The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing
|Subject: Re: Hi gang... wow!!!||Date: 5/31/2013 12:01 AM|
|Author: Rayvt||Number: 72328 of 77339|
With a zero annual floor, at a 20 year average all-in expense ratio under 1%, and a 90% leveragability at net zero cost (and actually often a positive credit arbitrage,)... nobody's brought forth anything that can outperform.
It doesn't always outperform accounts with deper loss tolerances... but if you want more risk in order to chase more profits, the liquidity lets you do it on a smart selection basis, rather than being forced to "weather it out" during drawdowns.
I have no idea what "90% leveragability" means -- but it sounds suspiciously like going to 90% margin in your retirement account. Not something to boast about, IHMO.
Okay, here's the statistics for S&P500 B&H and IUL, 0/12 (floor/cap), 1% expenses, 1950 to 2013, all rolling 20-year periods.
The S&P performance is *better* than the IUL. The worst case is better. The average/median case is better. The best case is better.
To repeat, The worse cast is better. Even the worst case is better. Since the worst case is better, the risk is NOT greater.
|Copyright 1996-2015 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|