Description: summary of Canadian topics from recent Retirement Section Council meeting. Update on defined contribution initiative and potential US legislation. Highlight recent SOA research on retirement income.

Description: Retirement isn't a solo endeavor and the prospect of retirement looks starkly different depending on your family, your generation, your income and a host of other socioeconomic factors. The presenters will review the study, 'Financial Perspectives on Aging and Retirement Across the Generations' with an eye towards how these findings impact public policy, plan design for employers and financial planning for individuals and families.

Description: There is no silver bullet to improving retirement income outcomes for retirees. However, a combination of changes can be of significant value in addressing this overlooked issue. Although QLACs on the surface have potential value, they are not nearly as efficient as they could be. So far, employer plans have provided limited options for retirement income solutions. IRAs may not cost effectively serve the best interest of retirees. Employer plans should be encouraged to become retirement income providers and alternative approaches should be considered. The current prohibition on allowing plans to modify benefit payouts based on mortality experience should be reconsidered to allow for innovative plan income designs. Improvements to the deaccumulation stage of the retiree nest egg are challenging yet necessary.

Description: Discusses the recent firing of the Social Security Commissioner and the president's legal authority to do so.

Description: A pension plan uses Actuarial Equivalence to determine a 'fair' adjustment to pension benefits for form and timing of payment. The definition of Actuarial Equivalence is set in the Plan Document which may not have been reviewed for decades. With a wave of recent pension litigation in the U.S., plan sponsors, attorneys and actuaries now pay more attention to how pension plans define Actuarial Equivalence. How does a change in mortality table or interest rate affect the ultimate benefit? What are the requirements under ERISA and pertinent regulations? Are there court cases that have examined this question before? What are the issues behind the recent lawsuits and what can a plan sponsor do now to reduce their legal exposure? What alternative strategies are available for changing or not changing the definition in the plan document?