The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing
|Subject: Re: Hi gang... wow!!!||Date: 9/14/2013 6:14 PM|
|Author: CCinOC||Number: 72838 of 76891|
Therefore, in order to evaluate that claim one must compare the performance of an IUL with the market over some long period of time. That is the relevant comparison.
That's correct. And setting aside 53% reserves for the S&P isn't apples-to-apples, either.
The practical reality is that, dollar-for-dollar, over some long period of time for the S&P vs. a hypothetical IUL (they've been in existence for only about 20 years), the balance in the S&P account will be higher--depending, of course, where in the market cycle one pauses to compare.
But the S&P has the risk of being slaughtered from time to time and the IUL doesn't.
That's the question for the retirement planner. Would you rather earn less and have it be guaranteed, or would you rather take the chance, through the market's notorious ups and downs, that you'll earn more and that "more" will be there at the precise time you need it.
|Copyright 1996-2015 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|