Remember when we thought MF were cheaper than VA?

or Register to post new content in the forum

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Jun 23, 2009 12:23 am

I used to mindlessly buy into this logic as well until I did the math.  Don't believe me, take 1/2hr and build the spreadsheet.  I was quite surprised.  Even for me personally and I can buy A-shares at NAV, the VA is still a better investment and I didn't include the 1% trail Pacific Life would give me on my money as opposed to the piddly 12b-1 I'd have taken from me and then returned minus the B/D share.

Jun 23, 2009 12:19 pm

You did a spreadsheet?  Why not a hypo.  With the full load, a  B share annuity comes out well behind an A share after 7 years using the corresponding subaccount for the A share.  Nice try though.

Jun 23, 2009 11:14 pm

i think if you are comparing a fully loaded mutual fund wrap account at 1.5% to a va with no riders you are close to the same costs.  but if you start adding in living benefits and other riders the cost typically is about .5-1% higher on the va.

Jun 24, 2009 10:10 am

Berkshire Bull:

Please post your numbers.
Jack Black