dwdonhoff wrote:Each IUL provider treats its distribution sequence of mortality costs as trade secrets, so you won't be able to DIY.That makes no difference to me. All I want to know is what your specific IUL model is. You must have one or you can't come up with any real numbers, right? You must have some model you believe in or you wouldn't be selling these things to your customers, right? Let's use that one.The veracity and accuracy of it is backed up by 50 state and various federal regulatory agenciesSpecific performance is backed up by nobody. I have to verify it for myself.I've done that, repeatedly. A. he contniues to ignore the costs of the voatility risksB. he continues to ignore the fact that IULs include dividends,C. he continues to ignore the actual IUL performance nubmers providedNot what I see. Specifically, what needs to be fixed in Ray's spreadsheet calculations to fix these things? How do the results change if you make these changes? Seriously, there are no volatility risks that change the numbers, dividends are irrelevant to the IUL calculations (unless you would care to specify exactly how they are added in), and Ray is (quite properly) ignoring your theoretical smoothed IUL numbers in favor of actual real world data.from the very outset I have stated that IULs outperform on an apples-to-apples basis, risk includedYet you continue to ignore the risk of the insurance company going out of business, or arbitrarily changing the caps to something much lower. How can you justify this, while insisting that low probability emergencies require huge reserves from any other method? Where's your 100% reserve in case your IUL blows up? And since you've decided to ignore these risks, anything of lower likelihood should be ignored too. You can't cry risk and danger selectively.I'll ask another question here since so far as I can tell this whole "drawdown" risk is largely nonsense as well. If my investment quadruples and then halves, leaving me with double my original investment, has it suffered a 50% drawdown? I think the answer is yes as you would argue it. Yet why should I care? Why should I prefer an investment that reliably gained 8% when I'm 100% up? I think your entire drawdown risk theory is useless. The only risk I need to consider is the risk of falling below some threshold of acceptable growth toward retirement. If we define that at any time as "what the competing theoretical IUL has in it" (since that's obviously acceptable to you) then from the various runs that Ray has published I'd say the reserve needs to be no more than $7500, and the reserve can go to $0 the moment the account reaches double the threshold.-IGU-
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. M