Variable Annuity Plans Allocation of Risks in Hybrid Pension Plans Florida GFOA Webinar Series June...

Variable Annuity PlansAllocation of Risks in Hybrid Pension Plans

Florida GFOA Webinar SeriesJune 19, 2014

Donald E Fuerst, Senior Pension FellowAmerican Academy of Actuaries

James J. Rizzo, Senior Consultant and ActuaryGabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company

1

• There has been a debate swirling around corporate and governmental employers for decades as to which is better:

– Defined benefit (DB) retirement plans, or

– Defined contribution (DC) retirement plans

• A hybrid plan is a good alternative resolution to theDC - DB debate

• But let’s defined the terms first by examining their characteristics

DB Plans and DC Plans

2

• Traditional Defined Benefit (DB) plans– Benefits paid are defined by formulas and rules– Contributions by the employer are actuarially determined– Pension plans usually pay monthly pensions for life– Like the pension part of FRS– Like local police and fire pension plans– Like Social Security

• Traditional Defined Contribution (DC) plans– Employer contributions are defined by a formula– Account balance plans that credit interest equal to the actual earnings

of underlying investment assets– Like the Investment Plan part of FRS– Like 401(k) plans in the private sector– Like so-called 401(a) plans and 457 plans in the government sector

DB vs. DC Debate

3

1. Individual Account Balances2. Account Interest Credited3. Investment Risk and Reward*4. Predictability of Contributions*5. Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability*6. Retirement Planning*7. Longevity and Other Risks*8. Benefit Skew*9. Form of Benefit*10. Portability11. Vesting12. Funded Status13. Operational Expenses*14. Education and Communication * Most important distinctions

Distinguishing Features

4

DB vs. DC Comparison Core Features

(Page 1 of 2)

Individual Account Balances YesNo individual account balances, just a defined

benefit promise; pooled assets and pooled liabilities

Account Interest Credited Actual investment return of the underlying assets Not applicable

Investment Risk/Reward Borne 100% by the employee Borne 100% by the employer

Predictability of Employer

Contributions100% predictable

Much less predictable due to contribution being

subject to investment performance and demographic

experience

Unfunded Actuarial Accrued

LiabilityNone Yes, if less than 100% funded

Retirement planningUnpredictable due to primary reliance on

unpredictable investment earnings

Employees can plan on a predictable, stated (or easily

calculated) percent of pre-retirement income;

employers can design the plan toward a given

replacement of pre-retirment income

Longevity and Other Risks Borne 100% by the employee Borne 100% by the employer

Traditional Defined Contribution (DC)

Retirement Plans

Traditional Defined Benefit (DB)

Retirement Plans

5

DB vs. DC Comparison Core Features

(Page 2 of 2)

Benefit SkewBenefits are skewed toward younger shorter service

employees

Benefits are skewed toward older, longer service

employees

Form of Benefit Almost always paid as a lump sumPaid as a lifetime pension with options for

survivorship

PortabilityCan be rolled over to an IRA; often not used for

retirement income

Retained and paid as a lifetime pension upon

retirement eligibility

Vesting Flexible in the design Flexible in the design

Funded Status Always 100% fundedFunding Policy determines funded status; rarely

100% funded

Operational Expenses

Higher investment-related expenses (in bps) than DB

plans due to use of mutual funds, often subsidizing

recordkeeping and communications expenses

Lower total operational expenses (in bps) than

traditional DC plans; often soft dollar rebates from

transaction costs reduce operational expenses further

Education and

Communications

Employee education meetings and materials required

for effective investment elections; often name-brand

mutual funds, online information and investment

choices; quarterly account balance statements

Autopilot, little flair and fanfare; often unappreciated

(until taken away)

Traditional Defined Contribution (DC)

Retirement Plans

Traditional Defined Benefit (DB)

Retirement Plans

6

• Consider a hybrid plan as:

– An alternative to traditional DC and DB plans

– A creative solution

– Out-of-the-box thinking

Hybrid Plans

7

• A hybrid plan is a single plan that has some features of a DB plan and some features of a DC plan

• An arrangement with side-by-side DB and DC plans– Two separate plans– This arrangement is not really a hybrid plan– Although some people use the term “hybrid” when describing a side-

by-side DB and DC– But consider a Toyota Prius – gasoline and electric in one car

• Two broad types of hybrid plans1. Cash Balance Plans2. Variable Annuity or Variable Benefit Plans

Hybrid Plans

8

2. Variable Annuity or Variable Benefit

– “Looks” a lot like a DB plan• Lifetime pensions paid• Rewards long-service employees

– Monthly benefit amount varies (up and down) depending on certain trigger points built into the plan design

• Investment Trigger -- Benefits change or vary (up and down) depending on level of investment returns, OR

• Employer Contribution Trigger – Benefits change or vary (up and down) depending on the level of employer contributions otherwise required

Hybrid Plans

9

2. Variable Annuity or Variable Benefit (continued)

– Investment Return Trigger –

• Some designs (e.g., Variable Annuity Plan) index the benefit earned for the year to retirement date using unit values based on investment returns – higher indexing for higher returns; lower indexing for lower returns.

• Other designs can change the multiplier for the current year depending on investment returns for the year - higher multipliers for higher returns; lower multipliers or zero for lower returns.

• Still other plan designs pay additional “dividends” on benefits for higher returns.

Hybrid Plans

10

2. Variable Annuity or Variable Benefit (continued)

– Employer Contribution Trigger –

• The multiplier changes in order to keep the employer contribution predictably within a pre-set corridor – higher multiplier if employer contribution would be low; lower multiplier if employer contribution would be high

• Some designs can change the multiplier only for that year of trigger, while others change it retroactive to plan start date

• Some designs can retain the final average earnings concept instead of a career average (or career accumulation) earnings found in most investment trigger variable annuity hybrids or all cash balance hybrids

Hybrids Plans

11

Hybrid Features

12

Core Features

(Page 1 of 4)Cash Balance Variable Benefit

Individual Account Balances Yes YesSome designs have individual annuity

balances; some do not

No individual account

balances, just a defined

benefit promise; pooled assets

and pooled liabilities

Account Interest CreditedActual investment

return of the underlying

assets

Older designs apply a fixed rate or tied

to short-term yields. Alternatively, can

be partially related to actual return on

underlying assets (e.g., with smoothing,

floors and caps)

Designs with annuity balances might

index benefits to final average earnings,

while others index to CPI; and still

others can be partially related to actual

return on underlying assets

Not applicable

Investment Risk/RewardBorne 100% by the

employee

Older designs put 100% on employers;

recent designs share the risks/rewards

between employee and employer (e.g.,

fund return with floors and caps)

Some designs share the risks/rewards

between employee and employer; while

other designs put 100% of the risk on

employees.

Borne 100% by the employer

Predictability of Employer

Contributions100% predictable

Older designs are as unpredictable as

traditional DBs; recent designs that

share risk have predictability in

between traditional DBs and DCs

Less predictable than DC plans but

more predictable than traditional DB

plans

Much less predictable due to

contribution being subject to

investment performance and

demographic experience

Traditional

Defined

Contribution

(DC) Retirement

Plans

Hybrid Plan Designs Traditional Defined

Benefit (DB)

Retirement Plans

Hybrid Features

Core Features


Unfunded Actuarial Accrued

LiabilityNone Yes, if less than 100% funded Yes, if less than 100% funded Yes, if less than 100% funded

Retirement planning

Unpredictable due to

primary reliance on

unpredictable

investment earnings

Some designs have ending cash

balances that depend only on future

salary and are just as predictable as DB

plans; but most designs depend mostly

or partially on unpredictable

investment returns or yields

Some designs depend mostly or

partially on unpredictable investment

returns, while others have future

benefits that fall within a predictable

minimum and maximum

Employees can plan on a

predictable, stated (or easily

calculated) percent of pre-

retirement income;

employers can design the

plan toward a given

replacement of pre-retirment

income

Longevity and Other RisksBorne 100% by the

employee

Almost always borne 100% by the

employeeBorne 100% by the employer Borne 100% by the employer

Benefit SkewBenefits are skewed

toward younger shorter

service employees

Skewed toward younger, shorter

service employees

Skewed toward older, longer service

employees

Benefits are skewed toward

older, longer service

employees

Traditional

Defined

Contribution

(DC) Retirement

Plans


Benefit (DB)

Retirement Plans

13

Hybrid Features

Core Features


Form of BenefitAlmost always paid as a

lump sum

Almost always paid as a lump sum,

unless prevented from doing so by plan

design

Paid as a lifetime pension with options

for survivorship

Paid as a lifetime pension

with options for survivorship

Portability

Can be rolled over to an

IRA; often not used for

retirement income

Can be rolled over to an IRA; often not

used for retirement income

Retained and paid as a lifetime pension

upon retirement eligibility

Retained and paid as a

lifetime pension upon

retirement eligibility

Vesting Flexible in the design Flexible in the design Flexible in the design Flexible in the design

Funded Status Always 100% fundedFunding Policy determines funded

status

Funding Policy determines funded

status

Funding Policy determines

funded status; rarely 100%

funded

Operational Expenses

Higher investment-

related expenses (in bps)

than DB plans due to

use of mutual funds,

often subsidizing

recordkeeping and

communications

expenses

Lower total operational expenses (in

bps) than traditional DC plans;

approximately same as traditional DB

plans

Lower total operational expenses (in

bps) than traditional DC plans;

approximately same as traditional DB

plans

Lower total operational

expenses (in bps) than

traditional DC plans; often

soft dollar rebates from

transaction costs reduce

operational expenses further

Traditional

Defined

Contribution

(DC) Retirement

Plans


Benefit (DB)

Retirement Plans

14

Hybrid Features

Core Features


Education and

Communications

Employee education

meetings and materials

required for effective

investment elections;

often name-brand

mutual funds, online

information and

investment choices;

quarterly account

balance statements

Minimal employee communications,

but depending on method of crediting

interest; quarterly or annual account

balance statements

Employee education is needed for how

accrual multipliers might vary

Autopilot, little flair and

fanfare; often unappreciated

(until taken away)

Traditional

Defined

Contribution

(DC) Retirement

Plans


Benefit (DB)

Retirement Plans

15

• Primary motivations for moving from DB to DC plans1. “The corporate world has moved from DB to DC plans.”2. “ We got rid of our DB plan where I work(ed).”3. “I never had a DB plan; neither should they.”4. “ The conservative think-tanks and legislatively active organizations

say we should move to a DC plan.”5. “My political party leaders say DB plans are bad.”6. “DB plans are more dangerous than DC plans in the hands of

politicians.”7. “I don’t trust elected officials to stand up against the unions; they

often grant retroactive benefit improvements in DBs.” 8. “Employer contributions to our DB plans have become unbearably

and unreasonably high.”9. “Employer contributions need to be more predictable.”10. “Employer (taxpayers) should not bear the investment risk.”

Hybrids Plans

16

• Management and elected officials sometimes START with the “position” of advocating DC plans over DB plans

• Consider moving the dialogue from “positions” to “interests” or “principles”

• Identify the underlying interests of the parties and resolve the matter with solutions and proposals:– That appeal to their “interests”, rather than– Fight their positions

Positions vs. Interests

17

Variable Annuity Plan (VAP)

• A pension plan where the annual pension benefit fluctuates (both before and after retirement) with the performance of investment funds

• Advantages for the employer:– Financial predictability: stable cost, little or no unfunded

liabilities– Retention: allocates benefits to long-service employees

• Advantages for the employee:– Provides lifetime income – employee can’t outlive assets– Portable benefit, potential inflation protection

18

• Career accumulation plan• Benefit credit is converted to variable annuity units at year-

end purchase price of the units• Units accumulate throughout an employee’s career

– Each year employee participates in the plan, more benefit credits are earned that are converted to “variable units” at the end of the year

• At NRD employee receives an annual retirement income based on number of “variable units” accumulated

• Annual income in retirement for each unit is the unit value at the end of the previous year

Variable Annuity Plan

19


• Basic benefit formula is a traditional career average formula– Example: 1% of pay– Formula is applied to actual pay each year– Benefit is annual annuity at normal retirement age

• Participant earns $50,000• Participant accrues a benefit = $500/year payable at 65

• The benefit is used to “buy” variable units at year-end unit value– Example: Variable unit value = $10– $500 benefit buys 50 variable units

20

Variable Annuity PlanA variable unit is the right to an annual pension benefit equal to theunit value beginning at NRD• Participant’s 50 units would generate $500/year at retirement if the unit value

remains $10– If unit value increases to $11, 50 units would generate $550/year at

retirement– If unit value decreases to $9, 50 units would generate $450/year at

retirement • If unit value increases by average 2%/ year for 25 years

– Unit value is $16.41 when Participant retires at age 65– 50 variable units earned when age 40 then generate $820.50 annual

pension income• Unit value can continue to fluctuate during retirement

– If the value falls 1% to $16.25 during first year of retirement, benefit in year 2 will decline to $812.50

21

Units earned 50 45 48 43 45

Accumulated units 50 95 143 186 231

End-of-year unit value $10.00 $11.00 $10.50 $11.50 $11.00

Year-end pension income

$500 $1,045 $1,502 $2,139 $2,541

Example

22

Variable Annuity PlanUnit Value Determination

• Initial unit value can be any value• Unit value fluctuates annually based on the actual return of the pension

fund (for the previous year) relative to a benchmark rate called the hurdle rate

• If assets earn more than hurdle rate, unit values are increased

• If assets earn less than hurdle rate, unit values are decreased

• For example, if hurdle is 5% and assets earn 8% (or 2%), unit values increase (or decrease) approximately 3%

• VAP is equivalent to the plan sponsor funding a fixed annuity determined at an interest rate equal to the hurdle rate– Investment experience above or below the hurdle rate is passed

through to the participant through a change in the unit value

23

Variable Annuity PlanUnit Value Changes

Formula for Unit Value to pass all investment gains or losses to participant is:

UVt = UVt-1 x (1 + it) / (1 + h)

where it is the actual return during the period t-1 to t and h is the hurdle rate

24

Variable Annuity PlanHurdle Rate

• The hurdle rate is a plan provision, not an actuarial assumption, although sometimes referred to as assumed interest rate or AIR

• Hurdle rate is a critical component of plan design– Higher rate lowers plan costs, but increases the

likelihood that participants’ benefits will decrease– Lower rate increases plan costs, but increases the

likelihood that participants’ benefits will increase– Setting the hurdle rate at (or a little above) a reasonable

risk-free rate of return enhances certain features• Minimum permissible hurdle rate is 3%• Plans with hurdle rate < 5% are subject to statutory

hybrid rules (private sector concern)

25

Service Cost Changes with Hurdle Rate

26

Can Retirees Handle Volatility?

• Most common objection to VAP is that “retirees need guaranteed benefits, cannot accept declines”

• Actual experience of VAPs tells a different story

• Consider actual VAP experience for 50+ years

27

Variable Annuity Unit Value(1961-2013)

Back to back declines three times in 50 years:1973-74: 32% Recovered 92% in 2 years, 100% in 62000-01: 18% Recovered 100% in 2 years2008-09: 17% Recovered fully in 2013

28

Variable Annuity Unit ValueEffect of Changing AIR

Back to back declines three times in 50 years:1973-74: 34% Recovered 88% in 2 years, 100% in 82000-01: 20% Recovered 100% in 3 years2008-09: 19% Still 4% under peak value

29


VAPs compare favorably to traditional DB plans in several respects:• Benefits are comparable to Final Average Pay plans• Benefits are more portable than Final Average Pay plans• Benefits provide potential inflation protection• Variations of VAP offer participant ability to manage risk exposure

30

Comparison to Final Pay PlanFAP Benefit Formula = 1% of Final Average Pay for each year of serviceRSP Benefit Formula = 1% of Annual Pay, Assumed Interest Rate = 4%Average pay increases over career = 3%Retire at 65 with 30 years ServiceBenefit expressed as Percent of Final Average Pay

Average Investment Return FAP Benefit Variable Benefit

5% 30% 24.3%

6% 30% 27.7%

7% 30% 31.8%

8% 30% 36.7%

31

Variable Annuity Plan Portability

Variable units continue to appreciate for terminated vested participants• Benefits continue to grow with investment experience, unlike traditional

pension benefits• Participants are not harmed by changing employment as in a final pay plan• Benefits are not paid in lump sum or rollover, thus preventing leakage• EBRI study indicates as much as 60% of early distributions are not rolled over

32

Variable Annuity PlanPortability

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Final PayPlan - One

Job

Final PayPlan -

MultipleJobs

VariableAnnuity Plan

One Job

VariableAnnuity Plan

MultipleJobs

Rep

lace

men

t R

atio

Job 5Job 4Job 3Job 2Job 1

33

Purchasing Power of Level Benefit of $1000 Per Month with 2.5% Inflation

34

Variable Benefit versus Purchasing Power(1961-2012)

$-

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Year

Variable Benefit with 4% Hurdle Constant Purchasing Power

Purchasing power based on CPI-U from BLS

35

Other Design Issues

• Adjustments for early retirement or optional forms of payment can be made by adjusting the number of units– Similar to adjustments made to traditional plan

benefits for these items– Can subsidize early retirement, if desired

36

Conflict in Variable Benefit Plan

• Young participants want to see growth in benefit values, temporary volatility is of no concern

• Retired participants may want stability of current income

• Trustees are fiduciaries, investing assets on behalf of all participants

• But participants have conflicting interests• What are fiduciaries to do?

37

Variable Annuity Plan Investments

Each unit represents a sub-account of the pension trust • Stable Units: High-quality short-

to-intermediate term fixed income securities.

• Diversified Units: Generally, an actively managed fund where plan sponsor selects the investment managers and asset allocation. Higher potential return than Stable Shares but more volatile.

38

Variable Annuity PlanParticipant choice is possible

Each unit fund represents a sub-account of the pension trust • Stable units: High-quality

short-to-intermediate term fixed income securities.

• Equity units: 100% equity investment, actively managed or an index fund.

• Diversified units: Generally, an actively managed fund where plan sponsor selects the investment managers and asset allocation. Less risky than Equity units.

Other variations are possible: - More/less classes of shares - Different classes of shares (e.g. Lifecycle shares)

39

Participant Choice• Employees can structure the risk/reward of their

retirement portfolio based on their own circumstances and tolerance levels

• Participants elect once per year which class(es) of shares they wish to purchase at year-end

• Could purchase just one type of share or all three share classes

• Also can exchange or reallocate any shares previously earned

• Statement sent in first quarter of following year shows the results of the share purchase and/or exchanges

40

How Do You Get There?• Conversion from existing DB Plan

– Simplest approach is to freeze current plan benefits• VAP unit balance begins at zero and grows• Ultimate retirement benefit is: frozen old-plan benefit plus

benefit from RSP• Risk due to the old frozen plan benefits still exists under

this approach– Other approaches, including converting accrued

benefits, are possible • Can significantly reduce the risk associated with prior

accrued benefits quickly and cost effectively

• Integrating VAP into existing DC Plans as payment form

41

Conversion Less Harmful to Older Workers

42

Variable Annuity PlanAsset Driven Liabilities

• In traditional DB plans, matching assets and liabilities requires continual rebalancing of portfolio

• In VAP, assets and liabilities are always matched• Benefits are portable• Design can mimic final pay benefits• Potential for purchasing power protection in

retirement• Unfunded liabilities (surpluses) are less likely

– Arise from demographic experience– Usually smaller in magnitude

43

• Driving principles/interests from City Council

– Roll back future benefits to bend the cost curve soon

– Future benefit levels should be adequate and competitive

– Share risks between employees and employer

– Make employer contributions more predictable

Case Study: City of Ocala GE

44

• Bend the expected cost curve

– Changing benefits for new hires alone will take a very long time to bend the expected cost curve

• So putting in a DC plan for new hires alone won’t do much soon enough• Putting in a new DB formula for new hires alone won’t do much either

– Must change benefits for all employees (current and new) in order to bend the expected cost curve in a reasonably short time

• Either all in a DC or• All in a less generous benefit structure for future service

Case Study

45

• Bend the expected cost curve (continued)

– Not permitted to roll back future benefits earned by current active employees eligible for normal retirement

– Not permitted to roll back benefits retroactively, i.e.:• Not permitted to cut benefits for current retirees and beneficiaries • Not permitted to cut accrued benefits below what active employee have earned so

far

Case Study

46

• Bending the expected cost curve (continued)

– Freeze the benefits for current actives at what they earned as of the transition date; call it Part A

– Start the new and less generous benefit structure for future service; call it part B

– Final benefit is Part A plus Part B

– Grandfather current active employees within five years of Normal Retirement Date

Case Study

47

• Make the employer contribution more predictable . . .

• By sharing the risk with employees.– Moving to a DC plan for new hires alone will take a very long time to

share the risk– Not permitted to share the risk with current retirees or with current

active employees eligible for normal retirement– Not permitted to share the risk on benefits earned at transition

• Part B benefit structure is the hybrid plan design– Part B monthly projected benefit can go up or down, depending on

the trigger mechanism (total contributions), thereby sharing the risk and reward

– Part A monthly benefit is fixed and frozen at the transition date

Case Study

48

Case Study

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042 2047 2052 2057 2062

Pla

n A

sset

sM

illio

ns

Pla

n A

sset

sM

illions

Plan Asset Growth Over Time

Closed DB Plan DC Plan for New Hires

49

Case Study

• Without a VBH feature in the legacy DB plan -- It will take over 40 years to reach a 50-50 risk-sharing with employees; in 20 years City/taxpayers still bear 85% of investment risk

50

0%

50%

100%

0%

50%

100%

2012 2022 2032 2042 2052 2062 2072

Total Investment Risk-sharing ComparisonClosed DB plus DC for New HiresWith and Without VBH Feature

Closed DB w/ VBH, plus DC for New Hires Closed DB w/o VBH, plus DC for New Hires

City/taxpayers Bear 100% Risk

Employees Bear 100% Risk

• Consider DC, cash balance, variable annuity plans– Implemented for benefits earned in the future– Even if covering current employees’ future service and new hires

• Most do nothing about the massive legacy obligations of Part A– No risk sharing– Costs still unpredictable

• Ocala’s variable benefit hybrid design did– The employer and employee share the risks (for the legacy Part A)– The total costs (for Part A and Part B combined) are more predictable

Case Study

51

• Part B starts out with a 1.6% multiplier, like FRS Regular Class

– Multiplier can go up, but not above a cap of 2.55% and

– Multiplier can go down, but not below a floor of 1.0% --

– Depending on the level of the actuarially required contribution.

– As long as the actuarially determined contribution (ADC) stays within a pre-set employer contribution budget, the multiplier remains unchanged; improves predictability

– Makes the employer contribution more predictable

Case Study

52

• If the ADC were to go above the top of the budget corridor:– The multiplier is reduced in order to keep the ADC inside the corridor– Employee bears the risk above the corridor.

• If the ADC were to go below the bottom of the budget corridor:– The multiplier is increased in order to keep the ADC inside the

corridor– Employee reaps the reward below the corridor

• Makes the employer contribution more predictable by sharing the risk (and reward) with the employee

Case Study

53

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039

2040

2041

2042

2043

Pro

ject

ed C

ity

Con

trib

utio

ns a

s a

Per

cent

age

of P

ay

Fiscal Year Ending

Total Projected City ContributionsClosed DB Plan with Future Benefits Rolled Back to 1.6%

With 8% DC Plan for New HiresPositive and Negative Stresses at Year 11 Outside the VBH Corridor

Corridor City Alternative 2

Stress Test on City Alternative 2 Better than Expected Asset Returns on City Alternative 2

Case Study

Witha VBHFeature:

BudgetCorridor

54

• Circular 230 Notice: Pursuant to regulations issued by the IRS, to the extent this presentation concerns tax matters, it is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed within. Each taxpayer should seek advice based on the individual’s circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

• This presentation shall not be construed to provide tax advice, legal advice or investment advice.

• Readers are cautioned to examine original source materials and to consult with subject matter experts before making decisions related to the subject matter of this presentation.

• This presentation is not an expression of the views of FGFOA, or Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company, or the American Academy of Actuaries and may not even express the views of the speakers.

Disclaimers

55

Contact InformationDonald E Fuerst, Senior Pension Fellow

American Academy of Actuaries202-785-7871

[email protected]

James J. Rizzo, Senior Consultant and ActuaryGabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company

[email protected]

56

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Questions

and

Answers ?

57

Variable Annuity Plans Allocation of Risks in Hybrid Pension Plans Florida GFOA Webinar Series June...

Documents

Transcript of Variable Annuity Plans Allocation of Risks in Hybrid Pension Plans Florida GFOA Webinar Series June...