Retirement Income?

[Art]

Art, despite appearances, I really am not interested in pointless sparring.  If you really think that a SPIA plus I-bonds solves the problem, they show us.  A speadsheet will do more to convince me than any argument we could ever have.

Out of curiosity, are you an agent? /quote]

Yes, I am an agent, as I've freely disclosed before... no, I don't have time to do spreadsheets for you, nor do I think a spreadsheet is necessary in this case, but if you want one, contact Dick Purcell at planscan.net , ask him to do it on Portfolio Pathfinder (or buy it and run it yourself), and he'll show you the mother of all asset allocation tools illustrating the concept, based on the posters stated needs and known income from Social Security. You will be free to change the default inflation assumption and other assumptions as you see fit.

I've given the Life Only and Life with Installment Refund numbers from Integrity Life above- they are guaranteed today for a 65 yr. old Arizona resident NET commissions, NET state premium taxes, and the exclusion ratios are also given. These numbers will undoubtedly change somewhat by the time the poster reaches age 65 in a couple of years, but they demonstrate the idea.

And Brewer, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I replied to Modhatter with information that I think should be considered by him carefully before he jumps into the stock market for the first time at age 63, with a handicapped son he must SAFELY provide for. I believe it is solid advice, you disagree, that's fine with me.

 

[Art]

Art, brewer12345 is a seasoned financial analyst for an investment fund.  He knows the business.   It isn't necessary that contributors agree and we give ourselves permission to test each others recommendations.

I agree with you, brat. And I didn't call HIM a "conman", just to refresh your memory.

 

[brewer12345]

Ohhhh-kaayyy, so you choose not to put up hard numbers when asked.  Gotcha.  I can see exactly how much weight to give the scare tactics, retreat from quantitative examination, and the blanket recommendations of a "tool" I'd have to cough up $700 to use.  Great.

I hate to tell you this, but this stuff isn't that hard or mystifying.  All insurance products can basically be decomposed into discounted cash flows, especially any kind of fixed annuity.  Hiding behind a sales pitch doesn't make it any more special.

I know why you rubbed me the wrong way: think of the last poster who insisted that all fixed income was the only way to go.  *****  

 

[Art]

I hate to tell you this, but this stuff isn't that hard or mystifying.

You're right, Brewer, it's not. Except for you. It's really pretty simple. This poster doesn't NEED to take market risk. Read his post again, and the SPIA numbers, and you may be able to figure this out yet. Without a spreadsheet. Nice chatting with you.

 

[brewer12345]

Likewise. Don't let the door hit you on the...

BTW, "In God We Trust, All Others Show Data".

 

[nfs]

This poster doesn't NEED to take market risk. Read his post again

How about this part of his post?

my objective is to preserve and hopefully grow my current assets in order to leave what I have for him.

Why did you ignore that?

In any case, this catfight is beside the point.

The original poster wants a $4100/month income from $1.4MM in assets. I question the $4100, because you don't need to gross $5700/month to net $4000/month in a low tax state like Arizona, especially if part of the income is SS - partially tax exempt - and/or dividends and capital gains - max rate 15% federal.

I will also underline, per the original post, that having sold his/her current house for $500k and a rental property for another $500k, still has a rental property in Arizona that throws off $800 per month.

I see $1.4MM in liquid assets after the sales. I see SS of $1600/month, rental income of $800/month, and a need to generate about another $2500/month max from a $1.4MM investment portfolio. This is a ~2% SWR.

It's a no-brainer, alright. Modhatter should plunk the money into a good balanced fund or roll his/her own and forget about it. No reasonable portfolio will fail with a 2% SWR.

I do think a no-lapse life Universal Life insurance policy for your son (NO cash value- just guaranteed death benefit forever) will secure his future and take pressure off you

This comment baffles me. Are you recommending that the original poster or the son be the life insured? What good would either do?

 

[Art]

nfs, your position makes sense if we EXCLUDE the possibility that the market is highly overvalued and may suffer a major, long-lasting correction. Given the fact that he wants to provide lifetime security for his handicapped son, I am not comfortable with excluding this possibility of a serious, long-lasting bear market. I am personally very bearish now, and this is how I feel about THIS case.

You are free to rule this possibility out, so is he.

If he wants maximum guarantees, the SPIA is an option he should consider.

If he buys a SPIA to cover his income needs for life, he will have more than enough each month to re-invest in index funds or I-Bonds or anything else, to help deal with inflation.

The no-lapse UL (on HIS life) would more than replace the money invested in the SPIA to provide guaranteed cash for his son. It's very simple. It works. It's not for everyone. He may or may not like it. He may want to use a combination of a SPIA WITH a portfolio of index funds, as SPIAs have been shown in several academic studies to increase the probability of portfolio survivability, as I said earlier. He may want to exclusively go with a port of index funds, or the coffeehouse portfolio.

My only problem is when people act as though there is NO CHANCE of a major, long-term correction. If he had no dependents, I would be much less cautious. The facts remain: none of us know the future, and he does not NEED to take on market risk if he doesn't want to.

 

[BristolBane]

I don't think a stock index fund is the right place for a 63 year old who is a self described stock novice, fears loss and places capital preservation above all. Sounds like fixed income land to me.

 

[haha]

Originally I read the OP's post, and didn't go further into the thread. I felt that his situation was specific and with hard constraints; so I didn't have any ideas that I felt would be worth much.

But after going through the thread, I have a general comment to make about the board. I know I can't evaluate Art's suggestions, without putting a lot of time into it that is probably not justified by my own situation. There is a whole knowledge base that I would have to master before my ideas would be worth anything. But I do know that he is an expert, he is not spamming, and most importantly, his ideas are not mere clones of most of the regular posters here.

Brewer has said that he is a credit analyst. Good credentials for many purposes to be sure, but maybe not reason enough to try to squelch someone with a different idea in the area of personal finance.

I mean is there anybody left around here who doesn't "know" that Wellesley is wonderful, that it is hard to lose permanent capital in index funds, and that Vanguard sits at the right hand of God the Father?

I think we should treat ideas given in good faith with more respect.

I am not an idiot, and I am not sure that the final word about financial success has been given by Bogle and Bernstein. Berstein after all is only a doctor who felt that writing about money might be more fun than trying to care for dying people. Bogle is a businessman who somehow managed to capture the moral high ground in the minds of a certain type of customer. Does this make either of them infallible?

In some past threads, Art lost control. IMO, in this thread he did not, in spite of being called names. (Indirectly to be sure.)

Information theory says that information content is related to novelty. If we want information, let's not chase away novelty.

Ha

 

[nfs]

nfs, your position makes sense if we EXCLUDE the possibility that the market is highly overvalued and may suffer a major, long-lasting correction.

Let me pay you a similar compliment. Your position makes sense if we EXCLUDE consideration of the original poster's objective "to preserve and hopefully grow my current assets". Your solution cannot accomplish that.

Up to now modhatter hasn't chimed back in, so we don't know the relative importance to him/her of the statements s/he made. I will grant that my solution can possibly fail some of the conditions. Be so kind as to admit that your solution will definitely fail some of the conditions.

Given the fact that he wants to provide lifetime security for his handicapped son, I am not comfortable with excluding this possibility of a serious, long-lasting bear market.

It could happen. I admit it. But modhatter wants something like a 2% SWR. There is no historical period in the US in which a 4% SWR caused a portfolio to fail. At 2%, no reasonable portfolio will fail anything short of catastrophe. If you would like to make a case that the next ten years will be worse than the Great Depression, go ahead. I've read all the doom and gloom books for the last 20 years and none of them came true. Maybe you finally have the timing right.

I am personally very bearish now, and this is how I feel about THIS case.

I do not believe that someone should make serious financial decisions based on how another person feels.

If he wants maximum guarantees, the SPIA is an option he should consider.

He can consider it. While he's at it, he should also consider that he is handing over about 1/3 of his loot to cover overhead and commissions. Perhaps nothing is more important to him than to have his loved ones taken care of forever, in which case he should be happy to pay one dollar out of every three for that guarantee.

He may want to use a combination of a SPIA WITH a portfolio of index funds, as SPIAs have been shown in several academic studies to increase the probability of portfolio survivability, as I said earlier.

He may. He should read those studies. They're worthwhile. He should note that most suggest waiting until long after age 63 to buy annuities.

My only problem is when people act as though there is NO CHANCE of a major, long-term correction. If he had no dependents, I would be much less cautious. The facts remain: none of us know the future, and he does not NEED to take on market risk if he doesn't want to.

You're right there. He doesn't need to take market risk. One of the possibilities he suggested himself was just to plunk the whole wad into 5% CDs and be done with it. That raises his tax bill over what I suggested and it probably means a drawdown out of inflation-adjusted capital that starts at around 1% per year. In that case, the portfolio would last about 50 years, which probably covers his son's life. No market risk, no filling the insurance company's pocket. It's a possibility.

<Bristol Bane>: I don't think a stock index fund is the right place for a 63 year old who is a self described stock novice, fears loss and places capital preservation above all. Sounds like fixed income land to me.

What if inflation takes off and fixed income gets creamed?

<HaHa>: But I do know that [Art] is an expert, he is not spamming, and most importantly, his ideas are not mere clones of most of the regular posters here. ... Information theory says that information content is related to novelty. If we want information, let's not chase away novelty.

Good advice. It is not, however, good advice to allow novelty's benefits to be touted without novelty's costs being explained.

There is nothing wrong with insurance or annuities per se. If you are scared witless about a risk, it is to your benefit that some kind soul will take the risk off your hands. In many cases, it makes sense. There may be no other way of covering off a risk. If you have no assets other than your ability to work and you have dependents, then you bloody well should be insured. But when you have serious money - the original poster does - and negligible risk that it can all be spent, then handing over 1/3 of your fortune to insurance agents and companies in order to lay off a tiny bit of risk seems incredibly dumb to me. That's just my opinion, mind you.

I don't know whether Art's an expert or not. He's a pretty good salesman. A salesman's primary objective is to get you to focus on the benefits of his product, not the cost. An annuity has benefits and Art has mentioned them all. Repeatedly. I challenge him to defend the cost side of the same ledger. Unless modhatter is incredibly risk averse, I suspect the cost of about 400 grand will outweigh the benefits Art has mentioned.

 

[laurence]

I mean is there anybody left around here who doesn't "know" that Wellesley is wonderful, that it is hard to lose permanent capital in index funds, and that Vanguard sits at the right hand of God the Father?

RTFLMAO! It is kind of a religion here, eh?

Information theory says that information content is related to novelty. If we want information, let's not chase away novelty.

Ha

I agree, but at the same time I hope we don't have to tear down and rehash every tenent of our "faith" either. I would love to see a clear, concise table listing the expenses and returns of highly graded annuities. A one page prospectus tells me 90% of what I need to know about a mutual fund, I would think something similar couild exist for an annuity. Honestly, I'm open to purchasing an annuity when I'm much older, as I believe my wife and my daughter will outlive me, and DW is totally uninterested in managing a portfolio. Then again, I may just buy coupon bonds, build a ladder in my twilight years...

 

[REWahoo]

I mean is there anybody left around here who doesn't "know" that Wellesley is wonderful, that it is hard to lose permanent capital in index funds, and that Vanguard sits at the right hand of God the Father?

Ha ol' buddy, don't be sacrilegious. Just drink the Kool-Aid and say "Amen".

REW

 

[Art]

Let me pay you a similar compliment.  Your position makes sense if we EXCLUDE consideration of the original poster's objective "to preserve and hopefully grow my current assets".  Your solution cannot accomplish that.

I challenge him to defend the cost side of the same ledger.  Unless modhatter is incredibly risk averse, I suspect the cost of about 400 grand will outweigh the benefits Art has mentioned.

No problem.

You are correct, the SPIA/life combo will not allow him to grow his assets. I'm not sure how important that really is to him, either.

A top-rated UL company using the new 2001 mortality table will cost a preferred plus Male 63 year old Arizona resident a single premium of $251,297.76 (to be exact) for a level $1,000,000 death benefit, or $16,962.41 on an annual pay basis, based on current interest rates and costs of insurance (COI).

If interest rates rise over many years and/or COI drops, he would be able to pay less in the later years.

If interests rates fall over many years and/or COI increases, he would need to pay more in the later years.

COI has dropped steadily for well over 100 years- but mortality rates can theoretically increase based on real doom and gloom.

To clarify this SPIA/Life concept:

If the OP decided at age 65 to invest $1,000,000 of his $1,400,000 after-tax assets (excluding his residence in Arizona and rental property in Arizona) into a Single Premium Immediate Annuity (SPIA) with a top-rated insurer, on a "Life and Installment Refund" basis (there are several settlement options to choose from), here's what he'd get:

30 days after the insurer received his $1,000,000 check, he would receive, by mail- or wired directly into his bank- a check for $6,100.75, every month for the rest of his life, guaranteed. SPIAs have been around for hundreds of years- this is not a new concept.

IF the $1,000,000 was after-tax money, as it is in this case, each $6,100.75 payment would get the benefit of a 61.5% IRS exclusion Ratio, since each payment would consist of his already taxed principal, and his untaxed interest.

So $3,751.96 of each check would be exempt from federal and state income taxes- and $2,348.79 of each check would be taxable.

This would continue for 22.21 years, after which, every check would be 100% taxable.

IF the OP died before recovering his $1,000,000- his beneficiary (probably his son's trust) would continue to receive these monthly checks until the entire $1,000,000 was recovered.

The monthly checks would stop at OP's death, or complete repayment of the $1,000,000 principal- whichever came LATER.

So, if OP lives to be 100, his payout would be $6,100.75 x 12 (months/year) x 35 (years)= $2,562,315. If he lives longer, the checks keep coming.

IF we add this $6,100.75 to his $1,600 Social Security check (increasing annually) and his $800 rental income, he has $$8,500/month (increasing with his SS increases) to live on.

He said he only needs to net $4,000/month.

He says he must gross $5,700/month to net $4,000- and I agree with nfs, I don't think he needs to gross that much, especially with the SPIA's exclusion ratio, but let's be conservative and go with his assumed tax rate.

That leaves $8,500/month (increasing with SS)- $5,700= $2,800/month of discretionary income ($33,609/year) to deal with inflation via I-Bonds, index funds, whatever.

UNLESS we are talking about Weimar Republic type hyperinflation (which, I don't think would have a very positive effect on index funds, either) I don't see any problems with this portfolio surviving forever.

That leaves $400,000 out of the original $1,400,000 to buy a $1,000,000 UL policy on his life (single premium of $251,000 or annual pay of $17,000) to benefit his handicapped son, plus the Arizona residence, Arizona rental, and whatever he saves from his original $400,000 and saves from his $33,600/year discretionary money).

I agree with Brewer that historical MCS and MPT studies say that ports that are entirely fixed income have lower survival rates than those that use equities... BUT... THAT DOES NOT MEAN that an entirely fixed income port with massive amounts of guaranteed income relative to withdrawals will not survive... does it.

As a matter of fact, as long as OP got the Long Term Care Insurance I suggested, it may be possible for him to increase his life insurance for his son without hurting his standard of living one bit.

If you read OP's post, he is burned out on real estate. He never owned a stock in his life, and he is 63- he knows he can lose money in the stock market.

The SPIA/UL approach is safe, simple and effective if backed by quality insurers. With this strategy, he can focus on his life and his son without caring about interest rates or the stock market. It's not for everyone, but it may be right for him. And thanks, Haha, for helping turn the emotional decibel level down a bit.  Now, back to the saltmines.

 

[brewer12345]

Originally I read the OP's post, and didn't go further into the thread. I felt that his situation was specific and with hard constraints; so I didn't have any ideas that I felt would be worth much.

But after going through the thread, I have a general comment to make about the board. I know I can't evaluate Art's suggestions, without putting a lot of time into it that is probably not justified by my own situation. There is a whole knowledge base that I would have to master before my ideas would be worth anything. But I do know that he is an expert, he is not spamming, and most importantly, his ideas are not mere clones of most of the regular posters here.

Brewer has said that he is a credit analyst. Good credentials for many purposes to be sure, but maybe not reason enough to try to squelch someone with a different idea in the area of personal finance.

I mean is there anybody left around here who doesn't "know" that Wellesley is wonderful, that it is hard to lose permanent capital in index funds, and that Vanguard sits at the right hand of God the Father?

I think we should treat ideas given in good faith with more respect.

I am not an idiot, and I am not sure that the final word about financial success has been given by Bogle and Bernstein. Berstein after all is only a doctor who felt that writing about money might be more fun than trying to care for dying people. Bogle is a businessman who somehow managed to capture the moral high ground in the minds of a certain type of customer. Does this make either of them infallible?

In some past threads, Art lost control. IMO, in this thread he did not, in spite of being called names. (Indirectly to be sure.)

Information theory says that information content is related to novelty. If we want information, let's not chase away novelty.

Ha

Hey, I certainly was not trying to chase anyone away. I tried (Oh Lord how I did try) to engage in a debate and I tried to get some numbers into the discussion. I am leery of taking anyone's assertions about anything wthout at least a cursory quantitative analysis. It was *****'s ignorance of basic math and almost religious zeal on his position that eventually got him drummed out of numerous forums. I'd rather have reasoned debate with numbers involved as a way to avoid such shenanigans in the future.

My basic beef with what Art was suggesting is that he was advocating what is essentially a 100% fixed income portfolio for someone who has to fund future needs for a disabled son and may have to cover 25+ years of living expenses over time. The survivability of such a portfolio is a lot lower than a 75/25 or 65/35 equity/fixed income portfolio, at least based on the historical record and most monte carlo analyses I have seen.

Like Haha, I think a diversity of views is helpful. Having said that, I also don't thinkit is unreasonable to expect reasoned debate, and I tend to get frustrated when the other party in the discussion won't go beyond assertion.

If you read carefully, you will note that I never mentioned a specific fund or portfolio, and I only mentioned Vanguard as a low cost way to buy index funds (which you could get almost anywhere). I also don't exactly worship at the church of Bogle.

In any case, I suspect we scared of the OP long ago. Hopefully they got the basic message to take their time, do some reading and make a decision only after thinking about it for a while.

 

[Lanie]

Modhatter,
Just to let you know. My sis has a retarded son who can't take care of himself. He is 40 yrs old and lives in a home. He has always recieved a disability check from ss.
Much to her surprise when she went to collect for ss they took a portion of her ss and sent it to him. They were told that once the parent starts collecting ss and the child doesn't live at home they get a portion of the parents ss in place of the disablility. This will continue as long as she lives. She was told that the only way out was for her to bring him back home to live. She is not able to do that.

 

[Brat]

They were told that once the parent starts collecting ss and the child doesn't live at home they get a portion of the parents ss in place of the disablility.   

That would be news to LOTS of folks!!! My sister and brother-in-law have a disabled son on Medciaid and SSI who lives in a supervised residence. 

The brother-in-law is a CSRS retiree.  Neither may not have enough quarters for SS coverage. 

They have never claimed him as a person disabled before adulthood.  I always wondered why because he might have been entitled to be covered by his Father's health plan.  Now I know.

 

[Martha]

M They were told that once the parent starts collecting ss and the child doesn't live at home they get a portion of the parents ss in place of the disablility. This will continue as long as she lives.

I am questioning this. The social security website only mentions collecting disability benifits for disabled children based on their parents' working record, not taking benefits away from parents. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10026.html#pgfId-1037876

From the site: John Jones starts collecting Social Security retirement benefits at the age of 62. He has a 38-year-old son, Ben, who has had cerebral palsy since birth. Ben will start collecting a disabled "child's" benefit on his father's Social Security record.

Edit: I think that until a parent starts collecting social security, the disabled adult child collects SSI. After the parent begins collecting social security, the child collects disability benefits as a percentage of the parent's benefits, but the parent's benefits are not reduced.

If I'm wrong, speak up.

 

[nfs]

This would continue for 22.21 years, after which, every check would be 100% taxable.

IF the OP died before recovering his $1,000,000- his beneficiary (probably his son's trust) would continue to receive these monthly checks until the entire $1,000,000 was recovered.

I.e. perhaps after only 22 years. What if his son's life expectancy is 40 years? To be fair, you almost immediately address that by

That leaves $400,000 out of the original $1,400,000 to buy a $1,000,000 UL policy on his life (single premium of $251,000 or annual pay of $17,000) to benefit his handicapped son, plus the Arizona residence, Arizona rental, and whatever he saves from his original $400,000 and saves from his $33,600/year discretionary money).

So it's 22 years later, OP dies, son's trust gets $1MM in life insurance. That might work for the remainder of son's life, but it depends mightily on inflation. Which you try to address here.

UNLESS we are talking about Weimar Republic type hyperinflation (which, I don't think would have a very positive effect on index funds, either) I don't see any problems with this portfolio surviving forever.

You should put some numbers to this. You talk about Weimar hyperinflation and dismiss it as unlikely - I agree BTW - but you neglect to mention the corrosive effect of continued modest inflation. No one would consider 3% a year to be hyperinflation, but in 22 years, the real value of the monthly check from the insurance company would be worth about half what it is today.

You know this is a problem, so you suggest that he use

$2,800/month of discretionary income ($33,609/year) to deal with inflation via I-Bonds, index funds, whatever.

That's a fairly astonishing backtrack IMO. You complain that the market is too high, that OP doesn't want or need to take market risk, that inflation will not be a problem, that insurance product will solve all his problems, and after all that, you suggest that he address the remaining problem by following a course that you have been denigrating through the entire thread.

 

[Art]

That's a fairly astonishing backtrack IMO.  You complain that the market is too high, that OP doesn't want or need to take market risk, that inflation will not be a problem, that insurance product will solve all his problems, and after all that, you suggest that he address the remaining problem by following a course that you have been denigrating through the entire thread.

No, I don't think so. My advice from the beginning was that this money (and the balance of the initial $400,000 after buying life insurance) would best be invested in I-Bonds. However, if OP has a real hankering to get into the stock market, I pointed out that he has the option of putting some or all of this discretionary money into index funds.

I probably wouldn't recommend it, but it's an option for him to consider- and I think it's much smarter for him to invest in the stock market this way, than to jump in with both feet with his entire $1,400,000 life savings as a novice, totally inexperienced investor at the tender age of 63, and with a handicapped son he must provide for for life.

I'll also repeat that a combined strategy of a SPIA and a portfolio of index funds (50/50, maybe) would, in my opinion, be a better strategy for him than a pure index fund portfolio. There is nothing sacred about the $1,000,000 commitment to a SPIA. My point is that the SPIA can, by itself, combined with the life insurance, accomplish his goals, without market risk. I think he should take all the time in the world to think about this carefully, but he should include this in his deliberations.

 

[TargaDave]

Don't know what "OP" means.

OP = Original poster

Used in a sentence: As the punches flew the OP ran for his life quitely slipped away unbeknownst to the gathering spectators. Sorry, it's hot outside.

 

[modhatter]

Well, I am back (the original poster) I was busy reading up on I-Bonds in order to answer Art, when all this errupted after my initial checking for responces. First, I will state the problem with my son. He is now 25 years old, and has suffered with severe ADHD for his entire life. This resulted in his doing very poorly in school and eventually dropping out. His attempts at holding a job allways resulted in his being terminated because of his inabillity to follow direction. He has of course been on medication, but with minimal success. However, about a year ago, he became delusional and was picked up by the police and committed to an instatution for 36 hours. Without going into a long story, he was diognosed with sehizophrinia. (not sure on spelling) The problem lies in his taking medication. The side effects are awful, coupled with the fact that while in a delusional state, he refuses to take his medication, which is the most common problem with the desease. Sometime he is normal, and sometime he is not. He is my only child and of course means the world to me.

He needs to be monitored and watched after, and if I could live forever, this would not be a problem. Even though my assets at this time seem adequate for my life time, I do not think they necessarily are for my sons as well. I can remember when only 35 years ago I made $40 a week, and chicken cost .20 Cents a pound. My first brand new car cost $2,300, and my first apartment cost $100 a month. I was able to live on a salary of $110. a week and still save enough to buy my first house for $28,000.

So those are the things that I am thinking about now. Trying to come up with the best solution to circumvent this forseeable problem of inflation, combined with the need for income. I did not mention in my earlier post that in addition to supporting myself and my son, I also supplement my elderly mother's support and retarded brother that lives with her, so it is difficult for me to economize as much as I would like to. Of course, my mother is 85 yrs old so it is not likely she will be here for too much longer. This will free up some on my financial needs plus give me about another $175,000 from the house I purchased for her.

I have much more to say from the investment side, but my bookkeeper just showed up and needs to get on the computer, so my response will have to be continued in Part 2. However, I have one question for Art. I read in a book that the I bonds traditionally pay about 3 % over the current CPI index. However isn't the actual rate of inflation (reportedly around 3 1/2% now) well above the current CPI ? Or am I wrong on that? Have to go. Well continue tonight when I get home or tomorrow morning. But mean while I want to thank all of you for your contributions.

 

[brewer12345]

modhatter:

The trouble with CPI, PPI and other inflation measures is that they are compiled based on what is thougt to be representative of the general economy, and they include some compromises made to meeasure inflation in things that are hard to measure. CPI, etc. do a decent job of showing general inflation in the economy, but may or may not accurately reflect an individual's exposure to inflation. For example, I am disproportionately affected by price increases in my real estate taxes and gasoline/heating oil. Other inflationary items completely pass me by. Many ERs find that they are way disproportionately affected by health care inflation.

 

[Art]

Modhatter:

Ditto to everything Brewer just said. For what it's worth, the current crop of I-Bonds uses an annualized CPI-U of 3.58%. This will vary over time, but the FIXED component of 1.2% (on current I-Bonds) will not change, giving today's I-Bond buyers a current rate of 4.8%.

If you go to this link, the first paragraph gives more info:

                      http://tinyurl.com/8ggvb

Welcome back. We look forward to hearing from you when you have time.

Art

 

[justin]

Art,

You said you were concerned about a long-term recession where the market index funds do very poorly for a long, long time. Your solution to this problem was a variety of insurance products. My understanding of the insurance industry is that they invest in a variety of things to get returns sufficient to pay out annuities and life insurance benefits, among other things. A large portion of what they invest in would be subject to market risk. Under your assupmtion of a worst-case multi-decade recession and down market, wouldn't many insurance companies go belly up?

It doesn't seem like putting large amounts of your capital with an insurance company or two is a good way to avoid the risk of a severe recession that lasts for many many years, if the insurance company itself is subject to market risks.

 

[brewer12345]

Art,

You said you were concerned about a long-term recession where the market index funds do very poorly for a long, long time.  Your solution to this problem was a variety of insurance products.  My understanding of the insurance industry is that they invest in a variety of things to get returns sufficient to pay out annuities and life insurance benefits, among other things.  A large portion of what they invest in would be subject to market risk.  Under your assupmtion of a worst-case multi-decade recession and down market, wouldn't many insurance companies go belly up? 

It doesn't seem like putting large amounts of your capital with an insurance company or two is a good way to avoid the risk of a severe recession that lasts for many many years, if the insurance company itself is subject to market risks.

Most insurance companies back the types of products Art was suggesting with bonds, specifically a mix of bonds that is typically 90+% investment grade. The biggest threats to these companies would be 1) a bad run of defaults, which did in fact pound the industry badly in 2002 and 2003, and 2) a prolonged period of very low interest rates (almost killed most Japanese life insurers). The best companies have taken on relatively risk and have a lot of capital to back up their liabilities. The ones offering the richest payouts generally have less capital and have assumed more risk.