- Thread starter
- #31
- 2,455
OB1,
You didnt get my point, if he is actually using the riders, the VA is a better option and just as guaranteed.
JN has better subaccount options than others, so it makes sense to use it for growth; but that doesnt mean that another VA might not be a good fit for the guarantees
If its NQ, that would make a much larger case for LFGs I-for-life rider... especially over the IA
Not only would it be a better option for the client, but you would get paid more too
The rider on the JN V/A at 5 years comes in at $32k I want to say compared to 40.5k on the FIA worse case if I remember. I know it wasn't nearly as good as the FIA granted it should be better but no guarantee it will.
I'm not following having two V/As. The idea is that even in a year/s where the V/A is not doing what it is supposed to do or what we would like it to do rather, that we know what the FIA is going to do.
Are you suggesting having one V/A without the income rider?
As far as the commish, the FIA pays better taking into consideration the grid. We don't factor in commish when using product but it is always nice to know what the commish is. The FIA commish would be the three yr trail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Are the payout percentages guaranteed in the contract?
Yes they are and that is a good question. Something happens in 20 years but as for the contractual agreement, it has been scrutinized and approved by the client (they are good with it). I need to brush up on the twenty year part because right now it escapes me.
Last edited: