Description: This 1991 panel discussion: 1. Compares and contrasts standards set by various U.S and Canadian agencies- FASB, CICA, GASB, and IRS- for calculations under the Projected Unit Credit Cost Method, 2. Discusses certain types of retirement and ancillary benefits that are not easily handled under the Projected Unit Credit Cost Method, and 3. Provides insight into the nuances of using the Projected Unit Credit Cost Method for pension expense and funding purposes. From the Record of the Society of Actuaries Vol. 17, No. 3B.

Description: This 1981 discussion session focuses on funding policy for pension Plans in the United States and Canada from the plan sponsor's viewpoint. Topics include: 1.Alternative uses of cash, 2. Selection of the actuarial cost method, 3. Selection of actuarial assumptions, 4. External constraints such as regulatory constraints, labor agreements, accounting constraints and government contract reimbursement, 5. Use of projections and immunization theory, and 6. The effect of investment strategy on funding policy.

Description: Presented at June 1996 Spring Meeting. Discusses pension funding adequacy and targets.

Description: This is a discussion about employee benefit plans after retirement. The following questions are addressed: 1. To what extent are death benefits and medical benefits for employees and dependents kept in force after the employee retires?, 2. Where there is a continuation of such benefits for a retired employee or his dependent, what special problems can result from remarriage or reemployment, or in the event of the enactment of a federal plan?, 3. What methods of paying for or funding such costs are used?, and 4. What are the tax implications to both the employee and employer of the various approaches? Also discussed are insured vs. non-insured plans and valuation standards for pension plans. From Transactions of Society of Actuaries 1964, Vol. 16 Pt. 2.

Description: In this a forum for consulting actuaries, the participants discuss: 1. Accounting principles, especially as a result of APB Opinion No. 8, 2. Liaison- What can be done to improve liaison between consulting firms and the IRS, government committees, hearings, and insurance industry committees? 3. Life insurance company development, 4. The relation of the consultant with company actuaries, reinsurers, and accountants, and 5. Personnel- What programs are being followed by consulting firms to maintain staff by the internal development of actuaries? From Transactions of Society of Actuaries 1967, Vol. 19 Pt. 2, No. 55.