Description: This meeting session, which occurred at the June 1980 SOA meeting in San Deigo, covered economic assumptions for pension plans. Topics included: 1. How should an Inflation Assumption be chosen? 2. Who should and can be involved in the process? 3. What Economic Assumptions are used for Social Security Canadian and U. S. projections? 4. What is the future of productivity and general wage increases? 5. How are Turnover and Retirement Age Assumptions related to Economic assumptions? 6. Are actuaries using variable or indexed Economic Assumptions? How are they doing it? 7. Should Economic Assumptions vary by plan size? By Benefit design? By valuation method? By investment strategy?, and 8. How should the assumptions be communicated to the plan sponsor? From Record of Society of Actuaries, Vol. 6, No. 3.

Description: 1993 SOA Spring Meeting, San Diego. This session discussed the proposed standards for determining the economic assumptions for the purposes of measuring pension obligations. The actuary's determination of the interest rate assumption was the primary focus of the discussion.

Description: This panel discussion is from the 1991 Meeting of the Society of Actuaries, held June 3-5 in Colorado Springs. The panelists discuss the considerations and factors in selecting an interest rate assumption for a pension plan, looking at the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ‘ERISA,’ the Financial Accounting Standards Board, ‘FASB,’ current liability, the effect of Internal Revenue Service, ‘IRS’ audit guidelines and audit programs, and the effect of other assumptions. Discussion from participants is included. From the Record of Society of Actuaries Vol. 17, No. 3A.

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: 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.