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
  #841  
Old 02-08-2018, 03:13 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: 82,024
Blog Entries: 6
Default

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/janethe...-proposal.html

Quote:
Putting my actuary hat on: the Rubio-approved family leave proposal

Spoiler:
Something that caught my attention via twitter today: a proposal for a new way forward on parental leave, put forth by a group called the Independent Women’s Forum, in a report called, “A Budget-Neutral Approach to Parental Leave.”

The core of their idea is this: as a means of providing parental leave without adding to the budget, we could allow new parents to “borrow” against their Social Security, that is, by “purchasing” leave time now and “paying for it” by deferring retirement an appropriate length of time. The value of the benefit check wouldn’t be calculated based on the 35 year average earnings, as in “regular” Social Security but, acknowledging the young age of new parents, it would be based on the Social Security Disability formulas, using average indexed earnings-to-date instead. The benefit, like all Social Security benefits, would likewise not be knock-your-socks-off generous, but would be a reasonable-ish sum of money, and would actually be roughly comparable to the benefit rates of the United Kingdom and Canada.

This proposal is attractive for a couple reasons.

In the first place, I give it lots of credit for truly attempting to come up with a new idea. Even to the extent that they miss the mark, it’s still something different than the succession of proposals which imagine that we can fund parental leave by just taxing the “millionaires and billionaires” more.

And, secondly, it addresses one of the difficulties with, well, life stages. When we’re young and starting our families, we’re at the start of our earning years, and at the same time, trying to figure out how to make do with one income for the length of a maternity leave, or indefinitely, for stay-at-home parent families, or afford child care, for dual-income couples. Then when we’re older, and have higher incomes and have saved more money, we don’t need it in the same way. Well, OK, fine, we still need it — to send the kids off to college and fund our retirement — but you know what I mean; it’s why grandmothers end up babysitting their grandchildren one generation after the next, because they’ve reached the age at which they can retire from paid work but don’t “need to” in terms of their physical and mental ability level. And, even with Social Security Normal Retirement Age climbing to 67 for my generation, most people do still reach retirement age in good health and could reasonably postpone retirement for a half-year with fewer ill-effects from that extended working lifetime than they would suffer in making-do with an income loss during a parental leave, or with a very rapid return-to-work. In a way, this is a a form of borrowing, and, as with any such loan, there’s always a risk that you won’t be able to pay it back — in this case, a risk that you won’t be able to “pay back” the time-borrowing, if you’re in ill-health or just unemployed.

Now, the proposal was first made in January, but only on Sunday did Politico report that Marco Rubio and Ivanka Trump like this idea, which led to a torrent of articles by progressive groups and individuals criticizing the proposal: ThinkProgress, Social Security Works, and Elizabeth Bruenig, writing in the Washington Post that the plan would “punish those who choose to have kids,” as the headline states. Why “punish”? Certainly it’s an improvement on the status quo, insofar as there is no such flexibility in Social Security at the moment. The program would be purely voluntary, so it’s hard to see the source of the harm — except that, reading between the lines, these authors may perceive there being momentum towards a state-funded parental leave benefit, and fear that such a program would blunt such momentum; that is, they imagine that a Social Insurance-type parental leave program is inevitably part of our future, and the “borrow from Social Security” proposal would take away this program that we are otherwise destined to have.


Bruenig also is upset that such a program fails to acknowledge the benefits that raising children provides to society, and treats it as something that’s purely a personal matter, a hobby no more worthy of government support than woodworking or home brewing. And the issue of how much support the government should provide families is a messy one, and connected up with all sorts of issues: should parents who believe state schools are not the right choice for the children’s education be given any support? Should the government provide any support for the everyday costs of child-rearing? And there are, on the other hand, a fair contingent who say that children are nothing other than a net cost unfairly imposed on society by “breeders,” and who suggest that individuals who choose to reproduce bear the moral responsibility for the carbon dioxide emissions of all future generations to come.
But that’s neither here nor there, because my larger gripe is a purely actuarial one, or rather, that of an utter lack of actuarial considerations. The report’s author suggests that, because the parental leave benefits would be based off of a lower salary than the ultimate future Social Security benefits, individuals who make use of this proposal would be able to take roughly 12 weeks of leave now, at a cost of a retirement deferral of only 6 weeks. But this is true only in an imaginary world in which there is no discounting back for interest and where there is a significant career pay increase history over and above inflation. Now, the author doesn’t provide any support for their “get 12 weeks for the price of 6” estimate, which I match assuming that the replacement percentages are the same, and that the real (on top of inflation) salary increase is about two percentage points higher than the real (on top of inflation) interest rate — not a realistic scenario. And maybe they have some philosophical reason to ignore interest, but in such a case, it’s necessary to provide the rationale.

So it’s a clever idea, but it’s unfortunately too good to be true.


Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/janethe...xWEAXK68Pjp.99
yes, this relates to Social Security
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #842  
Old 02-08-2018, 03:44 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: 37,080
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/janethe...-proposal.html



yes, this relates to Social Security
It sure does. And proves once again that politicians, like Humpty Dumpty, are good at assigning meanings to words. "Budget neutral" my foot. I couldn't read past this phrase: "This proposal is attractive . . ."
__________________
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
  #843  
Old 02-09-2018, 04:48 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: 82,024
Blog Entries: 6
Default

http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2018/01/...urn=1518212764

Quote:
Alicia Munnell: The Social Security Fix No One Wants
The influential retirement scholar also talks to ThinkAdvisor about millennials’ grim retirement prospects and three crucial pieces of advice for near retirees
Spoiler:
Most retirees’ eagerly anticipated golden years will be tarnished by insufficient income and a consequential decline in standard of living unless consumers and policymakers get cracking now to avert this bleak scenario.

So says Alica H. Munnell, professor of management sciences at Boston College and director of its Center for Retirement Research, who, in an interview with ThinkAdvisor, discusses three critically important pieces of advice financial advisors can give clients who are nearing retirement.

Munnell served on President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers and was the administration’s assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy. Before that, for two decades she worked at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, where she held the posts of senior vice president and research director from 1984 to 1993. Munnell, who has a doctorate from Harvard, joined Boston College, in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, in 1997.

Known as something of a firebrand in her Boston Fed days, the forthright Munnell argues now that the way to fix the Social Security funding dilemma is by raising taxes.

RELATED

Will Millennials Be Ready for Retirement? It Doesn’t Look Good
Millennials have it tougher than other generations did at their age, according to a new study from the Center for...

For better or worse, it was Munnell who influenced the Obama administration to scrap certain Social Security strategies in 2015. She contended they were unfair because they allowed the affluent to “milk the system,” while lower-income workers had no idea the provisions even existed.

Munnell has long given clarion wake-up calls on the looming gloomy retirement picture. Her most recent book, co-authored with Charles. D. Ellis and Andrew D. Eschtruth, is “Falling Short: The Coming Retirement Crisis and What to Do About It” (Oxford University Press 2014).

In 2016, she testified about expanding retirement savings to the Senate Finance Committee.

The Center for Retirement Research recently published a brief Munnell wrote revealing that when millennials reach retirement age, they’ll likely be in worse shape than savings-deficient late baby boomers and Gen Xers.

She writes: “At a time the retirement system is under pressure,” millennials “are much less prepared for retirement than earlier cohorts.” In the interview, she talks about why.

Indeed, one reason is that the percentage of millennials participating in employer retirement plans is “sharply lower for both men and women … This lack of a savings vehicle is a particular concern given that individuals who do not have a workplace retirement plan rarely save for retirement on their own,” she writes.

ThinkAdvisor recently interviewed Munnell, speaking from her office near Boston. She not only discussed problems facing retirees but offered a few solutions, including how to improve 401(k) plans, which, she opines, “are not doing as good a job as possible.” Here are excerpts from our conversation:

THINKADVISOR: What’s the solution to the Social Security funding dilemma?

ALICIA MUNNELL: Policymakers should fix Social Security by raising taxes. Money doesn’t come from heaven. It’s going to have to come from someplace, and it should be done on the revenue side. We need to maintain benefits. People don’t have anything else other than 401(k)s, and a significant portion of the population doesn’t even have those.

What’s your plan?

Tax increases can be done in a progressive way — [that is], a less harmful way to the average worker. If you include health insurance in the employer-provided health insurance tax space, it will make the rate lower. If you raise taxes on the employer side, you can raise [this] money.

So you think both employees and employers should be taxed.

There’s a philosophical reason, in addition to a humanitarian reason, not to put all the burden on today’s workers. We don’t have a trust fund because we gave it away to earlier generations. That was probably a good policy decision, but there doesn’t seem to be any reason why yesterday’s policy decisions for people who fought in World War I and were harmed by the Great Depression need to be borne by the average worker.

To what extent will President Trump’s tax cuts, which increase the federal deficit, put pressure on reducing Social Security benefits?

The rhetoric is already there: We have deficits; their source is the entitlement programs; we need to cut back on them. “Entitlements” isn’t a word I like. It makes it seem that people are putting claims on something to which they’re not really deserving. In the case of Social Security, people put in money over their entire lifetime, and they essentially get a pension for those contributions. It’s a forced savings program — not a giveaway.

On Jan. 16, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said that Speaker Paul Ryan will “slash Social Security and Medicare within weeks” and that President Trump is “ready to ram it through.” She’s “terrified,” she said. Your thoughts?

Speaker Ryan has back-pedaled on that. His December 2017 statement was very much saying that it was on his agenda for 2018. But his most recent statement, on Jan. 12, acknowledges the political reality that they’re not going to be able to do anything on that front in 2018. He needs bipartisan cooperation to do it. He said he doesn’t see a pathway to entitlements this year.

So he’s postponing it.

He’s postponing it, but that doesn’t mean he’s not going to go after it.

RELATED

Will Millennials Be Ready for Retirement? It Doesn’t Look Good
Millennials have it tougher than other generations did at their age, according to a new study from the Center for...

Do you still advocate taxing contributions to pension plans, as you did when you were in the Clinton administration?

I’m not convinced that the favorable tax treatment of retirement savings does much to increase retirement savings. This deserves some attention. For one, most of the benefits go to higher-income people who would have saved already.

What do you suggest instead?

It would probably be fairer — and we’d likely get the same outcome — to have credits instead of deductions so that all the benefits aren’t given to higher income people. Recent academic work has shown that automatic provisions are more powerful than tax incentives. So it’s not clear that we’re buying much with favorable tax treatment.

Your brief, “Will Millennials Be Ready for Retirement?,” released Jan. 23, doesn’t paint a rosy picture.

The state of the millennials is shocking. They’re more educated than any other generation, but their labor-force participation is low, their earnings compared to the median is low, percentage participating in employer-sponsored retirement plans and percentage covered by employer-provided health insurance are both way below Gen Xers and baby boomers. And millennials tend not to relocate to find better jobs.

Your paper talks about millennials’ “lack of wealth in their 30s.” Why do they have less money than Gen Xers and baby boomers had at the same age?

They’ve had a very bad labor force experience and have huge student loan burdens. Those two things have caused many fewer to marry and then buy their own homes. So millennials have ended up with a very low net-worth to income ratio compared to 25- to 35-year-olds in the late baby boomer or the Gen X generations. It’s really a striking story.

What are your thoughts about 401(k) plans? Can they stand to be improved?

Yes. They need to work as well as they can because they’re here to stay, and they’re not doing as good a job as possible. That can be remedied by making them automatic in enrollment and in escalation of the default contribution rate, as well as fixing the decumulation side by providing an income mechanism within the plan.

What should be done to help people that don’t have a 401(k) plan?

Half the workforce isn’t covered by an old-fashioned pension plan or a 401(k) plan. We have a huge coverage gap. That should be remedied at the federal level with an automatic IRA-type provision. [But] some states have [already] undertaken their own initiatives: Oregon has a system up and running. We need to cover the uncovered.

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 did away with some Social Security claiming strategies, such as file-and-suspend, which let people collect benefits based on the work record of a spouse who has deferred receiving their own growing benefits till a future date. I understand you were influential in the Obama administration’s decision to eliminate the strategy. How did that, and ending other strategies, help the government financially?

About 10 years ago, we put out a series of briefs that included three provisions that were unfair and a misuse of Social Security funds. They were, sort of, hilarious. The first was a provision that you could claim benefits at 62; and then at 70, if you decided that was the wrong idea, you could pay back all your benefits with no interest and then get a much higher benefit. It was just outlandish.

What were the second and third provisions? You could claim benefits first as a spouse and then as a worker. It allowed married couples to come out way ahead. The third was that you could claim [file] and suspend.

And what action did you take?

We wrote the three briefs, with indignation, saying that the provisions were outrageous. So instead, The Center became, sort of, the darling of all the financial planners in the country. We thought, “Oh God, we’ve really set the world back.”

How did the government respond to the briefs?

RELATED

Will Millennials Be Ready for Retirement? It Doesn’t Look Good
Millennials have it tougher than other generations did at their age, according to a new study from the Center for...

Fortunately, the first provision, the Social Security Administration eliminated with an administrative ruling, and then in 2015, the two others were finally eliminated. So they’re gone. They allowed the savvy to, sort of, milk the system, whereas the unsophisticated didn’t have any idea about [those provisions]. That’s not what Social Security is about — it shouldn’t be full of twists and turns that enable the clever to come out ahead.

What’s your best advice to financial advisors on how they can help clients nearing retirement?

There are three important things. I’ll say them in the order in which they come along in life: Control spending in your 50s; delay claiming Social Security as long as you can; think of your house as something you can use to help support yourself in retirement.

Please elaborate.

Once your kids leave home and your college education responsibilities are over, control your spending because you want to keep it at a level that’s sustainable once you stop working. Maybe you can take a trip to Paris, but just be careful not to let spending get out of control.

What’s the bonus for delaying to file for Social Security?

This is crucial. If you take benefits at age 70 rather than at 62 [the minimum age], the monthly benefit is 76% higher. You’ll have that base income that’s inflation-adjusted and goes on for as long as you live. If everybody would claim later, the whole retirement picture would look a lot better.

Is waiting till 70 of help to the government?

No. It really doesn’t matter for the government because, on average, the amount of money you’ll get is about the same. You’ll get a higher benefit, but you’ll get it later. The government gains a little if you keep working because you pay payroll taxes and income taxes. But basically the benefits are actuarially adjusted. So on a lifetime basis, you get the same amount at 62 as at 70. But if you wait, you’ll have a much larger monthly benefit if that’s what you need once you stop working.

Please discuss how one’s home is an asset that can be used for income in retirement.

For most middle-income people, their house is their largest single asset. They’ve really put [a great deal] of money into it by paying off a mortgage over their lifetime, and so they could draw on it one way or another.

Why don’t more retirees do that?

The problem is that people hate the idea of tapping their home equity. So somehow we need to find the magic potion that will make that socially acceptable because given the level of financial income people will have, they’re going to need this additional resource.

--- Related on ThinkAdvisor:
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #844  
Old 02-13-2018, 05:41 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: 82,024
Blog Entries: 6
Default

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/so...rom-2018-02-12

Quote:
Social Security will need more revenues — where should that money come from?
Spoiler:
Social Security is unlikely to appear on the political docket until 2021. (2018 is a congressional election year; 2019 is the lead-up to the next presidential campaign; and 2020 is a presidential election year.) But it is not too early to start thinking about how to solve Social Security’s long-run financing shortfall.

As policy makers consider restoring financial balance to the program, one question is how to structure any tax increases. Understanding why — for a given level of benefits — Social Security requires a higher payroll tax than a funded retirement program is a crucial first step in informing this discussion. A recent study shows that if the program were financed as a funded 401(k) plan, the current employee/employer payroll tax contribution would be roughly sufficient to pay promised benefits. But because Social Security is financed on a pay-as-you-go basis, the required employee/employer tax is 3.7 percentage points higher.

The reason that Social Security is financed on a pay-as-you-go rather than a funded basis is the decision made by policy makers in the late 1930s. The 1935 Social Security Act set up a plan that bore a much stronger resemblance to a private insurance plan than to the system we know today. The legislation called for the accumulation of a trust fund and stressed the principle of a fair return. The 1939 amendments, however, fundamentally changed the nature of the program. They tied benefits to average earnings over a minimum period of coverage, and thus broke the link between lifetime contributions and benefits. As a result, early cohorts received windfall returns on their contributions.

Virtually all observers agree that the decision to provide full benefits to early cohorts was a wise one. Many of these people had fought in World War I and had endured the economic devastation of the Great Depression. Poverty rates among older people were at unacceptably high levels. Moreover, the recession of 1937 followed rapidly after the introduction of the Social Security system, making the accumulation of a substantial surplus undesirable on fiscal policy grounds.

The benefits paid to the early retirees did not come for free, however. If earlier cohorts had received only the benefits that could have been financed by their contributions plus interest, we would have a large trust fund today. That large trust fund would earn interest, and that interest would cover a substantial part of the cost of benefits for today’s workers. Without it, payroll taxes must be substantially higher. That is, the payroll tax must cover not only the required contribution but also the missing interest.

The policy question is the fairness of asking today’s workers to pay higher taxes because of the historical decision to give away the trust fund — a decision that benefited our parents and grandparents. One could argue that the burden should be shared more broadly than through a regressive tax on today’s workers.

A couple of options exist.

One option is to have the missing interest from the missing trust fund be paid through the income tax – raising the average federal income-tax rate by 2.3 percentage points. (The calculation assumes that all the shortfall is covered by an increase in revenues.)

An alternative is to apply the current combined employee/employer rate to earnings above the cap ($127,200 in 2018), with the tax paid solely by the employer — thereby avoiding the need to provide additional benefits in return for the additional contributions.

Social Security will need more revenues, and the shortfall is roughly equivalent to revenues lost from giving away the trust fund. Should today’s workers be required to ante up? Or should we consider other sources?
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #845  
Old 02-16-2018, 11:40 AM
Elinor Dashwood's Avatar
Elinor Dashwood Elinor Dashwood is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,318
Default

Quote:
with the tax paid solely by the employer — thereby avoiding the need to provide additional benefits in return for the additional contributions
I think this belongs in the innumeracy thread.
Reply With Quote
  #846  
Old 02-16-2018, 11:53 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: 82,024
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elinor Dashwood View Post
I think this belongs in the innumeracy thread.

This is not innumeracy, though -- what this is is a good understanding of psychology. For people not having to pay both portions of the FICA (i.e., the non-self-employed), they get the idea that the payroll tax is some sort of contribution (yes, she shouldn't have used the term "contribution", but let's keep rolling with it) and thus that they earned the benefit. If they don't see the part the employer pays, then removing the cap on that part means no psychological effect of thinking they should be "earning" more in benefits.

That's the only reason they don't want to remove the cap -- because the benefit will become more decoupled from the "contributions" and the actual tax will be looking more and more like a tax and not "contributions". Thus eroding support for SocSec, yadda yadda.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #847  
Old 02-19-2018, 02:39 PM
JMO Fan's Avatar
JMO Fan JMO Fan is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: out in the woods
Favorite beer: Frostop Root
Posts: 4,962
Cool fix its future

Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
This is not innumeracy, though -- what this is is a good understanding of psychology. For people not having to pay both portions of the FICA (i.e., the non-self-employed), they get the idea that the payroll tax is some sort of contribution (yes, she shouldn't have used the term "contribution", but let's keep rolling with it) and thus that they earned the benefit. If they don't see the part the employer pays, then removing the cap on that part means no psychological effect of thinking they should be "earning" more in benefits.

That's the only reason they don't want to remove the cap -- because the benefit will become more decoupled from the "contributions" and the actual tax will be looking more and more like a tax and not "contributions". Thus eroding support for SocSec, yadda yadda.
Also add a year to the normal retirement age every two years starting in 2020. And start using a seniors-specific-COLA instead of regular CPI.
__________________
I thought this WAS a real job
Reply With Quote
  #848  
Old 02-20-2018, 01:59 PM
kazh's Avatar
kazh kazh is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: a long nap
Favorite beer: A & W Root
Posts: 4,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMO Fan View Post
Also add a year to the normal retirement age every two years starting in 2020. And start using a seniors-specific-COLA instead of regular CPI.
If we did this, would we even need the extra funding?
__________________
awake again
Reply With Quote
  #849  
Old 02-20-2018, 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: 82,024
Blog Entries: 6
Default

I don't remember if they're options here, but try it out:
http://socialsecuritygame.actuary.org/
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #850  
Old 02-20-2018, 02:14 PM
kazh's Avatar
kazh kazh is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: a long nap
Favorite beer: A & W Root
Posts: 4,964
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
I don't remember if they're options here, but try it out:
http://socialsecuritygame.actuary.org/
This game approximated my suggestions.
Raising the employer side of the tax would be more appealing if it were fully deducted for the self-employed.
__________________
awake again
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 04:23 PM.


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 0.18352 seconds with 9 queries