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
  #51  
Old 11-14-2014, 05:28 PM
Dan Moore's Avatar
Dan Moore Dan Moore is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
College: University of Dallas
Posts: 2,039
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
Unsurprisingly, I like Alberto's letter:

http://www.actuarialstandardsboard.o...Comment_31.pdf

Some public plans still use extremely outdated mortality tables such as 1951 GAM, 1971 GAM, 1983 GAM and UP 1984.
For actuarial equivalence (a plan provision used in calculating benefits), sure. That is often not changes for decades. But for valuations, use of those tables would be shocking, especially 1951 & 1971 GAM and UP 1984. Cite?

Quote:
It would seem that the consensus is that the use of such tables doesn’t violate ASOP 35 guidance on selecting mortality assumptions. I can think of no clearer indication that ASOP 35 is grossly inadequate.


__________________
The best time to plant an oak tree is twenty years ago. The second best time is right now.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-14-2014, 06:07 PM
exactuary exactuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Moore View Post
For actuarial equivalence (a plan provision used in calculating benefits), sure. That is often not changes for decades. But for valuations, use of those tables would be shocking, especially 1951 & 1971 GAM and UP 1984. Cite?
Comment #13: http://www.actuarialstandardsboard.o...Comment_13.pdf
is written by Robert Rietz who finishes his service as ABCD head at the end of this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Rietz
The ABCD has received a number of complaints concerning Subject Actuaries who are using allegedly outdated mortality assumptions in their public pension plan valuations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Rietz
Specifically, I am urging the ASB to proscribe the use of the following mortality tables unless there is compelling evidence that their use is appropriate for a specific Principal:

1951 Group Annuity Mortality Table without projection to the valuation year
1971 Group Annuity Mortality Table without projection to the valuation year
1983 Group Annuity Mortality Table without projection to the valuation year
1984 Unisex Pensioner Mortality Table without projection to the valuation year
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Rietz
The ABCD receives only a handful of complaints each year. Thus I suspect that other actuaries, besides the actuaries who have been reported to the ABCD, may also be using one or more of the four proposed proscribed mortality tables.
__________________
An exact actuary
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-15-2014, 06:24 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: 83,756
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Some of us have read way too many CAFRs for our own good.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-15-2014, 08:53 AM
Dan Moore's Avatar
Dan Moore Dan Moore is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
College: University of Dallas
Posts: 2,039
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberto Dominguez View Post
City of Miami FL general employees plan uses GAM83.

Until a couple of years ago, City of Hollywood FL was using GAM83 (and GA-51 projected to 1970 for disabled lives). They've since updated to something reasonable.

City of Boynton Beach FL uses GAM83, although I did notice that GRS raised a concern about this in their most recent report, citing ASOP 35.

City of Miami Beach FL was using GAM83 until at least a couple of years ago. Don't know if they've updated since.

Forest Park only recently changed from GAM71.

Last time I saw Knoxville a couple of years ago, they were using GA-51 projected to 1980 for some groups and a blend of GAM71 and GA-51/80 for other groups.

Aurora was still using GAM71 a couple of years ago.

Stamford was using GAM83 a couple of years ago.

I got my facts down, homey. I have more examples if you want them.
If there are plans still using these outdated tables (including some big cities)(without a supporting experience study, which generally requires a member population of a million or more), I agree that ASB should identify the tables as outdated and proscribe their use.
__________________
The best time to plant an oak tree is twenty years ago. The second best time is right now.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-15-2014, 10:19 AM
JMO's Avatar
JMO JMO is offline
Carol Marler
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Back home again in Indiana
Studying for Nothing actuarial.
Posts: 37,428
Default

"GA-51 projected to 1970 for disabled lives"
Why bother to use a projection if they aren't going to project to a more recent time period?
__________________
Carol Marler, "Just My Opinion"

Pluto is no longer a planet and I am no longer an actuary. Please take my opinions as non-actuarial.


My latest favorite quotes, updated Apr 5, 2018.

Spoiler:
I should keep these four permanently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekrap View Post
JMO is right
Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
I agree with JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley View Post
And def agree w/ JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MG View Post
This. And everything else JMO wrote.
And this all purpose permanent quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan View Post
Yup, it is always someone else's fault.
MORE:
All purpose response for careers forum:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorNo View Post
Depends upon the employer and the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sredni Vashtar View Post
I feel like ERM is 90% buzzwords, and that the underlying agenda is to make sure at least one of your Corporate Officers is not dumb.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-15-2014, 10:46 AM
exactuary exactuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMO View Post
"GA-51 projected to 1970 for disabled lives"
Why bother to use a projection if they aren't going to project to a more recent time period?
They probably chose that projection decades ago. For the last 20+ years public plan actuaries have been paralyzed and unwilling to do anything that increases costs. (Seeming exception: public pressure has caused discount rates to be lowered (e.g., 50bps) in last couple of years but even that effort has not been led by actuaries.)

They might, when the markets were strong circa 2000, strengthened their assumptions but consider the CalPERS example. They weakened assumptions in order to give an across the board 50% (roughly) increase in all benefits in 1999 (SB 400) at NO cost to the taxpayers.

Pound foolish without even being penny wise.
__________________
An exact actuary
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 11-16-2014, 12:46 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: 83,756
Blog Entries: 6
Default

somebody else check the link:
http://www.actuarialstandardsboard.o...g_Comments.asp

did a bunch of stuff get screwed up? i can't get to a bunch of the comment letters now
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 11-16-2014, 01:32 PM
JMO's Avatar
JMO JMO is offline
Carol Marler
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Back home again in Indiana
Studying for Nothing actuarial.
Posts: 37,428
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
somebody else check the link:
http://www.actuarialstandardsboard.o...g_Comments.asp

did a bunch of stuff get screwed up? i can't get to a bunch of the comment letters now
I agree it's messed up. The comments posted after James Palermo no longer appear on the list.
__________________
Carol Marler, "Just My Opinion"

Pluto is no longer a planet and I am no longer an actuary. Please take my opinions as non-actuarial.


My latest favorite quotes, updated Apr 5, 2018.

Spoiler:
I should keep these four permanently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekrap View Post
JMO is right
Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
I agree with JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley View Post
And def agree w/ JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MG View Post
This. And everything else JMO wrote.
And this all purpose permanent quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan View Post
Yup, it is always someone else's fault.
MORE:
All purpose response for careers forum:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorNo View Post
Depends upon the employer and the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sredni Vashtar View Post
I feel like ERM is 90% buzzwords, and that the underlying agenda is to make sure at least one of your Corporate Officers is not dumb.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 11-16-2014, 01:34 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: 83,756
Blog Entries: 6
Default

I sent them an email -- I think somebody screwed up the HTML or something
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 11-16-2014, 04:19 PM
exactuary exactuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,033
Default

We can all guess, right?

I'm going with restore on Saturday based on Thursday night backup.
__________________
An exact actuary
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 03:20 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 0.22598 seconds with 10 queries