intrcst,First off, I re-thought how I worded my statement. *YOU* may feel completely serious when gambling to lose more than you actually gain, mathematically... it is *I* who don't take that kind of approach as serious. Sorry.As for this;Whenever the emergency occurs (before, or after you've retired), if you've got more money because you avoided the fees & costs of IUL, you'll be better prepared to meet it.You don't seem to have been paying attention. 1. Ray even acknowledged the IUL fees are extremely low for its degree of performance.2. Fees are irrelevant if a "cheaper" strategy gets lower net net returns,3. We are comparing passive strategies, with mutual agreement that well managed active strategies enjoy a higher potential for returns,4. The passive S&P B&H strategy falls to a well designed IUL when risk-weighted. In other words, all other aspects equal among investors, the random catastrophic occurrence during down markets will hurt the aggregate performance of the S&P B&H sufficiently that all S&P investors will get a lower return than all IUL holders.That means hoping to do better with a S&P B&H strategy than an IUL is still *POSSIBLE*... its just a loser's gamble, as in this match up the IUL is the 'house' of Vegas.Dave DonhoffLeverage Planner
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