Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif

No. of Recommendations: 6
See post #72810

I confess I didn't understand a lot of that post, but it didn't really show how the two strategies compare. Where are the actual calculations?

In that post you write
Example;
If S&P ‘all-in’ average return, with dividends, is 14%
S&P max drawdown is 53%

= 14% (1 – 53%)
= 14% (47%)
= 6.58%

This seems wrong. The average 14% return includes the drawdowns. You are counting them twice. Further by subtracting 53% of the returns from the annual average return, you are assuming the 53% drawdown happens every year.

If Account #A has a risk of 50%+ drawdowns, then it's risk-adjusted returns are its gross returns times 1-drawdown. At a 50% drawdown, the risk-adjusted returns are 50% of the gross returns. At a 25% drawdown the risk-adjusted returns are 75% of the gross returns.

This makes the same mistake. The drawdowns only happen occasionally. Averaged over many people, you get the 14% despite the drawdowns. Some will be unlucky and get less, others will be lucky and get more.

I still don't see a clear argument for why IULs beat S&P.

### Announcements

The Retirement Investing Board
This is the board for all discussions related to Investing for and during retirement. To keep the board relevant and Foolish to everyone, please avoid making any posts pertaining to political partisanship. Fool on and Retire on!