401K's
65 RepliesJump to last post
If you own underlying stocks etc, your looking at a total cost of 1%
1% every year, so by you mind numbing math, you are taking more of a commision than an annuity salesman in year eight!
[quote=anonymous]
I happen to agree that 2.3% is expensive. The more important point is whether it is worth paying the extra money. This brings the discussion to investor returns vs. investment returns. From what I've seen in my practice, the guarantees in the VA have a huge benefit when it comes to investor returns. Despite paying extra money, my VA clients do much better in VAs than they would in other investments. This is why I have them in VAs in the first place.
For many other investors, the guarantees of the VA make no difference. For these investors, VAs are not appropriate, thus we don't use VAs.
[/quote]There is something we all agree on,
1) From the perspective of pure investment returns, the VA is going to greatly lag the underlying investments or a managed account, because of the much higher cost structure.
That's been the main point that I've been trying to make the whole time. And if clients need VA's for whatever reason, then various directly sold VA's (VG/Fidelity) are the way to go.
2) Some clients find value in the guarantees in excess of the economic cost of those guarantee's.
[quote=AllREIT]
[quote=anonymous]
I happen to agree that 2.3% is expensive. The more important
point is whether it is worth paying the extra money. This brings
the discussion to investor returns vs. investment returns. From
what I’ve seen in my practice, the guarantees in the VA have a huge
benefit when it comes to investor returns. Despite paying extra money,
my VA clients do much better in VAs than they would in other
investments. This is why I have them in VAs in the first place.
For many other investors, the guarantees of the VA make no
difference. For these investors, VAs are not appropriate, thus we
don’t use VAs.
There is something we all agree on,
1) From the perspective of pure investment returns, the VA is going to
greatly lag the underlying investments or a managed account, because of
the much higher cost structure.
That’s been the main point that I’ve been trying to make the whole
time. And if clients need VA’s for whatever reason, then various
directly sold VA’s (VG/Fidelity) are the way to go.
2) Some clients find value in the guarantees in excess of the economic
cost of those guarantee’s.
[/quote]
No, that’s not something we all agree upon.
[quote=AllREIT] [quote=anonymous]
I happen to agree that 2.3% is expensive. The more important point is whether it is worth paying the extra money. This brings the discussion to investor returns vs. investment returns. From what I've seen in my practice, the guarantees in the VA have a huge benefit when it comes to investor returns. Despite paying extra money, my VA clients do much better in VAs than they would in other investments. This is why I have them in VAs in the first place.
For many other investors, the guarantees of the VA make no difference. For these investors, VAs are not appropriate, thus we don't use VAs.
[/quote]
There is something we all agree on,
1) From the perspective of pure investment returns, the VA is going to greatly lag the underlying investments or a managed account, because of the much higher cost structure.
That's been the main point that I've been trying to make the whole time. And if clients need VA's for whatever reason, then various directly sold VA's (VG/Fidelity) are the way to go.
2) Some clients find value in the guarantees in excess of the economic cost of those guarantee's.
[/quote]
AllREITARD, you are ignoring the performance "structure."