The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing


Subject:  Re: Hi gang... wow!!! Date:  9/14/2013  8:27 PM
Author:  Dwdonhoff Number:  72846 of 100127


You're not paying attention.

IULs were flogged as a long term investment vehicle (long term meaning horizons like saving for college or retirement) that provide market returns without market risk.
Nobody's proved otherwise on that... its already stipulated.

The challenge is whether a naked S&P500 buy & hold position outperforms an IUL for retirement investing.

To answer that, we have to define "retirement investing," which has not previously been defined.

I am proposing that is defined as the process to achieve the point where you have sufficient passive, unrisked yield income to completely replace all employment and at-risk income.

The naked S&P buy & hold strategy is subject to intermittent drawdowns, regularly to 45% or more, and as deep as 53%, with the potential for deeper. All *RETIREMENT* accumulation strategies must account for that with sufficient reserves, insurance, and/or remaining earning years left to recover from those drawdowns if/when they happen. Anything less than full accounting for the risks in the plan design is blind wanton gambling.

In simple, a $100k risk in a naked S&P hold requires a $50k reserves.
Any strategy with zero drawdowns can put the entire $150k into play.

Worse, the supposed safety feature is an illusion. Even if a major draw down occurs at the worst possible time--like right before retirement--you still have more money with B&H than the IUL. Unless you think there is safety in having less money, that is.
Definitely not paying attention. go look at the illustration I posted, versus the S&P performance.

I could keep dissecting your post... but you need to go back & read first. No point in continuing to correct the obvious.

Dave Donhoff
Leverage Planner
Copyright 1996-2020 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us