Annuities and their role in our investing plan

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 EP, based on what you have told us, it would not surprise me if your total expense ratio is ~3% annually.

Probably is........I know that of the "big guys" out there, Hartford has the LOWEST M&E of 1.15%, plus the subaccount fees........usually around .65-1.00, plus any riders like living benefits of .40-.65.

The returns quoted on historical performance are net of fees, as would be on a Vanguard or Dodge and Cox or whatever............

Vanguard and others have a much lower cost, albeit without living benefit riders or whatever. So I guess it goes back to why it's right for someone or not.............

It seems to me that it's about education. What make ME comfortable is not the same as others, etc. Not everyone can fully embrace ALL the things a number of folks on this board do ..................

Reminds me of a friend of mine that has a HUGE library of self-help books, but never makes any changes ................just keeps buying "books from gurus"...................

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empty Pockets But someone please tell me specifically, what would be safer about holding these funds outside of an annuity ? That's what I'd be doing otherwise.

I think you have no better options. An actionable course might be to determine the fund and account expenses and look for ways to reduce them. The two indexes in my wifes VA cost a lot compared to other indexes outside of a VA, but they're way cheaper than the other fund options and WAY cheaper than the default funds the plan provider put her in before I met her.

Perhaps if one or two of the diversifying options is quite expensive, you could fund that in a taxable account while shifting assets within the VA to cheaper fund options. Or slide into indexing options available, cut the expenses and look at the returns long term as being better due to both the lower expenses and indexing...

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny I think you have no better options. An actionable course might be to determine the fund and account expenses and look for ways to reduce them. The two indexes in my wifes VA cost a lot compared to other indexes outside of a VA, but they're way cheaper than the other fund options and WAY cheaper than the default funds the plan provider put her in before I met her. Perhaps if one or two of the diversifying options is quite expensive, you could fund that in a taxable account while shifting assets within the VA to cheaper fund options. Or slide into indexing options available, cut the expenses and look at the returns long term as being better due to both the lower expenses and indexing...

Pre-tax is still better than after-tax IMO..............tough to make 20-30% guaranteed up front.............

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Agree completely, and thats why we've been chucking money into my wifes VA.

I guess I was figuring there may already BE an after tax account (he mentioned a Roth) and the asset allocation could be split with the after tax account holding high fee asset classes while the pretax VA account contains low-fee core stock and bond indexes...if they're even available in the VA fund choices.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empty Pockets I know it was a great year, I've owned this annuity through some very bad years too, and I also know that there are no "guarantee's" in anything. But someone please tell me specifically, what would be safer about holding these funds outside of an annuity ? That's what I'd be doing otherwise. Myself, I don't have a problem with owning a Variable Annuity, I do have a problem with how some annuities are marketed and overpromised, and I know - they're not for everybody. I've been investing in equities for 20 years and know all too well the risks that come with them. Glad to see the focus back on annuities.

Here is the problem I have with annuities:

- Give me 2.5% of your account balance every year and I will guarantee that over 10+ years (subject to many restrictions) you won't lose money.

This guarantee has almost zero value.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Here is the problem I have with annuities: - Give me 2.5% of your account balance every year and I will guarantee that over 10+ years (subject to many restrictions) you won't lose money. This guarantee has almost zero value.

I agree with it's not a great way to build a retirment fund.

I respect your opinion Brewer. With that said - what is your opinoin of a 70 year old buying an annuity outriight via Vanguard with the objective of increasing his SWR safely? Not for accumulation, but for a lifetime of income?- Are there any other investments that you would recommend that would be 'safer' that would provide comparable income?

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat I respect your opinion Brewer. With that said - what is your opinoin of a 70 year old buying an annuity outriight via Vanguard with the objective of increasing his SWR safely? Not for accumulation, but for a lifetime of income?- Are there any other investments that you would recommend that would be 'safer' that would provide comparable income?

If you are in your 70s and buy a payout annuity with less than a majority of your stash, I think that would be an OK choice if you understood what you were getting into and were OK with the notion of a smaller estate. But, I would not buy one from VG because I don't like/trust the company that actually issues the annuities.

I don't think this works at all if you are younger.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 If you are in your 70s and buy a payout annuity with less than a majority of your stash, I think that would be an OK choice if you understood what you were getting into and were OK with the notion of a smaller estate. But, I would not buy one from VG because I don't like/trust the company that actually issues the annuities. I don't think this works at all if you are younger.

Thank you! - And I would not want one for anyone younger also. - And I totally buy into the idea of a smaller estate! 8)

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 But, I would not buy one from VG because I don't like/trust the company that actually issues the annuities.

Now that they're hypothetically Ace-less, how long/what would it take for AIG to rehabilitate themselves?

[Empty Pockets]

- "Give me 2.5% of your account balance every year and I will guarantee that over 10+ years (subject to many restrictions) you won't lose money."

Well, if you can do it on a tax deferred basis, and let me switch between equity funds & rebalance without incuring a tax and throw in a guaranteed minimum rate of return with a stepped up base every 5 years..... let's talk.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords Now that they're hypothetically Ace-less, how long/what would it take for AIG to rehabilitate themselves?

I will never do business with that company, personally. There are so many insurers out there, why compromise?

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 If you are in your 70s and buy a payout annuity with less than a majority of your stash, I think that would be an OK choice if you understood what you were getting into and were OK with the notion of a smaller estate. But, I would not buy one from VG because I don't like/trust the company that actually issues the annuities. I don't think this works at all if you are younger.

How about the actual proposed version?

Would you increase your withdrawal rate over the "safe" limit, say to 6%, in your 50's and 60's, then offset the overspending by deferring social security until you're 70 and annuitizing half or more of what you have left, also at 70, in order to create a life-long safety net needed to offset the earlier higher spending rate?

If you did, would you consider those payments to be "ultra safe" or "guaranteed" and reasonable for a couple living from 70-120 years of age, in other words for 50 years?

Hmmm...Firefox's spell checked didnt like the word "annuitizing", offering "unappetizing" as its first alternative...

[Cut-Throat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny How about the actual proposed version? Would you increase your withdrawal rate over the "safe" limit, say to 6%, in your 50's and 60's, then offset the overspending by deferring social security until you're 70 and annuitizing half or more of what you have left, also at 70, in order to create a life-long safety net needed to offset the earlier higher spending rate? If you did, would you consider those payments to be "ultra safe" or "guaranteed" and reasonable for a couple living from 70-120 years of age, in other words for 50 years?

There was never any mention of Social Security in the questions that I asked you and Brewer! - Why don't you go back and read the posts. Social Security was in a different thread.

Not that it matters - It's totally unrelated! :

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Who said my question had anything to do with you or your question?

Besides, this is my thread so perhaps its time for you to move on!

[Cut-Throat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny Who said my question had anything to do with you or your question? Besides, this is my thread so perhaps its time for you to move on!

I think it's time you took another 'break' from the forum

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat I think it's time you took another 'break' from the forum

You're entitled to your opinion and that may indeed be the case.

However someone like you wont be the impetus.

Now run along before I ask an actual moderator to remove your unrelated posts from my thread.

As has been said before, you have a nice life now.

[brewer12345]

Play nice, kids.

[HFWR]

Hitler... :P

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Too late, he already suggested I take my leave.

Fortunately he lacks the troops to invade Poland.

[2B]

I voted #2. I've just never seen the numbers make sense.

I still consider buying an annuity a sign of either financial illiteracy or mental incapacity.