Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
jot tucker likes to comment and argue on what he thinks he is reading and not what is said.
no where did i ever say use life insurance as an investment . nor did i say anyone should just buy a whole life policy if they wanted insurance , that is only in his head but not in any thread .
i only spoke about it in the context of , if you think you are going to buy term and invest the difference as your strategy the integrated strategy has been already mathematically proven to provide a higher income level day 1 of retirement and potentially a better chance of leaving a bigger pile of money for heirs at the end which would be a win /win over buy term and invest the difference on both fronts .
the insurance is only used as exactly for what it is which is insurance . it sets income bases and wealth bases with guaranteed floors in AN INTEGRATED STRATEGY .
you are correct ncole in everything you said including the fact i only type with 1 finger and am lefty to boot because of the diabetic damage when it was un-diagnosed .
Last edited by mathjak107; 07-31-2015 at 03:40 AM..
It's due to a physical condition (diabetic neuropathy?) that is painful if he doesn't use one finger to type. Be easy on the guy - and by the way, it's totally irrelevant to the validity of the points.
I see, I was totally unaware of that situation and MathJak I want to publicly apologize to you for that buddy. I just thought you were like a lot of commentators on Public Forums and they just randomly type out their thoughts without using proper sentence structure.
But even withstanding, in relation to the topic, when you guys show me a plan over the last 20 - 30 years that was structured based on the Doug Andrews/Pam Yellen "insurance as an investment" structures, I will sit down and shut up lol.
Just about every "investment" product offered by a Life Insurance company is horrible, including Annuities, even though Annuities aren't AS BAD as using Life Insurance as an investment, they are both completely horrible. To provide an analogy on both of the horrific products, Annuities are like eating food off the floor and Life Insurance as an Investment is like eating food out of the trash.
Last edited by jotucker99; 08-01-2015 at 09:44 AM..
I see, I was totally unaware of that situation and MathJak I want to publicly apologize to you for that buddy. I just thought you were like a lot of commentators on Public Forums and they just randomly type out their thoughts without using proper sentence structure.
But even withstanding, in relation to the topic, when you guys show me a plan over the last 20 - 30 years that was structured based on the Doug Andrews/Pam Yellen "insurance as an investment" structures, I will sit down and shut up lol.
Just about every "investment" product offered by a Life Insurance company is horrible, including Annuities, even though Annuities aren't AS BAD as using Life Insurance as an investment, they are both completely horrible. To provide an analogy on both of the horrific products, Annuities are like eating food off the floor and Life Insurance as an Investment is like eating food out of the trash.
How many times do I have to repeat that we are not advocating using the insurance as an investment???
when you have no clue as to the theory behind why it works with zero roi that is all you will fixate on .
in its simplest form , while a mix of bonds and cash have an roi of about 1% on cash and 2-3% on bonds that roi is diminishing yearly towards zero more and more every year as it is spent down until about 15 years later when roi and balance on the cash and bonds buckets are zero in a 50/50 mix and that money is now gone forever . then equity's refill and the spending goes another 15 years.
the immediate annuity has zero roi but a much higher cash flow rate of your own money back to you until years down the road when you are on their dime . you can totally dismiss sequence risk and draw maximum cash flow even if withdrawing your own money .
but all that time the higher levels of cash flow are forcing you to sell less equity's to refill allowing more equity's to grow longer and that is the part he leaves out of the equation.
unlike your bonds and cash that went to zero the annuity never has a cash flow that is zero , in fact it remains the same year after year forming a base that requires no equity selling to reach even that point .
even if you never let the cash and bonds hit zero doing your own investing and sell equity's and refill before zero , you will still be selling off more in equity's more frequently than you would using the return of your own money at a higher level since if you exhaust your own at that rate they will cover the amount for you . that is the key right there . you can exhaust your own money at a higher draw rate because if you exhaust it to soon they will cover the amount for you .
in order for your own investing to win you need above average returns and excellent sequence of those returns. average returns and less than great sequencing will have the annuity /equity combo win over the bonds/ cash / annuity combo at normal life expectancy.
if you want to mitigate the life expectancy variable than the immediate annuity / equity's / single premium life policy will likely win 2/3's of the time , especially if as pfau says you are not a skilled boglehead investor . .
Last edited by mathjak107; 08-03-2015 at 01:32 PM..
when you have no clue as to the theory behind why it works with zero roi that is all you will fixate on .
in its simplest form , while a mix of bonds and cash have an roi of about 1% on cash and 2-3% on bonds that roi is diminishing yearly towards zero more and more every year as it is spent down until about 15 years later when roi and balance on the cash and bonds buckets are zero in a 50/50 mix and that money is now gone forever . then equity's refill and the spending goes another 15 years.
the immediate annuity has zero roi but a much higher cash flow rate of your own money back to you until years down the road when you are on their dime . you can totally dismiss sequence risk and draw maximum cash flow even if withdrawing your own money .
but all that time the higher levels of cash flow are forcing you to sell less equity's to refill allowing more equity's to grow longer and that is the part he leaves out of the equation.
unlike your bonds and cash that went to zero the annuity never has a cash flow that is zero , in fact it remains the same year after year forming a base that requires no equity selling to reach even that point .
even if you never let the cash and bonds hit zero doing your own investing and sell equity's and refill before zero , you will still be selling off more in equity's more frequently than you would using the return of your own money at a higher level since if you exhaust your own at that rate they will cover the amount for you . that is the key right there . you can exhaust your own money at a higher draw rate because if you exhaust it to soon they will cover the amount for you .
in order for your own investing to win you need above average returns and excellent sequence of those returns. average returns and less than great sequencing will have the annuity /equity combo win over the bonds/ cash / annuity combo at normal life expectancy.
if you want to mitigate the life expectancy variable than the immediate annuity / equity's / single premium life policy will likely win 2/3's of the time , especially if as pfau says you are not a skilled boglehead investor . .
Not all that different (in a sense) from any other insurance....the benefit comes from risk pooling, not from investment. By pooling risk, you don't have to make huge sacrifices in assets, cash flow, or income for the 1% chance of dying very soon or living to be over 100.
After reading these post my advice is to find a independent agent who can shop many different companies as different companies have different underwriting standards. If looking at term do consider conversion options and living benefits.
Here's a secret. No matter what anyone quotes the quotes mean nothing until the person is underwritten and the company makes an offer. Quotes are basically an all things considered guess.
For those who bash Whole Life just consider WL is designed to last a lifetime because death is 100%… Guaranteed Universal Life can be used as a long term term plan. Talk to an independent agent..
in fact show us one accredited study that disproves the fact that a combination of single premium annuity's , your own investing and permanent life insurance does not beat term and investing on your own in most scenario's . .
What is "permanent lifeinsurance"? Is that a product, different from term life insurance?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
New product?
