Description: This article discusses the challenges to today's retirement system. As part of the recent Re-envisioning Work and Retirement in the 21st Century symposium, held in Washington, D.C., attendees completed a Delphi survey covering challenges to today's retirement system. This article discusses the benefits of a Delphi survey and the results of this particular one. From Pension Section News, September 2006, No. 62.

Description: Hear from the staff fellow on themes in the May Retirement Section News published by the Retirement Section.

Description: Interview with Liz Davidson, Founder and CEO of Financial Finesse.

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: This report provides a system-wide analysis of the expected contribution requirements for the U.S. single-employer defined benefit pension universe over the remainder of this decade.

Description: This article describes Singapore's Central Provident Fund and how it involves government, employers and employees in a cooperative partnership for mandatory savings and investment to assist with the primary lifetime goals of home ownership, medical care and retirement provision.

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?