The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing
|Subject: Re: Retirement, college, and Obamanomics||Date: 1/1/2013 11:31 PM|
|Author: Dwdonhoff||Number: 71184 of 82002|
Your Google reference was complete non-sequiter... was there a point hidden in it somewhere?
Dividends, yadda, long option lose dividends, yadda... and short options consequently gain dividends (queue trumpets.)
NONE of that matters at all...
*ALL* that matters is the final dollars and cents at the end of the 15, 20, 25 or 30 year period, net of taxes and liquidity risks (the risksw of being forced to access the funds in a down market.)
Again, you can do a fancy dance all you want, but you can't provide *ANY* strategy to outperform an IUL over 15+ year rolling average periods... tax and risk weighted.
Dave, you won't ever be convinced (cue the Upton Sinclair quote "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.").
You're dead wrong! I've searched high & low (including every presented strategy in Motley Fooldom, Bogle-ville, et. ad nauseum!)
Nobody presents a superior performance system...
Not Alan Roth,
Not John Bogle,
Not our friends the Gardners,
Not any of the anonymous TMF experts,
I *am* diversified among strategies myself, so your attempts to accuse me of tunnel vision falls flat. I have a background as a hedge fund trader myself, so I am not without the savvy to know what to look for that works, and what is religious faith-based fundamentalism & casino marketing.
Its rather ironic you accuse *me* of being beyond convincing... I look high & low, ongoingly, for the best risk & tax-weighted bottom-line long-term results strategies... and wherever I find advantages, I take them. I very much love finding unfair exploits, and I bring them out to everyone who will listen when I do.
You have some kind of faith-based religious aversion to IULs. It makes itself very apparent in the way you repeatedly fail to grasp the details of how they actually work, and continually argue from ongoing mistaken assumptions.
Its *OK* though... its just unfortunate. It does provide me a "foil" though with which to to detail out the facts... which is *FORTUNATE* for the savvy lurkers reading along... and there are frequently far more than you may realize.
|Copyright 1996-2017 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|