Best FIA's for Cash Growth

[scagnt83]

It is 50% on the Account Value, which is used for the Income Value as well.

Even based on the Min guarantee the income rider is very competitive because of higher than average payout rates.

 

[KRobby]

It is 50% on the Account Value, which is used for the Income Value as well.

Even based on the Min guarantee the income rider is very competitive because of higher than average payout rates.

If it was 50% bonus on the account value, 100k would be 150k. I think it's just 50% on the interest, and credited towards the account and income values.

For example, Forethought 115 has a true 15% bonus on the income value. 100k becomes 115k.

 

[scagnt83]

It is a 50% Bonus on the credited rate, not the deposit.

In other words, the credited rate each year is multiplied by 150%.

So as a previous post pointed out, a 6% gain would become a 9% gain.

My main point was to point out that there is no separate calculation/account for the income rider. The income value is based on account value.

 

[SanDiego619]

It is a 50% Bonus on the credited rate, not the deposit. In other words, the credited rate each year is multiplied by 150%. So as a previous post pointed out, a 6% gain would become a 9% gain. My main point was to point out that there is no separate calculation/account for the income rider. The income value is based on account value.

At least that is true of the 360 yes. The 222 and 365i both have income account values.

----------

Please see this previous post of mine on page 4 where I go through a quick rundown of the preferred products and where they fit.http://www.insurance-forums.net/forum/annuities-forum/nationwide-new-heights-t62179-4.html

 

[scagnt83]

At least that is true of the 360 yes. The 222 and 365i both have income account values.

----------

Please see this previous post of mine on page 4 where I go through a quick rundown of the preferred products and where they fit.http://www.insurance-forums.net/forum/annuities-forum/nationwide-new-heights-t62179-4.html

Im pretty sure the 360 is the one Krobby was speaking of.

I would second reading the link SanDiego posted, it is a very good overview of the Allianz Preferred Products. I have used it for reference more than once.

 

[SanDiego619]

Im pretty sure the 360 is the one Krobby was speaking of. I would second reading the link SanDiego posted, it is a very good overview of the Allianz Preferred Products. I have used it for reference more than once.

I figured, I was just making sure since the 222 has the same 150% feature and could get easily mixed up.

And thank you. Glad it is of some help!

 

[jmhalvo]

I figured, I was just making sure since the 222 has the same 150% feature and could get easily mixed up. And thank you. Glad it is of some help!

wouldn't the 222 be best even if the client want income before year 10? I mean, with no rider fee AND a 1% better spread, that's 2% a year difference. With that difference the client could start income in year 5 or whatever with free withdrawals and kick in GMWB in year 11. I like no fees; beats 360 I bet in overall performance either way (income now or later or never)

 

[SanDiego619]

wouldn't the 222 be best even if the client want income before year 10? I mean, with no rider fee AND a 1% better spread, that's 2% a year difference. With that difference the client could start income in year 5 or whatever with free withdrawals and kick in GMWB in year 11. I like no fees; beats 360 I bet in overall performance either way (income now or later or never)

I've run a million illustrations using different examples like that scenario. For an income play the 360 is very very hard to beat. The growing payout percentage in conjunction with the 150% crediting is what makes the 360 so competitive. 222 definitely has it's fit with the right clients (as I outlined in that other thread) but the 360 is more commonly written because it can be used in so many ways. As an accumulation play, the 360 walk away value will kill the 222 even with just ok market performance.

 

[jmhalvo]

I've run a million illustrations using different examples like that scenario. For an income play the 360 is very very hard to beat. The growing payout percentage in conjunction with the 150% crediting is what makes the 360 so competitive. 222 definitely has it's fit with the right clients (as I outlined in that other thread) but the 360 is more commonly written because it can be used in so many ways. As an accumulation play, the 360 walk away value will kill the 222 even with just ok market performance.

explain. If the 222 has a better spread, 150% int credit bonus, a GMWB with potential increases, and no fee, how is that not the better accumulation play? No, the PIV is not walk away, (however it is a death Ben over 5 yrs), but we can't know performance in advance. We CAN know the fees in advance.

 

[FBN]

I wonder if a software program exists that takes these different features of FIAs and runs a comparison of accumulation value, income, etc for different client scenarios?