One more time, variable annuities....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Canadian Grunt said:
If you buy ETF's or funds that produce dividend income you will be sheltered from the fall in the market much more than growth stocks. Dividend paying stocks historically do much better than growth stocks during recessions and during the Great Depression were most likely to survive. Your argument doesn't hold water.

Additionally, you should get some tax preference off the dividends. If you could survive on the dividend stream at the start of a recession you should be comfortable throughout.

Recessionary pressure actually reduces prices so the CPI should remain stagnant or decrease so inflation won’t be a killer.

Good quality stocks that pay dividends form streams of income are much less likely to fold than stocks that are priced based on future growth. Which stocks do you think will get hit the hardest?

Cherry picking companies for comparison like GM does not water down the fact that dividend stocks produce in recessions. Historically, they hold up better and rebound faster. Your facts are wrong.

The key is to hold a broad based fund of dividend paying stocks and keep to your desired asset allocation based on your risk tolerance.

If you have cash, are not retired, and are not worried about losing your job, now is the time to get dividend paying stocks because they are paying great dividends.
Click to expand...


That's just lovely, so what you're saying is if you have cash after the market tanks, you'll have money to invest. Wonderful. Now how many retirees do you think are sitting on cash that they don't need to live on? How many of those with cash feel they can risk jumping into the market even though it may eventually be a bargain because they're much more concerned about the market falling further?
I cherry picked great quality companies just a year or two ago. By cherry picking GM from my list of four, I'd say you were equally cherry picking. GE was one of only 8 AAA companies in the world! I can list dozens of other "quality companies" that have recently cut dividends.
There's a huge difference between comparing people who are still working and saving vs. those already in retirement and on fixed income, and I thought those were the ones we were discussing?
BTW, I could surely use that list of ETF's that haven't dropped and are paying good dividends. Thanks.
 
GM and F have been foolish investments for years. However, that is my personal opinion and the reason I have never invested in either.
That does bring up an important issue though and one of the reasons investing in individual stocks isn't for everyone.
Investing in individual stocks requires more investigation into the companies. Not everyone has the time or personality to do this. And for those, I would definitely not recommend it.
If I were not fully allocated in GE already I would be buying more now. It was an excellent buy a year ago and still is today AS LONG as you don't need the cash (other than the dividends) right now.
And yes, you can hunt and find stocks that have cut their dividends. But I bet you I can find a lot more that have raised them:)
That is where the concept called diversification comes in. Yes, my C holdings had their dividends cut earlier this year. However, the dividend of all the other companies I hold have more than made up for that loss plus inflation.
 
Art G said:
That's just lovely, so what you're saying is if you have cash after the market tanks, you'll have money to invest. Wonderful. Now how many retirees do you think are sitting on cash that they don't need to live on? How many of those with cash feel they can risk jumping into the market even though it may eventually be a bargain because they're much more concerned about the market falling further?
I cherry picked great quality companies just a year or two ago. By cherry picking GM from my list of four, I'd say you were equally cherry picking. GE was one of only 8 AAA companies in the world! I can list dozens of other "quality companies" that have recently cut dividends.
There's a huge difference between comparing people who are still working and saving vs. those already in retirement and on fixed income, and I thought those were the ones we were discussing?
BTW, I could surely use that list of ETF's that haven't dropped and are paying good dividends. Thanks.
Click to expand...



All my dividend funds are up over growth components. Check the facts yourself.

I explained the retirement phase with dividends so I am not going to cover it again.

Reference risk. I think you have it all wrong. Your highest risk is when the stock market is high. Your lowest risk is when the stock market is low. Now, your perceived risk is high in declining markets. But real risk is low when the markets are tanking.

Risk is much higher for stocks that were priced for growth than good stocks with real earnings.

If you think the markets are going to zero (which means all the bricks and mortar in your country are worthless, your oil reserves, coal...all your companies are worthless), then...I would suggest a broad diversification in weapons, ammo, food, and water; and a membership in your local militia:D
 
zathras and grunt, perhaps I'm not being clear. Yes, investing in the market seems a lot safer now than it did months ago. However, most people were ALREADY invested, and most retirees don't sit on large cash positions, they can't afford to.
As to value over growth right now, well yeah, duh.
What you are overlooking though is perceived risk. When you have a limited amount of unreplaceable funds, you tend to react contrary to logic and lean toward safety. Perhaps you can call my mother and assure her that her stocks will come back and she should just sit tight, I know I've had to reconvince her a dozen times already. It doesn't help alleviate the fear any.
 
Art G said:
zathras and grunt, perhaps I'm not being clear. Yes, investing in the market seems a lot safer now than it did months ago. However, most people were ALREADY invested, and most retirees don't sit on large cash positions, they can't afford to.
As to value over growth right now, well yeah, duh.
What you are overlooking though is perceived risk. When you have a limited amount of unreplaceable funds, you tend to react contrary to logic and lean toward safety. Perhaps you can call my mother and assure her that her stocks will come back and she should just sit tight, I know I've had to reconvince her a dozen times already. It doesn't help alleviate the fear any.
Click to expand...

Art, I understand your position much better. What you are actually talking about is asset allocation. Ideally, this should have been done years before this recession. I expect many individual’s actual appetite for risk is far lower than they thought. Their tolerance is now being tested. This is the crux of your dilemma and especially hard to fix after the fact without incurring actual losses as we are in a broad based sell off.

I believe the best way to explain it to fearful investors would be as follows:

You are experiencing paper losses at the moment. As soon as you give in to fear and cash out you will lock in actual losses that will never be recovered.

Once the market recovers close to break even for their individual portfolio they should reassess their risk tolerance and change their asset allocation accordingly.

It could be a long ride so they might want to skip the business news.
 
Well that's a part of it, however, many of the losses aren't recoverable. There are some preferred stocks that have halted their dividends. REIT's that are merely gone. GMAC bonds valued at $28 with a very real chance they get written off. Income lost now and for the future, and no way to retrieve it.
It's not always a matter of just sitting tight. It's now as much a question of eating into principal to survive.
 
Spoke with a woman yesterday, her husband is recently deceased. He had a variable annuity. The death benefit value was currently more than double the actual value of the funds. He had already withdrawn almost half the original value in annual withdrawals.
 
Art G said:
Spoke with a woman yesterday, her husband is recently deceased. He had a variable annuity. The death benefit value was currently more than double the actual value of the funds. He had already withdrawn almost half the original value in annual withdrawals.
Click to expand...

Who cares? That dude had to pay almost 3% a year to double his death benefit after taking 5% a year withdrawals for a number of years. What's your point? :D:D:D

(Just trying to beat 2B and others to it)
 
FinanceDude said:
Who cares? That dude had to pay almost 3% a year to double his death benefit after taking 5% a year withdrawals for a number of years. What's your point? :D:D:D

(Just trying to beat 2B and others to it)
Click to expand...
Thanks. I can't be on top of all the comments made by people on my ignore list.

The question should be whether the death benefit was cost effective as a life insurance policy. If he'd put the same money into a term policy, would his wife be able to afford a better looking stud as her "pool boy?" :D

This is the time that will try an investor's soul and we have annuity sales pitches on top of that. It's sort of like the 7 plagues of Egypt.
 
I guess ignore boy will never know that a term policy first off, must be able to pass a physical which at age 70 is a tad tricky, have a "term" which means the money can be lost forever if the person doesn't die within the right amount of time, And....the difference being put into a mutual fund would have been a loss anyway because of the current market situation.
Yes, fighting the truth is obviously the best route right now. Even in the face of evidence showing that these inexpensive insurance policies pay off, some here can't admit they're wrong.
I guess it's time to track down the Suzy Orman video where she admits the VA was the right product for an individual.
 
Art G said:
I guess ignore boy will never know that a term policy first off, must be able to pass a physical which at age 70 is a tad tricky, have a "term" which means the money can be lost forever if the person doesn't die within the right amount of time, And....the difference being put into a mutual fund would have been a loss anyway because of the current market situation.
Yes, fighting the truth is obviously the best route right now. Even in the face of evidence showing that these inexpensive insurance policies pay off, some here can't admit they're wrong.
I guess it's time to track down the Suzy Orman video where she admits the VA was the right product for an individual.
Click to expand...

Where's Art Williams when we need him: "buy term, invest the difference"........:eek:
 
This is an academic discussion right? I mean someone in his 15th going on 16th yr of retirement shouldn't take this serious - right? :rolleyes:;).

Next year when I turn 66 - I'll be too old for ER - just be a regular retired.

40% - early SS/non cola pension 60% - 4% SWR from Target Retirement IRA.

Or 3% SEC yield until the cows come - cause I was really really cheap in early ER.

Plus I sold and ate the duplex proceeds early in ER as well as one year temp work.

Did I miss any bases? I count SS as my annuity. :D

heh heh heh - psst Wellesley lest I forget. :cool:
 
So the highly edited clip from old Suze says a VA makes sense provided 1) you die when the market is down but 2) only if you've sprung for the added cost (on top of fees on top of commissions) of the death benefit.

I'm working hard to avoid both options...;)
 
unclemick said:
This is an academic discussion right? I mean someone in his 15th going on 16th yr of retirement shouldn't take this serious - right? :rolleyes:;).

Next year when I turn 66 - I'll be too old for ER - just be a regular retired.

40% - early SS/non cola pension 60% - 4% SWR from Target Retirement IRA.

Or 3% SEC yield until the cows come - cause I was really really cheap in early ER.

Plus I sold and ate the duplex proceeds early in ER as well as one year temp work.

Did I miss any bases? I count SS as my annuity. :D

heh heh heh - psst Wellesley lest I forget. :cool:
Click to expand...

Well, if I'm understanding your post then you already have a pension. If this is true, then you have an advantage over a major portion of the
population. No one is saying that a VA is right for everyone.
BTW, your Wellesley fund is down about 21% from last year.
 
REWahoo said:
So the highly edited clip from old Suze says a VA makes sense provided 1) you die when the market is down but 2) only if you've sprung for the added cost (on top of fees on top of commissions) of the death benefit.

I'm working hard to avoid both options...;)
Click to expand...


LOL! Highly edited? What was edited about it? And yes, if you died during a down market (kind'a like today) your heirs would be much better off. Of course, Susie didn't even touch on the living benefit whereas if you LIVED, you'd be better off today as well, but who the heck wants to consider facts in this discussion.
BTW, it's pretty tough to find a VA that DOESN'T have the death benefit. And there's no extra charge for it, but again, facts.....bahhh! Who needs 'em!
 
Here's the bottom line on the VA debate. If the market keeps going up forever then, yes, you've wasted your money. However, in this very market we happen to be living in, the VA is doing just what you've paid for it to do. Just as if your house burns down, that fire insurance you wasted your money on all those years, comes in handy. Or that Blue Cross insurance you've paid for comes in handy if you need cancer treatments. All insurance is a waste until you need it. What's more of an emergency than going broke while retired?
 
Art G said:
Susie didn't even touch on the living benefit whereas if you LIVED, you'd be better off today as well, but who the heck wants to consider facts in this discussion.
Click to expand...
Fact: You are attempting to convince a group of reasonably sophisticated investors that buying a Variable Annuity, an insurance product laced with fees, commissions, buried costs, and market risks, is a good idea.

Fact: Not going to happen. :)
 
And one more fact, right now I know a ton of people who are thrilled to death that they moved from good quality mutual funds into them. How odd that they're not opposed to paying an extra percent to protect them from their 30% losses.
The real problem here is that people like you have shamed others into not being open minded. I wonder if that's how the Salem Witch trials took place?
 
Excellent. This thread is over when it gets compared to either Hitler, Nazis or Salem Witch trials. Internet rule 6427.82
 
Notmuchlonger said:
Excellent. This thread is over when it gets compared to either Hitler, Nazis or Salem Witch trials. Internet rule 6427.82
Click to expand...


Can't use Salem Witch trials?? When did this get added to the no speak list? I didn't get the memo.
What about the Crusades? Can I compare it to those? BTW, I believe Robin Hood was a Democrat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
TIAA 2024 SP annunity
Replies
8
Views
1K
FargoI
F
B
Non-Qualified Variable Annuities Distribution Options
Replies
12
Views
899
bpgdeg1234
B
Ready-4-ER-at-14
annuity regret
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
jazz4cash
J
T
Annuity vs. Lump Sum - How to decide?
Replies
21
Views
3K
Travis Bickle
T
B
Non-Qualified Variable Annuity Tax Implications
Replies
6
Views
710
bpgdeg1234
B

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom