03-04-2002AGENDA
PENSION TRUSTEES
03/04/02
ACTION AGENDA - Trustees of the Employees' Pension Fund Meeting
Monday, March 4, 2002 - Commission Chambers
Item #1 - Call to Order - 9:35 a.m.
Item #2 - Approval of Minutes - 2/4/02 regular meeting - Approved.
Item #3 - Approve the assumption study report prepared by PriceWaterhouse Coopers and
approve changes to the assumptions used in calculating the expected liabilities for the
Employees' Pension Plan per the report as follows: increase the expected rate of return on
investments from the current 7% to 7.5%, increase the expected salary increase rate from
the current 5% to 6%, adjust the expected employee turnover rate to the table recommended
in the report which is based upon historical experience, change the mortality table to the
1994 Group Annuity Reserving Table from the current 1983 Group Annuity Table, adjust the
expected retirement rates to the table recommended in the report which is based upon
historical experience (adjusted to be more conservative), and make no changes to the
expected disability rates. - ACTION: Approved.
Item #4 - Other Business - None.
Item #5 - Adjournment - 9:56 a.m.
a02bO2
1
02/21/02
S?? r Employee Pension Plan `Vorksesslon Item #: T u1Sa A) 3
Trustee Final Agenda Item #
Agenda Cover Meeting Date: 3/4/02
Memorandum
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION: Approve the assumption study report prepared by PriceWaterhouseCoopers and approve
changes to the assumptions used in calculating the expected liabilities for the Employees' Pension Plan per the report as follows:
increase the expected rate of return on investments from the current 7% to 7.5%, increase the expected salary increase rate from
the current 5% to 6%, adjust the expected employee turnover rate to the table recommended in the report which is based upon
historical experience, change the mortality table to the 1994 Group Annuity Reserving Table from the current 1983 Group
Annuity Table, adjust the expected retirement rates to the table recommended in the report which is based upon historical
experience (adjusted to be more conservative), and make no changes to the expected disability rates,
0 and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same.
SUTITMARY:
• PriceWaterhouseCoopers is the Employees Pension Plan actuary. This year, they %vere also hired to evaluate the
appropriateness of the current actuarial assumptions. Price WaterhouseCoopers has completed this study and has prepared a
report detailing their study and making recommendations. A copy of the report is attached.
• A meeting was held with City staff on 2/1/02 to review the report with the purpose of reaching a staff consensus of
recommendations to take forward to tiie PAC and Trustees. In addition to Finance and Human Resources staff, PAC
members, union representatives, and Lee Definer (Plan's attorney) were also present.
There are six assumptions that are used in completing an actuary study. The report outlined each assumption, stating what
the plan's current assumption is, what the plan's historical experience has been, what other plans use, and made a
recommendation as to whether we should change the assumption or if it is currently appropriate. Where the assumptions are
set will impact the expected liabilities of the plan and will have an impact on the cost of the plan to the City. The
assumptions should be set at what we believe to be the best estimate of future expectations, without regard to how it will
impact the cost of the plan. The assumptions and staff recommendations are as follows:
• Expected Return on Investments - recommend increasing from 7%n to 7.5%.
• Annual Rate of Salary increases - recommend increasing from 5% to 6%.
• Employee Turnover - recommend changing to the table recommended in the report, which is based upon historical
experience.
• Mortality - recommend changing from the current 1983 Group Annuity Table to the 1994 Group Annuity Reserving
Table.
• Retirement Rates - recommend changing to the table recommended in the report, which is based upon historical
experience (adjusted to be more conservative).
• Disability Rates - recommend making no changes.
• The Pension Advisory Committee reviewed the report and staff recommendations at their monthly meeting on 2/14/02.
They voted 5-1 to recommend to the Trustees that the staff recommendations be accepted. The Pension Investment
Committee reviewed the proposed investment rate assumption with Bill Badger and John Willoughby (investment
consultants) at the quarterly investment meeting on 2/14/02 and all felt that the 7.5% investment return rate assumption was
reasonable.
Reviewed by: Originating Dept: Costs
Legal N/A Info Srvc N/A M. Simmons 1 4_
v,?i Total N/A
Finance
Budget N/A Public Works N/A User Dept. Funding Source:
Purchasing N/A DCM/ACM Current FY N/A CI
Risk Mgmt N/A Other Attachments OP
Assumption Study Report Other
Submitted by:
City Manager, AU 4964 .1 1 a ? None Appropriation Code:
Rev. 2/98
Table of Contents
Section I - Overview
Section II - Economic Assumptions
Section III - Demographic Assumptions
Section IV - Assumptions Used by Other Florida Government Plans
Section V - Recommendations
Section I
Overview
This study was prepared at the request of the City of Clearwater to assist the City in
evaluating the appropriateness of the current actuarial assumptions. Generally, in setting
actuarial assumptions plan sponsors are guided by a mixture of past experience versus
future expectations. Past experience is often believed to be a good predictor of future
expectations, however, it must be carefully -,weighed against changes in the underlying
environment. For example, past experience in employee turnover or disability rates may be
a good predictor of future expectations, however, if there have been changes in the
economic climate or other areas that affect these rates the experience may be of limited
value.
In this review we focused on the following actuarial assumptions:
Economic Assumptions Demographic Assumptions
Expected Return on Investments Employee Turnover
Annual Rate of Salary Increases Mortality
Retirement Rates
Disability Rates
The impact of these assumptions varies from plan to plan and even from individual to
individual, making it difficult to make blanket statements. However, we have listed the
assumptions below in the general order of their importance to a platys liabilities and costs
as well as the correlation between the assumption and the plan's liabilities.
• Expected Return on Investments - This generally has the greatest impact on a
plan's liabilities. The greater the expected return the lower the present value of
future benefits and the lower the plan's funding requirements.
• Salary Increase Rate - This assumption is probably second in importance, although
turnover could easily be more important depending on the particular circumstances.
The greater the expected rate of future salary increases the greater the present value
of future benefits and the higher the plan's funding requirements.
• Employee Turnover Rates - Probably third in importance, generally, the greater the
expected turnover the lower the present value of future benefits and the lower the
plan's funding requirements.
• Disability Rates - The importance of this assumption depends on the plan's
disability benefits. If a plan provides enhanced benefits to disabled employees
(such as immediate payment.of unreduced benefits or more than the regular accrued
benefit) the impact can be greatly increased. In Clearwater's case, we expect that
the greater the expected rate of disability the higher the present value of future
benefits and the higher the plan's funding requirements.
Section 1
Overview
(Continued)
• Retirement Rates - The importance of this assumption also depends on the
features of the plan. If early retirement benefits are heavily subsidized or the plan
has a limit on service this assumption is more important. If a plan subsidizes
early retirement benefits, the greater the expected early retirement rates the higher
the present value of future benefits and the higher the plan's funding
requirements. Generally, the greater the rate of delayed retirement the lower the
present value of future benefits and the lower the plans funding requirements. In
Clearwater's case we expect that delaying retirement would reduce costs.
• Mortality Rates - This is usually the assumption with the least impact unless the
plan in question has been using a mortality table that is seriously out of date
(which is not the case for the City of Clearwater). Unless the plan has an unusual
death benefit, the greater the expected mortality the lower the present value of
future benefits and the lower the plan's funding requirements.
Please note that the ranking of the assumptions above is a rough estimate based on
general trends for a variety of pension plans. The actual rank for a particular plan will
vary depending on the plan provisions, the employee demographics and current
assumptions. Also, for some of the assumptions, the impact can vary - for example, in
certain circumstances increasing employee turnover can increase finding requirements.
2
Section II
Economic Assumptions
The economic assumptions that we reviewed both have a component based on general inflation
and a separate "real" component. For salary increases this is generally known as the merit
increase component and for investment returns it is considered the real rate of return. Since both
assumptions are impacted by inflation they tend to be fairly closely correlated. For most pension
plans with an investment mix that is 40% to 60% equities the difference between the expected
return on assets and the salary increase rate is in the range of 2% to 3%. Of course this will vary
greatly depending on the individual employer's industry, geography or other factors. However,
the spread between these two assumptions is frequently considered a reasonability measure. An
expected asset return of 9% with a salary increase assumption of 3% (a 6% spread) might be
deemed inconsistent - the investment return implies higher underlying inflation than the salary
scale.
Another issue that we feel should be weighed here is the tendency of many people to
underestimate the real rate of increase in salaries. The actuarial assumption is intended to predict
the annual increase in compensation as defined by the plan over the long term. It includes the
effects of many factors, including (depending on the plan) cost-of-living, merit, promotions,
bonuses, overtime, and market adjustments. We have literally had situations where clients have
stated that "no one received more than a 5% salary increase" where there were dozens of
individuals whose compensation - as defined by the pension plan - increased by 10% or more.
Expected Return on Assets
Following is a comparison of the historical rate of return earned by the City's pension plan and
the assumed rate:
Year Assumed Rate Actual Rate Deviation
2001 7.0% (6.2)%* (13.2)%
2000 7.0% (3.4)% (10.4%)
1999 7.0% 18.6% 11.6%
1998 7.0% 16.7% 9.7%
1997 7.0% 17.5% 10.5%
1996 7.0% 14.8% 7.8%
1995 .7.0% 23.4% 16.4%
1994 7.0% 0.9% (6.1%)
1993 7.0% 9.3% 2.3%
1992 7.0% 6.5% (0.5%)
1991 7.0% 28.5% 21.5%
1990 7.0% 6.2% (0.8%)
1989 7.0% 20.8% 13.8%
1988 7.0% 9.1% 2.1%
1987 7.0% 10.8% 3.8%
1986 7.0% 13.2% 6.2%
Average 7.0% 11.7% 4.7%
*Estimated - final number not available
Section II
Economic Assumptions
(Continued)
The table above summarizes the Citv's experience over the past 16 years. While this is generally
considered useful in attempting to set the assumptions it is important to remember: "past
performance does not guarantee future results".
Annual Salary Increases
Following is a comparison of the historical salary increases earned by employees covered by the
City's pension plan and the assumed rate:
Year Assumed Rate Actual Rate Deviation
2000 5.0% 5.8% 0.8%
1999 5.0% 4.2% (0.8%)
1998 5.0% 7.4% 2.4%
1997 5.0% 5.6% 0.6%
1996 5.0% 6.7% 1.7%
1995 5.0% 6.4% 1.4%
1994 5.0% 4.4% (0.6%)
1993 5.0% 1.2% (3.8%)
1992 5.0% 6.8% 1.8%
1991 5.0% 6.1% 1.1%
1990 5.0% 5.3% 0.3%
1989 5.0% 8.7% 3.7%
1988 5.0% 9.1% 4.1%
1987 5.0% 5.9% 4.9%
1986 5.0% 7.4% 2.4%
Average 5.0% 6.1% 1.1%
The table above summarizes the City's experience over the past 15 years. As noted above
regarding the expected asset return assumption, past results may not be the best predictor of
future events. Also, please bear in mind that this is a long-term assumption predicting salary
increases as far away as 30 years in the future for some employees.
4
Section III
Demographic Assumptions
Employee Turnover
This is generally the demographic assumption with the greatest impact on the plan's liabilities
and funding. We reviewed the turnover within the plan for the past 9 years and three trends were
clear - total turnover was low compared to most other groups, total turnover was lower than the
assumptions would predict and turnover has been increasing gradually over this period. Total
turnover for the past 9 years has increased gradually from 23% to 63% over the period. We
reviewed the turnover statistics for this period based on age, years of service. sex and
hazardous/non-hazardous duty status.
The current turnover assumptions are shown below:
Age Males Females
20 14.9% 37.4%
25 9.9% 22.4%
30 6.9% 14.9%
35 4.9% 10.4%
40 2.8% 7.4%
45 1.7% 4.3%
50 0.4% 2.7%
55+ 0.0% 0.9%
The percentages shown above represent the probability that an employee in the group indicated
will terminate employment for a reason other than death, disability or retirement within the next
year. For example, a 30 year-old female is expected to have a 14.9% chance of terminating
employment within the next year.
Traditionally, the actuarial assumptions are customized for any group within a plan when there is
credible evidence or expectation that the experience will be different. The most common
differentiator is age. It is fairly common to also adjust the turnover assumption based on service
(for example, a newly hired 40 year-old might be twice as likely to terminate employment in the
next year as a 40 year-old with five years of service). The last differentiator that is typically used
is employee groups - for example hazardous duty versus non-hazardous duty.
Our analysis showed that years of service had very little impact on turnover. The rates varied
very little within an age group regardless of the employees' years of service. We did, however
find meaningful differences based on sex and hazardous duty status. The tables below show the
turnover rates based on these variables.
Section III
Demographic Assumptions
(Continued)
Non-Hazardous Duty
Males Females
Age Range Exposure Turnover Rate Exposure Turnover Rate
<25 48 20% 34 9%
26-30 122 7% 34 24%
31-35 168 8% 93 12%
36-40 239 4% 108 6%
41-45 353 5% 1,16 , 8%
46-50 281 5% 133 ( 4%
50+ 302 4% 209 10%
Total 1,513 6% 757 9%
The number of female hazardous duty employees was too low to provide any meaningful
infannation by age. For the two-year period we ultimately used to prepare these tables there were
only 77 units of exposure, therefore we did not break out this group by sex.
Hazardous Duty
Age Range Exposure Turnover Rate
<25 30 4%
26-30 127 1 %
31-35 165 3%
36-40 172 2%
41-45 105 2%
46-50 125 2%
50+ 86 1%
Total 810 2%
As in other areas, past experience can be helpful in setting future expectations, however, it is not
the only factor to be considered. The City's management should be consulted regarding the past
experience and the degree to which future trends may be different.
Retirement Rates
The City's pension plan has several different eligibility criteria for normal retirement (i.e.,
unreduced benefits). For hazardous duty personnel this is the earlier of the date they have 20 years
of service or the date they attain age 55 with 10 years of service. For other employees this is the
earliest of age 55 with 20 years of service, age 65 with 10 years of service or 30 years of service
regardless of age.
The current actuarial assumption is that all employees will retire as soon as they are eligible for
unreduced benefits. This is a common actuarial practice in part because there is often very little
Section III
Demographic Assumptions
(Continued)
cost impact of delayed retirement and it is balanced in part by early retirement, which is also
disregarded. Tile following tables summarize the actual experience for City employees over the
period reviewed.
Hazardous Duty
Age Range Exposure Retirement Rate
<45 11 900
45-49 62 11%
50-54 58 9%
55+ 27 26%
N on-Hazardous Duty
Age Range Exposure Retirement Rate
<55 6 17%
55-59 18 50%
60-64 26 31% 1
65+ 17 47%
Mortality Rates
This is the assumption that usually varies the least from plan to plan or group to group. This is
because, with rare exceptions, there is little reason to predict differences in mortality between any
two groups of employees. Also, the data from one employer is usually not reliable due to the
limited sample size. Finally, it is not generally an assumption that has a significant impact on plan
costs and liabilities.
We did review the City's mortality experience over the past 9 years and it was generally lower
than would be expected. The sample size was very small to draw any meaningful conclusions,
however, we did review it to reach a comfort level that nothing extraordinary appeared to be
happening.
The City is currently using the 1983 Group Annuity Table for Males, with a 6-year setback for
females. This table is widely used today and in fact is required for private plans for sonic purposes
by the Internal Revenue Service. Given general improvements in mortality in the U.S., however, it
does seem appropriate to adopt newer tables as they become available. The Society of Actuaries
recently published the 1994 Group Annuity Reserving Table and this will be required by the IRS
in many cases and will likely be the most common table in the very near future. The State of
Florida Division of Retirement may also recommend or require it in the near future.
7
Section III
Demographic Assumptions
(Continued)
Disability Rates
Over the past 6 years there have been a total of 12 disability pensions approved, an average of 2
per year. Of these disabilities, 25% have been in the line-of-duty. The actuarial assumptions
would predict approximately disabilities per year. It is also assumed that 100% of future
disabilities will be in the line-of-dutv.
8
Section IN'
Assumptions Used by Other Florida Government Plans
As requested by the City. eye have enclosed information regarding the actuarial assumptions used
by a number of other Florida government pension plans. Please: note that the information
included is based on the most recent actuarial valuation report available, which is as of different
dates for some plans, ranging from 1999 to 2001. We do wish to point out that while this
information may be interesting., it is very difficult to draw anv usefill conclusions from it. For
example, knowlllg W11- expected rate of return another City is using is of very limited value
without also knowing their investment policy and portfolio mix.
Investment Return
Plan Expected Rate of
Return
City of Clearwater 7.00%
City of Gainesville - General ( 9.25%
City of St. Petersburg - General 8.00%
City of St. Petersburg - Police 8.50%
City of St. Petersburg - Fire 8.00%
City of largo - P&F 8.33%
City of Lakeland - I`ire 7.50%
City of Lakeland - Police 8.00%
City of Orlando - General 8.00%
City of Orlando - Police 8.00%
City of Orlando - Fire 8.00%
City of Tampa - P&F Unavailable
City of Tampa - General 8.00%
Salary Increases
Plan Annual Salary
Increase Assumption
City of Clearwater 5.0%
City of Gainesville - General 4%-7.0%
City of St. Petersburg - General 4.5%-8.0%
City of St. Petersburg - Police 5.0%-9.5%
City of St. Petersburg - Fire 5.0%-9.5%
City of Largo - P&F 6.0%
City of Lakeland - Fire 6.0%
City of Lakeland - Police 6.5%
City of Orlando - General 5.5%-8.7%
City of Orlando - Police 6.0%-8.0%
City of Orlando - Fire 5.5%-7.5%
City of Tampa- P&F 5.1%-9.7%
City of-1'arnpa - General 6.0%
9
Section IV
Assumptions Used by Other Florida Government Plans
(Continued)
Turnover
Plan Rate at
Age 30 Rate at
I Age 35 Rate at
Age 40 Rate at
Age 45
City of Clearwater 6.9% - 1\-1
14.9%-F 4.9% - N1
110.4%-F 2.8% - N1
7.4%-F 1.7% - N1
4.3%-F
City of Gainesville - General * 4.0% 3.0% 15% 2.0%
City of St. Petersburg - General * 3.2% - M
5.0%-F 3.0% - iV1
(4.0%-F 2 - M
12.5%-F 2.5% - M
2.0%-F
City of St. Petersburg - Police 3.0% 1.7% 0.1% 0.2%
City of St. Petersburg - Fire 1.4% 2.2% 1.5% 0.4%
City of Largo - P&F 5.0% 3.8% 2.6% 1.6%
City of Lakeland - Fire 3.0% N/A 1.0% N/A
City of Lakeland - Police 5.0% N/A 2.0% N/A
City of Orlando - General 6.1% 5.3% 4.4% 3.5%
City of Orlando - Police * N/A 2.7% N/A 0.0%
City of Orlando - Fire * 1.0% ( 0.5% 0.3% 0.3%
City of Tampa - P&F * 0.0% - F
2.0%-P 0.0% - F
0.6%-P 0.0% - F
0.5%-P 0.0% - F
0.5%-P
City of Tampa - General 9.7% 3.7% 1.4% 0.00/0
* Rates are increased in the first five years of employment
Mortality
Plan Mortality Table
City of Clearwater 1983 GAM
City of Gainesville - General 1983 GAM
City of St. Petersburg - General UP 1994 - with
improvements
City of St. Petersburg - Police UP 1994 - with
improvements
City of St. Petersburg - Fire 1983 GAM
City of Largo - P&F 1983 GAM
City of Lakeland - Fire 1983 GAM
City of Lakeland - Police 1983 GAM
City of Orlando - General 1983 .GAM
City of Orlando - Police 1983 GAM
City of Orlando - Fire 1983 GAM
City of Tampa - P&F 1983 GAM
City of Tampa - General 1983 GAM
10
Section V
Recommendations
The intent of this study was to assist the City in determining the most appropriate assumptions to be
used for '200? and beyond. The overriding principle in this process is that each individual
assumption should reflect the actuary and plan sponsors best estimate of future expectations. It is,
however, quite common for plan sponsors to be somewhat consen•ative in this area. There are two
primary reasons for this approach:
• If it turns out that the "best estimate" of future expectations was too optimistic the plan
sponsor will be faced with cost increases. If it turns out that they were too conservative
future costs will decrease or benefits can be increased, which is usually a much more
palatable situation.
• Even if the assumptions of future expectations are very accurate, there could be timing
differences that create problems. For example, assume that the long-term rate of return
assumption is set at 8.0% and the City does realize this return over the next 30 years. If,
however, the returns are well below this level for the first 5 years the City may see
significant finding increases until the assets recover.
The proper balance of the best estimate of future expectations versus cautiousness can only be
determined by the City's management. After all, it is the City that must balance its budget, provide
the best possible retirement benefits to its employees and serve its taxpayers. It is also the City that
is taking the risk inherent in sponsoring the pension plan.
Expected Return on Investments
There are a number of different approaches that can be used to establish the expected rate of return
on plan investments. These include historical reviews of prior performance and prospective
analyses based on the portfolio mix and long-terns economic projections.
The historical returns of the City's plan are an obvious benchmark that can be used to establish the
assumption for the future. There are a number of factors that must be carefully considered in this
context, including:
• The investment portfolio may have changed during the period under review. For example,
the portfolio may have been 70% equities in the past but 50% currently. Also, the exposure
to international, small cap or high tech stocks may have changed significantly. As a result,
the past experience may be less relevant as a barometer of future expectations.
• The general economic climate may have changed considerably during the period. For
example, inflation is currently considerably lower than several years ago and dramatically
lower than during the 1980s.
• The historical return for the City's plan depends in large part on what period you include in
the review. The average annual return for the 16-year period for which we have data is
11.7%. However, the average for the last 10 years is 9.8% and the average for the last 5
years in only 8.6%. For the past 2 years the average return is a negative 4.8%.
Section V
Recommendations
(Continued)
Another approach which can be used to establish the expected rate of return involves building on
current expectations for future inflation and economic growth. Historically. long-term bond
yields have been in the 5.5% to 6.5% range on average. These yields can be looked at as a
function of the expected real growth in the economy. the expected long-term inflation rate and a
risk prerniunl. Nlost estimates of real growth in the U.S. economy are in the 1.5% to 2.0% range
while inflation is generally expected to renlain in the 2.0% to 2.5% range. (This is consistent
with the U.S. government economic forecast of nonlinal chain--veighted GDP growth of 3.=4%
during 2000-2010). The historical risk premium for these investments has been between 1.5%
and 3.0% for most periods. These factors combined predict long-term bond yields of 5.0% to
7.5%. Other long-term fixed income securities would be expected to have a similar expected
return range.
Return on equity investments can be looked at as the expected long-term bond yield plus an
added risk premium. The historical risk premium has been in the range of 3.0% to 5.0% on
average. Using the expected long-term bond yield from above. this equates to expected long-
term equity returns of 8.0% to 12.E%.
Combining the results above, a portfolio with an equity/fixed income mix of 60%/40% would
have an expected long-term rate of return of 6.8% to 10.5%.
Based on the City's current investment policy and portfolio nlix, we would be comfortable with
an expected rate of return anywhere in the range of 7.0% to 8.5%. This change would decrease
the Plan's estimated liabilities.
Annual Rate of Salary Increases
As in the area of the expected return on investments this assumption is often established based on
a mixture of past experience and future expectations. One other point that is often considered is
the difference, or spread, between the expected return and the salary scale.
Based on the City's past experience and current economic forecasts we recorrunend increasing
the salary increase assumption to at least 6.0%. We also recommend that the spread between this
assumption and the expected return be limited to no more than 2.0%. This change would
increase the Plan's estimated liabilities.
12
Section V
Recommendations
(Continued)
Employee Turnover
Based on the City's experience «•e recommend the following rates:
Recommended Current
Age Range Non-
Hazardous
Duty Males Non-
Hazardous
Duty Females All Hazardous
Duty Male Female
<25 15% 15% 5% 14.9% 37.4%
26-30 10% 15% 3% 9.9% 22.4%
31-35 5% 10% 3% 6.9% 14.9%
36-40 5% 10% 2% 4.9% 10.4oio
41-45 5% 5% 2% 2.8% 7.4%
46-50 5% 5% 0% 1.7% 4.3%
50-54 2% 5% 0% 0.4% 2.7%
55+ 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.9%
This change is expected to increase the plan's estimated liabilities.
13
Nlortality
We recommend that the City adopt the 1994 Group Annuity Reserving Table.
This change would increase the Plan's expected liabilities.
Retirement Rates
Based on the City's experience and our experience with other plans we recommend the following
rates:
Age Range Non-Hazardous
Duty Hazardous
Duty
<45 0% 20%
45 0% 20%
46 0% 20%
47 0% 20%
48 0% 20%
49 0% 20%
50 20% 50%
51 20% 50%
52 25% 75%
53 25% 75%
54 25% 75%
55 50% 100%
56 50% 100%
57 50% 100%
58 50% 100%
59 50% 100%
60+ 100% 100%
This change is expected to decrease the Plan's estimated liabilities.
Disability Rates
We recommend no change to the disability rates at this time.
14