn Kone.

But that difficult choice might already be made, a lawyer for the pension fund said.

Carolyn Kone, an attorney at Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman LLP, pointed out that CERF’s plan, which the Internal Revenue Service approved before granting tax-exempt status, has a provision that could force the city to pay up.

“The City of New Haven shall pay to the Retirement Board such amounts to fund the benefits provided by this Plan as shall be determined by the Retirement Board based on sound actuarial principles,” the section reads.

Kone said that underfunding CERF’s pension wasn’t an option for trustees with a fiduciary responsibility to their members. “There’s no question about it,” she said.

P&F’s plan, on the other hand, doesn’t have the same language, Kone added.

But Cannon said he believes that a charter provision might have them covered. That section states that the mayor must budget for the “estimated expenses necessary to carry out the purpose of the fund.”

Kone said that likely refers to fees for lawyers, actuaries and brokers, not the required annual payment for future retirees. “That would be a stretch,” she said.


Patrick Cannon: It’s ridiculous to steal from an underfunded pension.
Union representatives questioned why the city hadn’t tried to close the deficit earlier in the year and asked how they could be sure they city won’t default on its payment again next year.

The public safety representatives, in particular, ripped into Jones for what they called “mismanagement” of city funds.

“The actuaries that we paid to set this up stated, quite simply, that this money needs to come in or the pension is going to collapse,” said Brian McDermott, the police representative. “No realistic rate of return is going to be able to save the fund, if no money is coming in.”

Cannon questioned whether Jones actually enforced any of the “expenditure controls” that were promised, as a deficit loomed. Given the cuts in state funding that Jones knew were coming, Cannon asked how he justified an overseas business trip to China, a banquet for finance staffers at Lighthouse Park, and pay raises for department heads.

“You don’t have the money to do it!” Cannon said, shouting over Jones’s attempt to answer. “It’s ridiculous!”

“You are out of order,” Harp interjected.

“He’s not going to allow me to speak,” Jones said, crossing his arms. “It’s not worth it.”

Cannon said that Jones hadn’t kept his promise to fully fund the pensions this year. In January, they’d both squared off at a meeting about the exact same issue. The union representatives tried to hold up a new investment policy from taking effect until the city’s full payments were made.


Daryl Jones.

At the time, Jones told them not to worry. As he recalled on Friday morning, with the state budget in limbo as school started up again, he needed to keep a free cashflow to make payroll. “That became not a budgetary issue but a cash issue,” he explained. “We went week to week and decided what bills got paid.”

Back in January, Jones had assured the public safety unions he would eventually cough up the money for their pensions. He cited the city’s track record of following through on actuaries’ recommended contribution every year since 1995.

Cops and firemen now feel like they were duped, they said, especially since they couldn’t get a clear answer on Friday morning why Jones didn’t transfer the money over immediately after the state finalized its appropriations and the city collected its mid-year taxes, if it was truly just the cash-flow issue that Jones claimed.

“Two weeks before the end of the fiscal year, now you’re saying that you’re taking it,” Cannon said.

“There’s multiple other things you’re not aware of,” Jones said, like watching the way the Board of Education was losing magnet grants, short-staffing at the police department was driving up costs, and medical bills were outpacing twice what they’d expected. “I cannot tell somebody you can’t have cancer this week,” he said. “When that $500,000 bill comes in, the city makes the payment. We cannot control that money.”

“That’s your job description. Apparently you didn’t forecast it properly,” Cannon said. “You should be removed, at least from your fund.” He added, “If [Harp] does the right thing and makes this contribution, this fund might not go under. We’re already on a lifeline, and you’re part of what’s closing it.”

Jones said that the two pensions would never make up the money through investments. He faulted the alders for not taking up his plan to issue bonds, saying that was the only way to straighten out the city’s finances.

“P&F did a 15 percent return last year, and that did not move the needle. It’s going to take a whole bunch of money, beyond what the city and employees contribute, to make these pensions whole,” he said. “I recognize that. That’s why I put out the pension obligation bonds. That’s a plausible solution to rectify the situation. Is there a risk? Absolutely. I never said there wasn’t one.”
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #945  
Old Yesterday, 05:14 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: 82,392
Blog Entries: 6
Default

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christo.../#2091129768d1

Quote:
Public Pensions Need To Consider That Beneficiaries Are Living Longer
Americans are living longer, and that may not be good news for those states facing large unfunded pension liabilities.
Vermont saw its unfunded liabilities rise by almost $10 million.
Spoiler:
Americans are living longer, and that may not be good news for those states facing large unfunded pension liabilities. Adding years to the average life span can have a significant impact on a pension plan’s funding ratio. For the first time since 2008, this past December the IRS released new actuarial tables accompanied by additional requirements for private pension managers. These new tables require corporate pension plans to adopt new, more accurate and realistic, mortality assumptions. Unfortunately, these regulations do not apply to state and local public pensions. As such, public pension plans continue to bury their heads in the sand living in a time warp of decades-old actuarial assumptions.

The mortality tables recently released by the IRS, the RP-2014 tables, were developed in 2014 by the Society of Actuaries (SOA). The good news is that the updated tables report lower mortality rates, meaning that retirees are expected to live longer than ever before. However, they also pose new challenges to pension fund managers. Longer lives means longer retirements and longer retirements mean more pension payments, which will require plans to retain higher levels of funding. It has been estimated that the funding targets for pension plans could increase by up to 5% with the new (2014) assumptions.

Many states still use earlier versions that underestimate longevity, and thus give a false estimate of unfunded liabilities. An exception is Vermont. They recently updated their mortality assumptions for a 2017 re-valuation. After doing so, Vermont saw its unfunded liabilities rise by almost $10 million. Similarly, when the California Legislators’ Retirement System updated their mortality assumptions, its unfunded liabilities rose by over $7.5 billion. Finally, when the state of New York updated its mortality assumptions in 2015 to match the SOA’s MP-2014 scale, the switch forced New York to increase its annual contribution rates for two pension funds by about 4%.


Public pension fund managers, trustees, and state legislatures, should embrace these tables and use them as a wakeup call to take more seriously their fiduciary responsibility, and better manage the systems with which they are entrusted. Fiduciary responsibility requires the “highest standard of care.” Being an elected or appointed official requires prudent management of taxpayer dollars and those of the men and women who labor to protect us and serve our states and communities. Calculating unfunded liabilities based on accurate-market driven assumptions, rather than old ones that hide from the public the true liabilities, is essential to public pension fund integrity.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #946  
Old Yesterday, 05:15 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: 82,392
Blog Entries: 6
Default

NEW YORK

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/n...614-story.html

Quote:
Pension sweeteners a bitter prospect for New York City

Spoiler:
On Thursday, the City Council adopted a budget for fiscal year 2019 that totals almost $90 billion. Almost $10 billion will be devoted to pensions for public employees, and the amount is projected to continue growing steadily over the next decade.

And yet, for some, this is not enough. Bills recently introduced in the State Legislature would hike the cost of pensions for NYC police and firefighters, and a majority of City Council members support a home rule message. The Mayor is right to oppose these bills, and they should be rejected.

For more than a decade, New York City’s budget suffered under the weight of rapidly growing pension costs; between fiscal years 2003 and 2012, contributions to the pension funds grew from $1.8 billion to $8.0 billion – more than the city spent to provide police, fire, and correction services. The rapidly growing costs, spurred by generous enhancements made to benefits in 2000 and investment losses in the pension funds in fiscal years 2001 and 2002, crowded out investment in other city priorities. For example, the city delayed expansion of day care and cancelled operating support to NYCHA.

Reforms enacted in 2012 created more reasonable benefits for newly hired city employees. As a result, pension costs, although still substantial, are growing at a more manageable rate. But now police and fire unions are advocating for a return to the more pricey benefits of the past for recently hired members.

The estimated cost of one proposed bill is $20 million next year, doubling in five years. And any enhancement in benefits for police and fire will inevitably lead to a push for the same for other uniformed city personnel, and then for teachers and civilian workers. Thus, reopening the reforms will inevitably put the city back in the position of squeezing other services and priorities to spend more on pensions.

New York City police officers and firefighters, including those hired since the new benefit tier went into effect, get extremely generous compensation, including pension benefits. They can count virtually all overtime toward their pensions while many large cities exclude overtime entirely and New York state limits it to about 15% of base salary for troopers and other local law enforcement officers. The average annual pension for a recently retired NYC police officer is $74,500 and $118,000 for a recently retired firefighter, compared to $35,000 for a civilian employee. (Reasonable concerns about inadequate disability benefits for junior uniformed employees were addressed in targeted enhancements enacted last year.) The value of total compensation for a police officer at 5 years of service can reach over $200,000.

Pension benefits are not deterring new recruits from joining the police and fire departments. According to the city Office of Labor Relations, the NYPD has been able to double its Police Academy classes. The last two open FDNY job exams had more than 40,000 applicants each for approximately 2,500 positions. These are well paid, highly respected jobs.

The Council and the Legislature should not pass an unwarranted sweetener that will be bitter for taxpayers.

Kellermann is president of the Citizens Budget Commission


__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #947  
Old Yesterday, 05:16 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: 82,392
Blog Entries: 6
Default

KENTUCKY

http://www.richmondregister.com/news...5b56929d1.html

Quote:
Bevin files amended pension suit

Spoiler:
Attorneys for Gov. Matt Bevin filed an amended petition Wednesday in Attorney General Andy Beshear’s legal challenge to a pension reform bill which is pending in Franklin Circuit Court.

Beshear claims Senate Bill 151 is unconstitutional because it was never given three readings after its contents were entirely changed from a waste water bill to a bill altering pension benefits. In his original complaint, Beshear also objected to Speaker Pro Tempore David Osborne’s signing the legislation—rather than the Speaker of the House, an office vacant at the time of the bill’s passage.

Senate Bill 151—originally a waste water bill—was stripped of its language and a watered-down pension measure was substituted in a House committee after the Senate was unable to pass a more expansive pension bill.

Over objections of Democrats, teachers and state workers, the measure was passed by both chambers the same day and sent to Bevin for his signature—all within six hours.

In the latest court filing, Bevin’s General Counsel Stephen Pitt asks Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd to declare that Osborne was the presiding officer of the House when he signed SB 151 and that the two chambers of the General Assembly are authorized by the constitution to establish their own rules of proceedings—including those governing the requirement for three separate readings of bills.

Most of the arguments in the petition repeat those Pitt made during oral arguments before Shepherd last week. As of Thursday, Shepherd had not issued a ruling.

But during oral arguments Shepherd indicated he was unlikely to rule in favor of Beshear on the question of Osborne’s signature—and Beshear then withdrew the argument in open court.

The question of the three readings is key in the case. Both chambers, under majority control of both parties at one time or another, have routinely read bills “by title only” and nearly as routinely have stripped out a bill’s original language and inserted unrelated legislation.

That’s what happened with SB 151.

But Section 46 of the Kentucky Constitution states: “Every bill shall be read at length on three different days in each House, but the second and third readings may be dispensed with by a majority of all the members elected to the House in which the bill is pending.”

Pitt argues that if that standard is applied to SB 151, requiring every bill to be read in its entirety, it would invalidate “virtually every bill passed by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor over many decades.”

Beshear said “at length” can be debated but he said when SB 151—in its amended form—was debated on the floor of the House it was read by title as a waste water bill which was insufficient to let the public know what was in the bill.

As for the argument that ruling SB 151 invalid on that basis would also invalidate hundreds of other laws, Beshear said, “When you challenge one law, you challenge one law.”

Ronnie Ellis writes for CNHI News Service and is based in Frankfort. Reach him at rellis@cnhi.com. Follow CNHI News Service stories on Twitter at www.twitter.com/cnhifrankfort.


__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
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 05:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 0.33217 seconds with 10 queries