With all the recent discussion about variable annuities, would appreciate it if you could play devil's advocate and find the holes in my logic below. (Warning: this is a pretty long post). Have a variable annuity with Fidelity worth about $100K of which about half represents my contributions; the remainder is growth. Bought it and continued to contribute to it when I was on active duty in Navy and had no access to 401(K)s. (I had maxed out my IRA and my thinking at the time, right or wrong in retrospect, was that it would provide a 401(K)-like tax deferred retirement vehicle.) I have long since stopped regular contributions to it(as I'm now retired from Navy and in a real 401(K) plan). I've run the numbers and see no advantage to cashing out before 59 1/2 and paying the penalties. It's invested in a moderately aggressive mix of funds within the annuity. I'm 54 and want to retire within a couple of years. (I have assets other than the annuity as well as a Navy pension). The conventional ("wise") advice is that an annuity is the last investment vehicle you access since you don't have to begin drawing from it as early as with an IRA and you therefore have more years for it to grow tax-deferred. One thing I didn't realize when I bought the annuity is that when it becomes part of my estate upon my death, its value will not be stepped-up as with mutual funds and IRAs, so my heirs will pay income tax on the "capital gains". So here is what I think makes sense and I would appreciate finding any flaws in my thinking: - At age 59 1/2 I immediately begin accessing the money (which, at a 10% growth rate) could be worth $160K or so. That amount would be 4 - 6 years living expenses on top of my pension. - I do this by converting the current moderately aggressive mix into a very conservative cash-centric mix, perhaps with a bond fund and a small amount of Growth and Income in the mix. - I EITHER A. Annuitize it over a 4 - 6 year payout period to take advantage of the fact that annuity payments are considered to consist of a portion of my contributions plus a portion of growth (meaning that I only pay taxes on the growth) OR B. Self manage the withdrawals over the same period, realizing that if I do so, the above small tax benefit disappears. - My 4 - 6 years of living expenses are thus covered meaning that I can now safely take other cash assets (which I had been holding to cover the first several years of living expenses) and invest them in non-retirement equities for growth. The advantages, as I see them, in this approach are: 1. I cover 4 - 6 years of living expenses relatively painlessly. 2. I get the annuity out of my portfolio at a relatively young age. If I am lucky enough to live long enough, I have thus eliminated an asset which would be passed to my children at a relatively high cost in favor of retaininig those that will be passed at a relatively low cost. 3. I have the opportunity to redeploy cash assets to growth equity investments and later to access those assets at a capital gains tax rate rather than at the ordinary income rate.Sounds like you know what you are doing.You are correct that you do not want the annuity in your estate when you die.
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<