Ohio National and Constellation

[scagnt83]

I used 1.75% for management fees for a portfolio under $1m to keep it "apples to apples"(but it would still be shocking for 1-1.5%).

2.8% is the current safe withdrawal rate, but I'd still get a similar staggering number for 4%.

So you are using an above average management fee... and a below average withdrawal rate....

In a historic bull market, how is the "current safe withdrawal rate"?
That makes zero sense. If anything it should be 1% higher than the old rate of 4%... not 1% lower.

1.75% is a very high assumption. A person pays that much only if they dont know any better.

 

[scagnt83]

ETFs without advisor fees are going to be for the "Do-It-Yourself" investor. Granted, these fees were high, but this may not be the right kind of client.

Plenty of robo-advisors that manage ETF portfolios at very low expense ratios. Those same algorithms are driving the recommendations of asset managers who charge 1% (1.75% is ridiculous for simple asset management and certainly not the norm or average).

Maybe an old school "broker" who is just selling mutual funds might be at that range on a combined basis.

And you never mentioned the rate of return you are using.

 

[DHK]

2.8% is the safe withdrawal rate.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/3557356-is-4-rule-becoming-2-rule

Time for the 3% Withdrawal Rule?

Dr. Wade Pfau adjusted his to 2.4%
Wade Pfau: Coronavirus Tears Up 4% Retirement Rule | ThinkAdvisor

 

[DHK]

And you never mentioned the rate of return you are using.

I compared a lump-sum to lump-sum based on the cash flow needed.

As far as a rate of return on the qualified money? Immaterial. Why? Because you can't beat the tax situation chasing rates of return.

I already showed the equivalent rate of return that would need to be beat EACH YEAR is 11.5%. Show me an investment that will do that on an almost guaranteed basis... and we can compare that.

You can't beat taxes by chasing rates of return. That's a losing proposition.

 

[scagnt83]

As far as a rate of return on the qualified money? Immaterial. Why? Because you can't beat the tax situation chasing rates of return.

.....

You can't beat taxes by chasing rates of return. That's a losing proposition.

That is bullsh*t.

Im a fan of WL and IUL as much as anyone.

But selling it by selling lies is no way to advance this industry.

WL is an amazing product, it needs no false narratives to be sold.

And that comment certainly is not coming from your ChFC training. Rate of return most certainly is material in a retirement savings scenario. Just as much as taxes are.

 

[scagnt83]

I already showed the equivalent rate of return that would need to be beat EACH YEAR is 11.5%. Show me an investment that will do that on an almost guaranteed basis... and we can compare that.

Your scenario is not on a guaranteed basis. Why do you want the alternative to be?

Show me your income scenario with Guaranteed assumptions. We both know that is not matching an 11% return.. no matter the tax status.

 

[scagnt83]

2.8% is the safe withdrawal rate.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/3557356-is-4-rule-becoming-2-rule

Time for the 3% Withdrawal Rule?

Dr. Wade Pfau adjusted his to 2.4%
Wade Pfau: Coronavirus Tears Up 4% Retirement Rule | ThinkAdvisor

Those are a few white papers pushing the "possibility" of needing to reassess the 4% rule because of low bond yields.

I can show you multiple white papers by people with the same credentials showing the exact opposite because of longevity and need for different portfolio allocations earlier in retirement.

And since bond yields are on the rise this year. That possibility could be going away very shortly.

Also, the original 60/40 4% rule was using mainly treasuries. Most financial planners are using AAAs and Munis.

 

[DHK]

Amazon product ASIN 1495830713

 

[DHK]

That is bullsh*t.

Im a fan of WL and IUL as much as anyone.

But selling it by selling lies is no way to advance this industry.

WL is an amazing product, it needs no false narratives to be sold.

And that comment certainly is not coming from your ChFC training. Rate of return most certainly is material in a retirement savings scenario. Just as much as taxes are.

Don't you ever accuse me of selling lies.

I'm done.

 

[scagnt83]

Don't you ever accuse me of selling lies.

I'm done.

Saying rate of return is immaterial to retirement planning is a lie.

Something called MATH AND LOGIC says so.

You are welcome to clarify your comment.
Or provide factual based proof that it doesnt matter what return the portfolio gets simply because of taxes.
And I will be happy to take back my comment.