Index annuities or variable annuities?
23 RepliesJump to last post
If you find annuities are appropriate for your clients do you prefer index or variable annuities? Why? Which ones do you like? Thanks!
[quote=ckey]
If you find annuities are appropriate for your clients do you prefer index or variable annuities? Why? Which ones do you like? Thanks!
[/quote]
I like VA's for people who need VA's and EIA's for people who need EIA's.
Fixed annuities are for people who need to SAVE their assets.
Variable annuities are for people who need to GROW their assets.
but there are better and cheaper ways for the client to accomplish both.
Just comparing the two alternatives and assuming suitability is met, I have not seen any reason to use an EIA over a VA IF you use the Minimum Guaranteed Income Benefit (MGIB), except for the broker making more money (and you already make good money on the VA). Now there are a LOT of different EIAs, so I'm only comparing to the ones I've seen, but here is my reason.
They both guarantee a minimum amount of money returned to the client at some point in time. They both offer the opportunity for higher returns based on market performance. From what I've seen, the EIB guarantees lower minimum returns than the VA and the EIB caps the potential returns.
So if the EIB has lower guarantees and lower upside potential, what is its advantage over the VA? I don't know, I haven't found one.
[quote=vagabond]
Just comparing the two alternatives and assuming suitability is met, I have not seen any reason to use an EIA over a VA IF you use the Minimum Guaranteed Income Benefit (MGIB), except for the broker making more money (and you already make good money on the VA). Now there are a LOT of different EIAs, so I'm only comparing to the ones I've seen, but here is my reason.
They both guarantee a minimum amount of money returned to the client at some point in time. They both offer the opportunity for higher returns based on market performance. From what I've seen, the EIB guarantees lower minimum returns than the VA and the EIB caps the potential returns.
So if the EIB has lower guarantees and lower upside potential, what is its advantage over the VA? I don't know, I haven't found one.
[/quote]
You're an idiot. Seriously...you're an idiot.
Do yourself a favor and try not to find reasons to sell annuities in general. If you need an annuity as 1035 replacement for some old shiiit some ahole sold a potential client - the use Jefferson National. It's no load, no surrenders and has a lot of good sub-accounts. www.jeffnat.com if you're interested.
Otherwise, just sell whatever pays you the most because your carreer will likely be short.
[quote=Bobby Hull][quote=vagabond]
Just comparing the two alternatives and assuming suitability is met, I have not seen any reason to use an EIA over a VA IF you use the Minimum Guaranteed Income Benefit (MGIB), except for the broker making more money (and you already make good money on the VA). Now there are a LOT of different EIAs, so I'm only comparing to the ones I've seen, but here is my reason.
They both guarantee a minimum amount of money returned to the client at some point in time. They both offer the opportunity for higher returns based on market performance. From what I've seen, the EIB guarantees lower minimum returns than the VA and the EIB caps the potential returns.
So if the EIB has lower guarantees and lower upside potential, what is its advantage over the VA? I don't know, I haven't found one.
[/quote]
You're an idiot. Seriously...you're an idiot.
[/quote]
That really hurts my feelings, especially coming from someone who I have yet to see add any substance to this forum. Please explain where a EIA is suitable when a VA with MGIB is not.
[quote=vagabond][quote=Bobby Hull][quote=vagabond]
Just comparing the two alternatives and assuming suitability is met, I have not seen any reason to use an EIA over a VA IF you use the Minimum Guaranteed Income Benefit (MGIB), except for the broker making more money (and you already make good money on the VA). Now there are a LOT of different EIAs, so I'm only comparing to the ones I've seen, but here is my reason.
They both guarantee a minimum amount of money returned to the client at some point in time. They both offer the opportunity for higher returns based on market performance. From what I've seen, the EIB guarantees lower minimum returns than the VA and the EIB caps the potential returns.
So if the EIB has lower guarantees and lower upside potential, what is its advantage over the VA? I don't know, I haven't found one.
[/quote]
You're an idiot. Seriously...you're an idiot.
[/quote]
That really hurts my feelings, especially coming from someone who I have yet to see add any substance to this forum. Please explain where a EIA is suitable when a VA with MGIB is not.
[/quote]
How about when a conservative investor doesn't want to lose any money? If you understood the products, you'd realize how stupid your question was.
[quote=brandnewadvisor]
Do yourself a favor and try not to find reasons to sell annuities in general. If you need an annuity as 1035 replacement for some old shiiit some ahole sold a potential client - the use Jefferson National. It's no load, no surrenders and has a lot of good sub-accounts. www.jeffnat.com if you're interested.
Otherwise, just sell whatever pays you the most because your carreer will likely be short.
[/quote]
This is the product you just recommended for a client who wants extremely limited market risk (cut from the website you referred us to): "Monument Advisor does not provide enhanced living benefits, withdrawal benefits, or guaranteed death benefits. Variable annuities involve risk, including the possible loss of principal. The value of the variable accounts will fluctuate, and when redeemed, your contract may be worth more or less than the original investment. Until distributed, the Death Benefit amount in the investment portfolios is subject to investment risk." Why even use the annuity? Oh, and they have a "B" rating from AM Best.
Do yourself a favor and try not to say anything else.
[quote=Bobby Hull][quote=vagabond][quote=Bobby Hull][quote=vagabond]
Just comparing the two alternatives and assuming suitability is met, I have not seen any reason to use an EIA over a VA IF you use the Minimum Guaranteed Income Benefit (MGIB), except for the broker making more money (and you already make good money on the VA). Now there are a LOT of different EIAs, so I'm only comparing to the ones I've seen, but here is my reason.
They both guarantee a minimum amount of money returned to the client at some point in time. They both offer the opportunity for higher returns based on market performance. From what I've seen, the EIB guarantees lower minimum returns than the VA and the EIB caps the potential returns.
So if the EIB has lower guarantees and lower upside potential, what is its advantage over the VA? I don't know, I haven't found one.
[/quote]
You're an idiot. Seriously...you're an idiot.
[/quote]
That really hurts my feelings, especially coming from someone who I have yet to see add any substance to this forum. Please explain where a EIA is suitable when a VA with MGIB is not.
[/quote]
How about when a conservative investor doesn't want to lose any money? If you understood the products, you'd realize how stupid your question was.
[/quote]
A conservative investor that doesn't want to lose any money can accomplish this with the MGIB VA.
I understand the MGIB very well. As I said from the beginning, My EIB comparison is limited to the products that I have researched. A couple years ago I dug deep into what was supposed to be the best selling EIB on the market. Maybe this was a bad product, or maybe better ones have been developed, but at that time there was simply no reason to use it instead of a VA with MGIB.
So again, if you're so smart, explain what advantage the EIBs that you use have when compared to MGIB.
[quote=vagabond][quote=Bobby Hull][quote=vagabond][quote=Bobby Hull][quote=vagabond]
Just comparing the two alternatives and assuming suitability is met, I have not seen any reason to use an EIA over a VA IF you use the Minimum Guaranteed Income Benefit (MGIB), except for the broker making more money (and you already make good money on the VA). Now there are a LOT of different EIAs, so I'm only comparing to the ones I've seen, but here is my reason.
They both guarantee a minimum amount of money returned to the client at some point in time. They both offer the opportunity for higher returns based on market performance. From what I've seen, the EIB guarantees lower minimum returns than the VA and the EIB caps the potential returns.
So if the EIB has lower guarantees and lower upside potential, what is its advantage over the VA? I don't know, I haven't found one.
[/quote]
You're an idiot. Seriously...you're an idiot.
[/quote]
That really hurts my feelings, especially coming from someone who I have yet to see add any substance to this forum. Please explain where a EIA is suitable when a VA with MGIB is not.
[/quote]
How about when a conservative investor doesn't want to lose any money? If you understood the products, you'd realize how stupid your question was.
[/quote]
A conservative investor that doesn't want to lose any money can accomplish this with the MGIB VA.
I understand the MGIB very well. As I said from the beginning, My EIB comparison is limited to the products that I have researched. A couple years ago I dug deep into what was supposed to be the best selling EIB on the market. Maybe this was a bad product, or maybe better ones have been developed, but at that time there was simply no reason to use it instead of a VA with MGIB.
So again, if you're so smart, explain what advantage the EIBs that you use have when compared to MGIB.
[/quote]
Your idiot status is still safe. Some people want to walk away with their principal, instead of having it drip on them over a number of years. I don't give a crap what YOU think about my business. Especially since you don't understand the products in the first place.
Some people want to walk away with their principal, instead of having it drip on them over a number of years.
This is an important point when comparing an EIA and a VA that is below value, even if it does have a MGIB or other guarantee.
The guarantee is only valuable if the VA contract is in the negative or didn't perform up to expectations and the guarantee has to be annuitized to take advantage of it.
[quote=Bobby Hull]Your idiot status is still safe. Some people want to walk away with their principal, instead of having it drip on them over a number of years. I don't give a crap what YOU think about my business. Especially since you don't understand the products in the first place. [/quote]
Fair enough reason. The EIA that I looked at from Allianz required annuitization to take advantage of the market indexed value. Otherwise you could walk away with 90% of the principal compounding at 4% after 10 years (ROI of 2.9%). So yes you could get a lump sum above what you put in, however, if you hoped to get more than 3% you had to accept the drip.
BTW, I never gave you my opinion of what I think of YOUR business. I don't give a crap about it. I merely said that I hadn't come across any reason to use an EIA. I still prefer other options, but thats my preference. If you properly explain them and the client agrees, then more power to you. I personally don't judge every investment by how its performed compared to the 20 year hypothetical of GFA.
Its sad you feel the need to be insulting in every post. Mommy must not have loved you enough.
[quote=babbling looney]
Some people want to walk away with their principal, instead of having it drip on them over a number of years.
This is an important point when comparing an EIA and a VA that is below value, even if it does have a MGIB or other guarantee.
The guarantee is only valuable if the VA contract is in the negative or didn't perform up to expectations and the guarantee has to be annuitized to take advantage of it.
[/quote]
Yeah, we know. You chimed in out of context, proving how stupid you are, once again.
[quote=vagabond]
[quote=Bobby Hull]Your idiot status is still safe. Some people want to walk away with their principal, instead of having it drip on them over a number of years. I don't give a crap what YOU think about my business. Especially since you don't understand the products in the first place. [/quote]
Fair enough reason. The EIA that I looked at from Allianz required annuitization to take advantage of the market indexed value. Otherwise you could walk away with 90% of the principal compounding at 4% after 10 years (ROI of 2.9%). So yes you could get a lump sum above what you put in, however, if you hoped to get more than 3% you had to accept the drip.
BTW, I never gave you my opinion of what I think of YOUR business. I don't give a crap about it. I merely said that I hadn't come across any reason to use an EIA. I still prefer other options, but thats my preference. If you properly explain them and the client agrees, then more power to you. I personally don't judge every investment by how its performed compared to the 20 year hypothetical of GFA.
Its sad you feel the need to be insulting in every post. Mommy must not have loved you enough.
[/quote]
Allianz sucks and your mommy loves me just fine.
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS PEOPLE! How many times do we have to be reminded of this? Contribute something heartfelt and "worthwhile" and PLEASE ignore the miscreants. It will serve us all well.
P.S. The little battles that go on between various posters' are definitely not appreciated. PM each other if you have an issue. And BTW no one cares in the least how clever your response is to various criticisms. I'm not saying the criticism is deserved and you shouldn't be upset by it. Point of the matter is that nothing has (or ever will) be resolved by two (or more) anonymous posters' flailing away on a message board. Just let it go and focus on contributing something worthwhile, as well as learning from others.
Actually, an occasional flame war is fun to watch. If you don’t enjoy them,
PLEASE IGNORE THEM!
[quote=The Judge]
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS PEOPLE! How many times do we have to be reminded of this? Contribute something heartfelt and "worthwhile" and PLEASE ignore the miscreants. It will serve us all well.
P.S. The little battles that go on between various posters' are definitely not appreciated. PM each other if you have an issue. And BTW no one cares in the least how clever your response is to various criticisms. I'm not saying the criticism is deserved and you shouldn't be upset by it. Point of the matter is that nothing has (or ever will) be resolved by two (or more) anonymous posters' flailing away on a message board. Just let it go and focus on contributing something worthwhile, as well as learning from others.
[/quote]
If you don't like it, go away.
[quote=The Judge]
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS PEOPLE! How many times do we have to be reminded of this? Contribute something heartfelt and "worthwhile" and PLEASE ignore the miscreants. It will serve us all well.
P.S. The little battles that go on between various posters' are definitely not appreciated. PM each other if you have an issue. And BTW no one cares in the least how clever your response is to various criticisms. I'm not saying the criticism is deserved and you shouldn't be upset by it. Point of the matter is that nothing has (or ever will) be resolved by two (or more) anonymous posters' flailing away on a message board. Just let it go and focus on contributing something worthwhile, as well as learning from others.
[/quote]
What the Judge is saying is that he/she is here to find value and the posting wars are distracting. Beg to differ, Judge: If someone is going to criticize, they should expect a "lob" in return. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lob_(tennis). Resolving by pm's might be best but in the case of whomit or mikebuttler: isn't it a little fun to see and this would be classified as a "debate" not a "bash"...e.g. (pissing contest)...which guy is really smarter here which is probably why they keep going at it. In their case, they're not just insulting, their posts are deviating away from the topic but connotes research or thought, nonetheless. But let's not get carried away to the extremes with having an Internet "cock" fight.