I haven't heard from anyone on that thread (you're referring to the 'retirement investing' board, I am assuming?) I'd put that in the ideological religion category with Political Asylum... same approaches to personal respect, reason and logic. But if you are saying somebody's sincerely open to learning there, I'll go check it out again.Actually, on that board/set of threads, I would say that your position is closer to ideological religion. IUL propoonents have been asked multiple times to supply numbers that disprove Rayvt's numbers showing that over a period of at least 20 years, investing in the S&P 500 with dividend reinvestment, will result in a larger pot of money than investing in an IUL, with associated fees and caps. Over 2 months later, no numbers have been supplied by IUL proponents, only rhetoric and pitches about 'highly complex' Monte Carlo simulations, and how there is 'no risk' with IUL, vs. 'lots of risk' with the 'naked' S&P strategy. Ray's numbers seem to prove that even if your view is that the 'naked' strategy is riskier is correct, the pot of money at the end is still smaller using the IUL. As Ray most recently showed (using actual numbers), over a 20 year period, the benefit of the 'no-loss' feature of the IUL is outweighed by the downside features of having the gains capped and higher fees. Unless you can prove with numbers that the IUL provides a bigger pot of money with the same amount invested over a 20 year period, your obsession with risk avoidance is what borders on religious, IMO.And there still hasn't been any answer to the risk that was raised about the insurance company going belly up as a risk in your 'zero risk' IUL.AJ
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. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra