- 3,764
That guy is just randomly posting in old threads. Just ignore him
Dave Ramsey Owns an Annuity
- Thread starter 0b1kanobee
- Start date
-
- Tags
- annuity
That guy is just randomly posting in old threads. Just ignore him
- 4,686
He's just padding his post count today.
- 3,764
it's sad isn't it?? Why don't you try and make meaningful posts, as opposed to just randomly go thru threads and type jibberish
- 3,764
Not surprised. Your both idiots. Keep only recommending term insurance to your clients thru an insurance agency that pays you a kick back.
CaNewAgent
Expert
- 71
Why do you guys discredit Dave Ramsey so much? I know a couple of guys who teach his philosophies. They seem to make sense to me.
Here are 2 mutual funds that have averaged 11.8 and 11.9 percent from the funds inception. Depending on market conditions, they have returned much more and much less but the average is the average and cannot be denied.
American Funds, Washington Mutual Fund...Lifetime 11.8
American Funds, Investment Company of America....Lifetime 11.9
These figures are based on 12/31/2012. The average will be up at the end of the year.
While not all VA's are good products, there are a lot of good ones. Much much better than FA, in my opinion.
Here are 2 mutual funds that have averaged 11.8 and 11.9 percent from the funds inception. Depending on market conditions, they have returned much more and much less but the average is the average and cannot be denied.
American Funds, Washington Mutual Fund...Lifetime 11.8
American Funds, Investment Company of America....Lifetime 11.9
These figures are based on 12/31/2012. The average will be up at the end of the year.
While not all VA's are good products, there are a lot of good ones. Much much better than FA, in my opinion.
- 349
The problem with averages is they do not show true returns. If you 100000 and the markets fell 40% the first year and rose 40% the second the average is 0 but you would have lost 16,000 in principle 12% looks great in but what did they perform each year and what was the true gain if you had money in them. You ave to have highs and lows to get an average. I'm sure over the long run its fine. Dave gives bad advice on life insurance. Why wouldn't you want a product that grows tax differed has the ability to produce tax free income and passes on tax free to your heirs
- 4,132
Ok investment company of America fund A shares Opened 1934
lifetime return 12% most recent quarter end 10 year 8% 5 year 4% 3year 10%
So if you stared in 1934, yea, you're pretty golden. If you started 5 years ago, you've made 4% on your money....
Washington Mutual investors started in 1952 11.82% lifetime.
14% most recent quarter end. 10 year 8.2% 5 year 5.2%
Are you honestly using fund starting dates to make your point? Hopefully, you're not securities licensed. Both funds are good, no question and they have performed well, but to cite lifetime ESPECIALLY WHEN THE HISTORY IS SO OLD IS DECEPTIVE.
What I see when I look at those numbers is a fund that had enough growth in the past to survive the hit of the recent past.
Do you feel it's important to a current investor to include a 56.3% total return in 1954? What about the 33% total return loss in 2008?
Don't get me wrong, I like American funds, I've sold them for many years, I would never pull that lifetime return out, especially when it's so very old and use that as anything. Outside of saying they weathered the storm over a long period of time. But it isn't as important as what's been happening in the last 10 years.
There are just too many economic changes through that long of a history that we may never see again. REMEMBER THAT PART ABOUT PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT AN INDICATOR OF FUTURE RETURNS? This is exactly why.
lifetime return 12% most recent quarter end 10 year 8% 5 year 4% 3year 10%
So if you stared in 1934, yea, you're pretty golden. If you started 5 years ago, you've made 4% on your money....
Washington Mutual investors started in 1952 11.82% lifetime.
14% most recent quarter end. 10 year 8.2% 5 year 5.2%
Are you honestly using fund starting dates to make your point? Hopefully, you're not securities licensed. Both funds are good, no question and they have performed well, but to cite lifetime ESPECIALLY WHEN THE HISTORY IS SO OLD IS DECEPTIVE.
What I see when I look at those numbers is a fund that had enough growth in the past to survive the hit of the recent past.
Do you feel it's important to a current investor to include a 56.3% total return in 1954? What about the 33% total return loss in 2008?
Don't get me wrong, I like American funds, I've sold them for many years, I would never pull that lifetime return out, especially when it's so very old and use that as anything. Outside of saying they weathered the storm over a long period of time. But it isn't as important as what's been happening in the last 10 years.
There are just too many economic changes through that long of a history that we may never see again. REMEMBER THAT PART ABOUT PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT AN INDICATOR OF FUTURE RETURNS? This is exactly why.
- 3,764
Well put. Who knows how the next 80 years in the market will play out.
If an advisor is out there claiming 10-12% return yearly, run.
