This thread is a good example of the misinformation and bias (often rightfully so) against anything with the word annuity in it.Notice no where in this entire thread did anyone attempt to actually learn more about what Hartford is actually doing.Although Hartford is mentioned in the original post, I didn't think that this thread was about Hartford in particular, but more about issues with whether guarantees would be able to be kept with these types of products. In the original article http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732399860457856... there are more companies than Hartford mentioned, including ING, MetLife, Aegon and AXA. This indicated to me that even though this particular change was being made by Hartford, the issue seems to be more widespread.Nothing in the letter suggests the guarantee is being impacted, only the underlying subaccounts.I wonder if the letter was changed after the Wall St Journal article? Because, according to the article, the copy of the letter the reporter was given did say, the guarantee "WILL BE REVOKED" in bold print. Or is there something else (not the guarantee) that "WILL BE REVOKED" in the letter you got? Or maybe you got a different letter? They also did say in the article that there will be a 'series of reminder letters' being sent to customers.In any case, I think it'a a good reminder that any annuity contract that is purchased is only as good as the insurance company backing the contract, and, if the proverbial stuff hits the fan for that company, any state insurance guarantee fund that the policy holder may be covered by. If you have any money at risk beyond those levels, the guarantee for that money may be at risk.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