by GarySpicuzza » Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:28 am
See THIS LINKY.
Would You Rather Have All Of A Loss Or Some Of A Gain?
Over the last decade the S&P 500 declined 20%. But an annual reset approach produces a 99% total gain!
Red is total gain for S&P 500 over period
Blue is total gain using an annual reset method
Would You Rather Have All Of A Loss Or Some Of A Gain?
Over the last decade the S&P 500 declined 20%. But an annual reset approach produces a 99% total gain!
Red is total gain for S&P 500 over period
Blue is total gain using an annual reset method
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:59 pm Post Subject:
Gary, can you translate this into English? What does a 99% annual reset gain mean?
If someone invested $100,000 10 years ago, how much would they have today?
Also, how about using something more current? Over the last 10 years, ending 7/31/2009, a $10,000 investment into the S&P 500 would be worth $8,868. This is an accumulated loss of about 11% which is a far cry from the 20% that you are using.
In hindsite, everybody would rather have a gain than a loss. An EIA will beat the S&P when the S&P does poorly and will lose to the S&P when the S&P does well. So what? This point can be made about all fixed instruments.
An EIA isn't an investment, thus you don't need to be investment licensed to sell it. (Unless the SEC unfairly gets their way) It's a long term savings vehicle.
Most people would be best served with both savings and investment vehicles.
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 03:34 pm Post Subject:
I used to be a fan of the EIUL, but the caps are so low now. I bet a good UL beats a EIUL most of the time in the real world. Anyone else feel that way?
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 04:31 pm Post Subject:
mkortz, that's a very different subject. In the real world, I think that, in general, they are both flawed products. Let me rephrase that. They are both products that benefit the owner of the insurance company more than the owner of the insurance policy. This is because they are both combinations of annually renewable term insurance along with a side fund. Annually renewable term insurance is not the best way to insure for a permanent insurance need.
We need hindsite to know whether a UL would beat or lose to an EIUL in any given situation. If death occurs prematurely, they will be identical.
Despite my negative comments, I believe that there are times that UL products with secondary guarantees are appropriate.
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 09:30 am Post Subject:
Insurance Expert,
Jack Marion generated those numbers NOT Gary Spicuzza. Click on the linky above that was provided.
Fixed Indexed Annuities will out perform the S&P 500 in most ANY ten year period in which that index was flat or declined 4 out of ANY of the 10 years being charted.
If someone invested $100,000 10 years ago, how much would they have today?
Thank you for asking!
Using YOUR math...let’s look at three investors.
#1) $100,000 invested in the S&P 500 ten years ago would be worth $88,860 today.
#2) $100,000 invested in a FIXED Indexed Annuity ten years ago would be worth about $150,000 today. Please understand what was clearly stated: Would you rather have ALL of a ten year 20% loss or a SHARE in a 99% annual reset gain? Remember, the worst thing that happens in a FIXED Indexed Annuity in a flat or declining market is you simply don’t get any interest credits with ALL principal SAFE and sound.
#3) $100,000 invested in your mattress 10 years ago would still be worth $100,000 today beating the fraud merchants of Wall St. by 12.54%
Wall St. is nothing more than legalized gambling.
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:52 am Post Subject:
Gary,
Jack Marion generated those numbers NOT Gary Spicuzza.
Jack Marion is a respected expert in the field. Gary Spicuzza has reading comprehension problems. Did you see me question the voracity of the numbers? I'm questioning why Gary Spicuzza is posting data that isn't current. Mr. Marion wasn't the one who posted November '08 numbers on this thread.
Fixed Indexed Annuities will out perform the S&P 500 in most ANY ten year period in which that index was flat or declined 4 out of ANY of the 10 years being charted.
So what? Lot's of things will beat the S&P 500 under those parameters. Why would large cap U.S. stocks be an appropriate benchmark for an FIA?
Gary, I posted my numbers simply because they were honest numbers. Unlike you, I don’t talk about numbers for the last 10 years and then leave off all of 2009. There are plenty of times that an FIA will outperform. These last 10 years are an example of this. So what? FIAs are a product. They are neither good nor bad. They are appropriate or inappropriate based upon the situation. One’s final decision should never come down to deciding between an FIA and investing in an S&P 500 index mutual fund. The two products have very different purposes.
You didn’t answer the question that I asked. In English, what is meant by “share in a 99% reset gain”?
Why do FIA comparisons seldom use actual FIAs in the comparison? Is this because that in order to do the comparison, they need to assume that the moving parts don’t move? For instance, can you give us the results of an actual FIA that you were using 10 years ago and what it would be worth today? I’m not trying to argue with you. I’m asking honest questions that deserve answers.
Also, why do FIA comparisons ignore taxes? It makes sense if we are talking about qualified money, but a comparison with non-qualified money makes no sense. Again, an FIA vs. S&P is not a valid comparison, but if it is being done, it is intellectually dishonest to not include the impact of taxes. The impact of taxes is much bigger on the FIA than on the S&P 500 fund. This is especially true at death. Is this why taxes are ignored?
Gary, I really hope that you attempt to intelligently answer my questions. I’m not trying to argue or have a thread war.
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:16 am Post Subject:
I LOVE THREAD WARS!!!
I.E. wrote:
The impact of taxes is much bigger on the FIA than on the S&P 500 fund. This is especially true at death. Is this why taxes are ignored?
This comes straight from the Stock Broker sales talk manual that is INCONCRUENT with financial facts.
Keep posting I.E.
Since I've already written extensively on this subject I'll just simply link up to what I've already written.
See Attorneys, Lawsuits and Annuities
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:43 am Post Subject:
Gary, of course you will just link to something that you have already written. This is because you don't have the knowledge to answer questions directly.
It was quite entertaining watching you get laughed off of the Kiplinger's site because of your lack of knowledge in your field of expertise.
You engage in thread wars because you'd rather fight for what helps you sell instead of caring about having correct information.
Are you capable of directly answering the questions that I asked? Are you willing to answer the questions?
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 08:25 am Post Subject:
Dear Insurance Expert,
I knew you were from Kiplinger's. They have the largest collection of financial clueless clowns on the Internet.
Now for some fun.... Do you know why you are able to follow me around the net like some nut stalker?
It's because I don't post anonymously. All one has to do is Google Gary Spicuzza and tons of information will pop up.
Now how do we find you?
I'm man enough to OWN my words.
Are you?
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:27 am Post Subject:
Gary, I've never posted on Kiplinger's. I didn't know that they had a board until I looked at your site.
I'm man enough to follow the law. My choices are to post anonymously or not post.
I'll assume that the answer to my question is that you aren't capable of directly answering questions.
Add your comment