by GarySpicuzza » Wed Jul 14, 2010 05:03 pm
http://www.nafa.com/tmp/20100712-SEC151A_VACATE01.pdf
We therefore order that Rule 151A be vacated.
The Clerk is directed to amend the judgment filed July 21, 2009, accordingly.
The Clerk is further directed to issue the mandate 7 days after the issuance of this order.
Per Curiam
We therefore order that Rule 151A be vacated.
The Clerk is directed to amend the judgment filed July 21, 2009, accordingly.
The Clerk is further directed to issue the mandate 7 days after the issuance of this order.
Per Curiam
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 02:30 pm Post Subject:
It is absolutely ridiculous to consider EIAs to be investments. The basis of the argument is that one might get more than what is guaranteed in the contract, therefore, there is investment risk. That's idiotic.
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 03:00 pm Post Subject:
The basis of the argument is that one might get more than what is guaranteed in the contract, therefore, there is investment risk.
That's what happens when bone head LAWYERS are in charge!
They are nothing more than paper tigers.
Insurance Agents RULE!!!
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 06:30 pm Post Subject:
Well, that's certainly good news -- not so much that Rule 151A is tossed, but that a judge understood insurance products enough to know that Rule 151A and Indexed Annuities (and presumably Indexed Insurance) policies don't have anything in common.
Unfortunately, given the Obama Administration's infatuation with overturning the apple cart when it comes to insurance companies, look for the SEC to attempt to retool Rule 151A and start the whole process over again.
Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:39 am Post Subject:
Just for the record....
It was the Bush Administration under SEC chairman Chris Cox who attempted this Rule 151A fiasco.
Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:55 pm Post Subject:
It was the Bush Administration under SEC chairman Chris Cox who attempted this Rule 151A fiasco.
No dispute. But it's the Obama Administration's hot potato now. Hence my remarks above. Seems Obama is determined to carry on the legacy of spending money according to the Bush dictates, but will end the Bush-era tax cuts to "raise revenue".
Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 03:51 pm Post Subject:
Let's also be clear that part of the reason why this ever became an issue is because of agents like Gary who sell indexed products by bashing variable products.
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 01:55 pm Post Subject:
Let's also be clear that part of the reason why this ever became an issue is because of agents like Gary who sell indexed products by bashing variable products.
Too funny!
Agents like Gary sell these products for the safety of principal inherent in all annuities EXCEPT variable annuities.
Fixed Indexed Annuity owners have lost EXACTLY "$0.00" by protecting their savings in these products.
Variable Annuity owners have lost about 40% of their value.
Check out this LINKY.
I absolutely love debating anonymouse posters on this issue with mouse being the operative word.
Keep posting fjaksrku...
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 01:00 pm Post Subject:
Thank you for proving my point, Gary. You have just done exactly what I've accused you of doing. You are pushing indexed products by bashing variable products. I have no problem with indexed products. My issue is with how you sell them. The products stand on their own merits, yet you still feel the need to twist the truth.
Safety of Principal is a good thing for people who are primarily looking for safety of principal. Riders can be placed on VA's that protect the principal.
Plenty of fixed indexed annuity owners have lost money. If one loses money because of a surrender charge, they have still lost money.
Variable annuity owners have only lost 40% of their value if you cherry pick a time period in which the market was down 40%. Pick a different time period and you can say that variable annuity owners have made 50% gains.
Fixed indexed annuities aren't an appropriate substitute for variable annuities. Variable annuities aren't an appropriate substitue for fixed indexed annuities.
In your mind, you will always win any debate because you are incapable of hearing any truth that goes against what you are trying to prove.
Indexed vs. variable: They are different and not better or worse.
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 02:40 am Post Subject:
Heresy! Variable annuities have a place in someone's portfolio? No, no, no, no, NO, NO, NONONONNONONONONO!
<this>
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:41 pm Post Subject:
fkaksrku,
Let me ask you a rhetorical question.
Which financial professional would have more credibility...
One named Gary Spicuzza or one named fkaksrku?
Now let's address some of your post:
Plenty of fixed indexed annuity owners have lost money.
Now that's a twisted statement. NOT ONE Fixed Indexed Annuity owner has lost one penny during this lastest market melt down.
To claim that because of the surrender charges in the early years they would lose money IF they surrendered their contract is a material misrepresentation. Variable Annuities ALSO have surrender charges....this is the classic anonymouse poster, POT calling the kettle black.
Anonymous posters have no credibility. They post anonymously so their clients won't know how shallow they actually are.
Keep posting fkaksrku....my clients love reading my rants on the net!
Add your comment