Ricp

scagnt83 said:
Always? That makes me worry about bias in the course material... there is never one right answer for every situation. What assumptions were they using for the investments/income from investments?
Click to expand...

I'm going to give my feedback at the point in the course I'm at. I've completed the first course of the 3, and am 2/3 of the way thru the 2nd. Of course, "it depends". There are a couple securities guys who claim that securities will always do better, and they've yet to be shown a scenario where an annuity solution will do better than a securities mix in the long run. The stats they throw around are that using a "safe withdrawal rate" (4%-ish, but not quite that simple), that almost 100% of the time all the principal is left in the portfolio after the retirement period is over, and the median portfolio has even grown to over 1.5 times the initial size.

Now there are a couple annuities guys who preach that at least some component of insurance is necessary for nest eggs in retirement. I was pretty impressed with several videos presented by Curtis Cloke about annuities, including a couple case studies he put together by using different types of annuities guaranteeing income for life for necessary expenses like rent, medical, etc.

They do focus quite a bit on more than the numbers, and get into the behavioral finance side of things. Stuff like: clients' piece of mind, why they do what they do, how to frame conversations in a way where they understand why the advice you're giving them is a better decision for them to make, etc. It's helping them prepare for the "lifestyle" of retirement, moreso than just the question of if they're financially ready. Lastly, they get into minimizing taxes as much as possible.

The biggest take-aways for me so far are the importance of maximizing social security, working as long as is possible, and minimizing longevity risk.
 
jmhalvo said:
This is silly argument to me - no offense - but it's two different and competing ideas. What I mean is: if you are comfortable that securities will do well over time, and that ends up being true during your retirement, then of course VAs and GMWBs are a drag on returns and lose the race. But: you buy them IN CASE the securities don't win. You want guarantees. And, if markets are down in your retirement (over time, they probably aren't, but you don't know that for sure in advance) then the "insurance" trumps securities. So the idea that one always trumps is nonsense.

----------

And of course only one of the two provides the peace of mind of not outliving your income
Click to expand...

When did I say that one idea trumps another? I said the exact opposite.
It was the poster that I responded to that said the RICP course tells you that investments trump insurance.

As far as "competing ideas"; it does not have to be, one can compliment the other. Diversification extends beyond an equity portfolio.
 
Last edited:
scagnt83 said:
When did I say that one idea trumps another? I said the exact opposite. It was the poster that I responded to that said the RICP course tells you that investments trump insurance. As far as "competing ideas"; it does not have to be, one can compliment the other. Diversification extends beyond an equity portfolio.
Click to expand...
you didn't - I was agreeing with your response to the original poster. He said it trumped. He was silly not you. I guess I quoted the wrong post
 
nocamo33 said:
I am not silly, I am saying what the text said at the end of the course. Thanks.
Click to expand...
I knew that - sorry I was not calling you out. But as a stand-alone statement it is silly that they would print that. One is bought for markets doing well over time , one is bought in case they don't. ( of course if all they meant was that VAs have fees that cut into gains, well of course!)
 
I don't see the argument against annuities if we are looking at more than just the idea of "performance/growth."
The purpose for a FIA isn't just about growth...it's about income. Income that is guaranteed for purposes like: long term care expenses, rising medical costs, etc.
FIA's are great for specific income goals...if client has all their money at risk, what happens in a LTC event or if funds lose 30% during a given period during retirement?
 
As a CRPC and CFP I would recommend trying out the CRPC first. It's basically CFP light at about 10-20% of the content. If you like it and do well it is a very easy transition to studying for the CFP. I would concur that getting a firm to pay for the education would be best though I footed the tuition for both and have no regrets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top