Equity Management (missed fortune and IBC)

[James]

I think you probably meant "opinion". And the answer is no. I've studied the plan and don't deem it a fit for 95%+ of the population.

I'm not sure where you are getting the 95%+ from but yet I would say 15+ plus would be more accurate number. Yet that is yanked out of the clear blue, I consider anyone that doesn't want to invest in Securities as a potential candidate. Now of course ones ability to go on a plan and stick with it is what drives down the number to 15%, at least IMHO.

 

[johncm]

[

sman, I just want to be clear. I do not think you are wrong in any manner.

That's good. Because I don't think I am either.

Look at the attachment. It looks very good. It's hard to argue numbers. But it is only one year. But it looks good.

Like I said (and you said) it's just one year and it's well below what investors in the index realized.[/quote]



I wasn't going to say any more. Butttttttttttt....................

I'm not wrong either. I only showed you one year. Never said it was the only year. Man some people have a very high horsey. Get off and see what's left behind sometimes. believe it or not every ones' poop stinks.

Man, I tell you 12% no risk with an ultimate tax free income stream, I see smiles. My camp sleeps at night. But guess what, some of your camp does too. They can stomach it. The ones who can't should have done a little more, spreading money around. Annuities come to mind also here.

sman, can we agree to disagree. Your a good egg, lets leave it at that.

 

[James]

The ones who can't should have done a little more, spreading money around. Annuities come to mind also here.

What amazes me is all the bad press Annuities get within our own industry? Lets face it, the Greatest Generation (as noted by the book) is thought of being the most affluent of all in the senior years that the world has ever seen, yet how did they do it? It would seem to me many of the affluent have a high amount of their savings from very young ages stuck in things like Annuities and CD's. Neither product today is much touted as a good retirement fund. Yet it is just those things that finance that generations retirement in a large way today, yet some consider it a crime to even suggest using either as a retirement savings vehicle. Of course todays Qualified Accounts is growing to a large amount also, but lets face it, most studies show that the Baby Boomers for the most part are lagging behind the parents or grandparents in retirement preperations. Makes one go hummmmmm??????

I still use the old line that X today invested in Annuities means XX in XXX amount of years for life! As in it never stops as long as you are alive to cash the check! Great little spill I think.

 

[johncm]

James, you are so right. Fortunes have been lost and annuties are always the winners.
Know do you know the story of Babe Ruth.
When the stock market crashed during the depression, all his team mates lost. He was the only onw 95% in annuties. He felt goo.

OJ, As guilty as he is, he is living the the good life, still. The civil lawsuit can not even touch his multi million dollar annuity.

There are a ton of examples.

 

[Premium financer]

Johncm- I have used that OJ example more times than I can count. You gotta love the the protection of living in Florida.

Regarding 'missed fortune', I must say the theory of arbitrage works with bonds, annuities, and life products. I have seen the scenario work in person, considering I was formerly a mortgage banker and I worked with financial planners offering mainly life products and annuities. Arbirtrage is not all based on interest rates, but more on the overall aftertax savings.

I am a huge advocate of seperating your equity and letting your money work for you. This is a win-win-win situtation.
Agents- large commissons on invesments (on average premiums from 100k-200k from my experience)
Banker- commissons (commissons on pulling out the equity)
client- safety, rate of return, possible death benefit, liquidity.

 

[Mr. Bill]

Ummmm....Premium financer - an agent who is receiving $100-200k in commissions is NOT doing right by the client!

The client should be in a position that IF THEY NEEDED TO, they would be able to completely get out of their investment within a short period of time. Midland used to have such a policy, but they do not want it from equity draws.

The agent who exaggerates his/her commissions is simply putting too much at risk. It's a lot easier to sue an insurance agent than a mortgage broker who adds in fees, as well.