The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing

URL:  http://boards.fool.com/hi-aj-if-the-figures-rayvt-posted-are-correct-30621761.aspx

Subject:  Re: Strategy comparison S&P500 vs. IUL [rev 1] Date:  4/4/2013  11:55 AM
Author:  Dwdonhoff Number:  71694 of 76238

Hi AJ,

If the figures RayVT posted are correct,
They're not, yet.

Looks to me like the S&P wins hands down.
It doesn't... the comparison hasn't been leveled yet.

What we are seeing so far, with inaccurate figures, is that if you are willing to lose up to 50% of your money but wait 10, 15, 20 years for recovery (or as long as it takes,) *then* you may end up better off in a naked S&P position.

If a 50% drawdown is acceptable, its easy enough for me to build that into the hedged model as well... but we haven't got that far in ironing out a reliable model on the simpler basics yet.

NOW... you then addressed Cath, and while I won't speak for her, I do take exception to some accusations (yes, I know... 'if the shoe doesn't fit, don't try to keep wearing it, etc... but I think this is worth addressing.)

And, for someone who advocates risk-taking when taking on debt (ARM vs. FRM), it does seem odd that you are so averse to taking on risk when you are trying to grow assets.
Properly structured, with existing reserves and future interest savings linked to the same interest rate markets as the ARM mortgage, the ARM is actually safer than a FRM. This requires no active trading, and has zero risks of "drawdown."

In contrast, a naked S&P position has a real historical 50% drawdown potential (if the future continues to rhyme with the past.)

On the other hand, you do sell these IULs, along with mortgages, right? So, every time that someone refinances their ARM with you (to lengthen their term to try to get the payment back down after rates eventually increase), you get a commission, and every time someone buys an IUL through you, you get a commission. Maybe not so odd why you are such a strong advocate for your strategies, then.

This is simply a sleazy ad hominem attack.

Yes, it is important to consider 'incentive biases' when looking at any surface-level strategy... but throwing that out as a smear *AFTER* the hood has been peeled back and the underlying mechanics are being micro-inspected & reviewed is simply low class.

c'mon... stay classy, please.

Dave Donhoff
Leverage Planner
Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us