Moderate cost VA

or Register to post new content in the forum



  • 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.
Jan 10, 2007 10:26 am

I may add a VA to my practice this year.   What companies have a reputation for low to moderate costs in their VA products.   My firm does not have an agreement with Vanguard, TRowe, and the like so rule out their VA products.

Thanks in advance for any feedback.


Jan 10, 2007 10:35 am

Ohio National, Jackson National Life and Pacific Life come to mind.

Jan 10, 2007 11:42 am

Mike, loved you in Fast Times...

Pac Life

Jan 10, 2007 12:27 pm

Nationwide BOA looks fairly cheap, but my knowledge is limited to looking at a contract that didn't have much in the way of bells and whistles.  Cost was 1.20% plus underlying fund charges and the fund choices are pretty good.

Personally, I use Lincoln ChoicePlus and ING Landmark.  Both companies have solid subaccount choices, a good variety of living and death benefits, and pay me 3.5-4% at inception, plus 1% ongoing at month 13.  I won't tell you they're the cheapest, but they've served both me and my clients well in the past, and I don't necessarily care about being the cheapest option on the market.  I'm also doing some due diligence on AXA now as they have some new options coming on the 16th.  If I have time and the product looks worthwhile, I'll try to post something later...

Jan 10, 2007 2:53 pm

Thanks entrylevelFA

"Look at you: member of the honor roll, assistant to the assistant manager of the movie theater. I'm tellin' ya, Rat, if this girl can't smell your qualifications, then who needs her, right?" - Mike Damone

Jan 10, 2007 3:25 pm

That's 2 votes for Nationwide Best of America & Lincoln Choiceplus for overall performance, benefit & cost efficiency.

For the cheapest date out there you may want to look at the Lincoln Legacy series which features American fund subaccounts.

Jan 10, 2007 3:29 pm

The Hartford's subaccount costs are the same as the corresponding mutual funds, and is an overall low cost VA (although I don't use it).

John Hancock is a great low cost VA if you're okay with using allocation models.

Jan 10, 2007 9:20 pm

Why is cheaper better?

Jan 10, 2007 9:35 pm

[quote=My Inner Child]Why is cheaper better? [/quote]

Good point.  Several years ago I moved a bunch of mony for clients
that were taking income from their portfolios (income benefits) into
V.A’s that are not the cheapest, and they have performed very well
despite their high cost. Last year…+10% net after withdrawals in
thier pre-mixed asset allocation models…and pretty much the same
since 2002.  Why do we always have to be the cheapest and the best

Our Alpha portfolios do well sometimes, and our beta portfolios are
average.  We grow +20% every year in new assets.  Interesting.