Let's assume X amount of this net worth is *just enough* to throw sufficient yield to cover all living expenses at 80 years old. I agree that if you cannot handle a loss of even a penny, then you shouldn't be in stocks. But I thought you were saying that an IUL was good for investing when you don't need the money for many years. That is my understanding of what Ray has been studying. Now you are saying it is for the situation where you need every penny to get enough yield to meet your needs. These are two very different scenarios. Are you saying IUL's are only better than stocks when you need the yield immediately and cannot take any losses, or do you still think IULs beat stocks when you don't need the money for decades?
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