By showing a 50/50 mix (a few different ways, in fact) he thinks, from his viewpoint, he's provided a way to mitigate the volatility risk that you have brought up.Mitigate, but not eliminate. Which is Dave's point. Echos of the Great Depression still exist in this country, when entire fortunes were virtually wiped out. When the pundits talked about the Great Recession, references to the Great Depression were never far behind.Dave is saying that by virtue that your principal is guaranteed, while still offering upside, is a feature of IULs that can be quantified by a percentage or dollar amount. If you agree with this (I don't), by what percentage should the mitigation of risk be measured?Dave erred (in my opinion) by stating emphatically from the outset that "The IUL will outperform the S&P500 B&H in the long run" without clearly defining what he meant and proceeding from there. This omission muddled the conversation but we're a bit farther along now, I think.Dave thinks the IUL should get credit (so to speak)--a lot of credit, in his opinion--for eliminating (not just mitigating) market risk. How to quantify that "credit" is what we're discussing now.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minu