The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing
|Subject: Re: 7702 Private Plans (indexed universal life)||Date: 3/29/2013 8:43 PM|
|Author: Dwdonhoff||Number: 71566 of 75524|
I challenge the IUL proponents to do the same. Run the data and post the equity curves. So far, all I've seen is handwaving. You don't prove or demonstrate that IULs are better than the S&P500 by handwaving, you do it by shwoing the data. SHOW ME THE MONEY.
Happy to do so on a strictly apples-to-apples financial performance basis. Since it is impossible for you to guarantee that any strategy you design will avoid have consecutive drawdown periods during your eventual retirement distribution years, you can structure anyway you want as long as it delivers zero annual drawdown risk, and I'll do the same.
Name your start year & end year... minimum 20 years (but longer if you want, your call.) Heck, you can cherry pick the specific start/end dates if you want to.
I'm totally up for this (with the eyes-open awareness that there *ARE* a handful of periods that an IUL might not win.)
Let's look at both with, and without trading or product costs. Of course, mine will come burdened with the requisite death benefits, but you can do it without the mortality cost burdens... I'll give it to you as a 'handicap.'
Yes, I get that IULs have a guaranteed floor and you never ever lose money. For some people, that's the #1 most important thing. I get that. You don't mind that you'll only have half the money when you retire -- just that you never see your account value ever go down. I get that.
Its the naked buy & holder who's at risk of having an account 50% of what they might have in a principal-guaranteed strategy (which, again, *CAN* be done without the insurance industry, just not anywhere as cheaply.)
Are you willing to put up? Or was your 'hand waving' comment simply self-referential? ;~)
|Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|