AKB: Universal Index Life Insurance

[Op2]

I am getting a hard, hard, hard sell on this stuff. From what I read it's not a good deal but I can't articulate it enough to get this person off my back.

Their sell is it will make more money on a return than my current stuff (index funds capturing the entire stock market, in Vanguard, and other similar things). Their stuff ties to some other index, plus gets a multiplier ("participation rate" they call it) and part of the sell is that it's non-taxable someday, but then again so is a lot of my retirement money already because it's Roth.

I'd be interested in your opinion of UIL, good or bad. This person is relentless. But it scares the f out of my to take a few hundred K out of Roth IRAs and put it in some vehicle I don't understand. (The UIL stuff seems very complicated to me.) I at least need a good enough reason to back this person off.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

 

[dvin41]

One and only thought…. Do not unplug everything you have built up in Roth and traditional contributions. Universal life is garbage. When you die, the money that accrued doesn’t go to your family. Just the value of the policy. They get sooo much commission off of it. Stay way away.

 

[dvin41]

Do not ever use an insurance policy as an investment product!!

 

[royboy]

I am getting a hard, hard, hard sell on this stuff. From what I read it's not a good deal but I can't articulate it enough to get this person off my back.

Their sell is it will make more money on a return than my current stuff (index funds capturing the entire stock market, in Vanguard, and other similar things). Their stuff ties to some other index, plus gets a multiplier ("participation rate" they call it) and part of the sell is that it's non-taxable someday, but then again so is a lot of my retirement money already because it's Roth.

I'd be interested in your opinion of UIL, good or bad. This person is relentless. But it scares the f out of my to take a few hundred K out of Roth IRAs and put it in some vehicle I don't understand. (The UIL stuff seems very complicated to me.) I at least need a good enough reason to back this person off.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Don't take money out of your Roth to fund an investment like this. The tax advantages of the Roth out-weigh the tax advantages of the Indexed UL policy you're being pitched.

Do you have a need for the additional death protection of a life policy? Look at a level 15 or 20 year term.

(retired CFP, financial advisor)

 

[BudatPSU]

Is the agent named george santos?

 

[Op2]

Don't take money out of your Roth to fund an investment like this. The tax advantages of the Roth out-weigh the tax advantages of the Indexed UL policy you're being pitched.

Do you have a need for the additional death protection of a life policy? Look at a level 15 or 20 year term.

(retired CFP, financial advisor)

I don't need any life insurance at all, which is one more reason this sounds crazy to me.

They insist the returns are better. They have one of those "0% returns in the years the market is down" things. So it never goes down. They don't use the DIJA or S&P 500 for their index, rather they use something called Pimco, and one other one. And they have a "participation rate" of 1.75, which means the return on their index is multiplied by 1.75. Of course that rate could change and they might be quoting me an unusually high participation rate in the first place.

This person is very persistent. I just need a decent reason to tell them no. I mean, I can tell them no regardless, but I'd feel a lot better if I have a better reason. My reason now is "I don't trust that it will give the return that you say it will."

From what I read I get the impression that this can be good for people in right circumstances but that those people are ones that make a lot of money, like a half million a year at least.

 

[Op2]

Is the agent named george santos?

Yeah. He also tried to sell me some oceanfront property in Flagstaff, Arizona. I'm still mulling that offer over.

 

[bdgan]

I am getting a hard, hard, hard sell on this stuff. From what I read it's not a good deal but I can't articulate it enough to get this person off my back.

Their sell is it will make more money on a return than my current stuff (index funds capturing the entire stock market, in Vanguard, and other similar things). Their stuff ties to some other index, plus gets a multiplier ("participation rate" they call it) and part of the sell is that it's non-taxable someday, but then again so is a lot of my retirement money already because it's Roth.

I'd be interested in your opinion of UIL, good or bad. This person is relentless. But it scares the f out of my to take a few hundred K out of Roth IRAs and put it in some vehicle I don't understand. (The UIL stuff seems very complicated to me.) I at least need a good enough reason to back this person off.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

What do you think the insurance company is going to do with your money? Do you think they intend to pay you more than they earn with your money?

 

[royboy]

I don't need any life insurance at all, which is one more reason this sounds crazy to me.

They insist the returns are better. They have one of those "0% returns in the years the market is down" things. So it never goes down. They don't use the DIJA or S&P 500 for their index, rather they use something called Pimco, and one other one. And they have a "participation rate" of 1.75, which means the return on their index is multiplied by 1.75. Of course that rate could change and they might be quoting me an unusually high participation rate in the first place.

This person is very persistent. I just need a decent reason to tell them no. I mean, I can tell them no regardless, but I'd feel a lot better if I have a better reason. My reason now is "I don't trust that it will give the return that you say it will."

From what I read I get the impression that this can be good for people in right circumstances but that those people are ones that make a lot of money, like a half million a year at least.

It might be (and I emphasize might be) an investment to consider if you had a pool of non-qualified cash that you could tie up and liked the estate planning aspects of the investment.

But there are plenty of good reasons to say No:

• Your Roth money is already a terrific tax-smart asset
• You don't fully understand the mechanics of the proposed investment
• There are plenty of internal costs of the proposal -- the cost of the life insurance, plus additional investment fees or surrender penalties
• Your broad mix of index investments will out-perform the Indexed UL over time (okay, it's nice to have no losses in a bad year, but long-term, a broad market index with low costs will do much better)
• You don't need the life insurance, or haven't seen that you do
• This person is not your friend if they push real hard for an investment that is not suitable for you and your situation

 

[RadnorJohn]

I am getting a hard, hard, hard sell on this stuff. From what I read it's not a good deal but I can't articulate it enough to get this person off my back.

Their sell is it will make more money on a return than my current stuff (index funds capturing the entire stock market, in Vanguard, and other similar things). Their stuff ties to some other index, plus gets a multiplier ("participation rate" they call it) and part of the sell is that it's non-taxable someday, but then again so is a lot of my retirement money already because it's Roth.

I'd be interested in your opinion of UIL, good or bad. This person is relentless. But it scares the f out of my to take a few hundred K out of Roth IRAs and put it in some vehicle I don't understand. (The UIL stuff seems very complicated to me.) I at least need a good enough reason to back this person off.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Just curious, is the agent a guy by the of Seth?

 

[Op2]

Just curious, is the agent a guy by the of Seth?

No, actually it's a female, although I said "he" in a previous post. They are from a company in the western part of the US. I don't want to get too specific because although I think they're trying to sell me, I still don't want to violate an implied confidence.

 

[Op2]

It might be (and I emphasize might be) an investment to consider if you had a pool of non-qualified cash that you could tie up and liked the estate planning aspects of the investment.

But there are plenty of good reasons to say No:

• Your Roth money is already a terrific tax-smart asset
• You don't fully understand the mechanics of the proposed investment
• There are plenty of internal costs of the proposal -- the cost of the life insurance, plus additional investment fees or surrender penalties
• Your broad mix of index investments will out-perform the Indexed UL over time (okay, it's nice to have no losses in a bad year, but long-term, a broad market index with low costs will do much better)
• You don't need the life insurance, or haven't seen that you do
• This person is not your friend if they push real hard for an investment that is not suitable for you and your situation

I definitely don't fully understand the mechanics of it.

Other than "cost of insurance," they say there are no costs, which doesn't sound right.

I don't need life insurance. I already have a small amount and I don't think I need more. And the person isn't a friend at all but rather someone that I contacted via an email at work about retirement planning.

 

[NewEra 2014]

I got a similar $100k whole life policy when I was in my 20s. Once I had built up a cash value of about $5k, I stopped contributing to it and just let the cash value support the policy for the last 30 years or so. I supplemented that policy with term life policies until my kids were out of college.

I still have the whole life policy and the cash value is about $8k now. I haven’t given them a premium payment since the early 1990s. But every year, I get what looks like a premium bill from the insurance company, trying to get me to contribute again. My father in law continued to pay the “premium” until he passed away in his 70’s. I don’t think he understood the insurance product very well, and the insurance company wasn’t about to help him out.

As I get older, it gets easier to politely tell sales people to f*ck off. If they persist, I get less polite.

At your stage in life, you don’t need a reason to decline a sales pitch. Simply say that it is not for you. They will get over it.

 

[Waste Management Consultant]

Bro… like Nancy Reagan used to say back in the day “Just say NO!”

Im guessing your “advisor/sales lady” rarely gets told NO and does very well for herself financially targeting fairly well off middle aged men.

Would you even be considering this product if it was some fat, bald, sweaty man with arm pit stains on his shirt and bad breath?

 

[Online Persona]

Yeah. He also tried to sell me some oceanfront property in Flagstaff, Arizona. I'm still mulling that offer over.

Sounds more like one of your climate change loons if they are selling oceanfront in flagstaff

 

[Online Persona]

I got a similar $100k whole life policy when I was in my 20s. Once I had built up a cash value of about $5k, I stopped contributing to it and just let the cash value support the policy for the last 30 years or so. I supplemented that policy with term life policies until my kids were out of college.

I still have the whole life policy and the cash value is about $8k now. I haven’t given them a premium payment since the early 1990s. But every year, I get what looks like a premium bill from the insurance company, trying to get me to contribute again. My father in law continued to pay the “premium” until he passed away in his 70’s. I don’t think he understood the insurance product very well, and the insurance company wasn’t about to help him out.

As I get older, it gets easier to politely tell sales people to f*ck off. If they persist, I get less polite.

At your stage in life, you don’t need a reason to decline a sales pitch. Simply say that it is not for you. They will get over it.

You did this the right way IMO.

1) Insurance is there to fill a gap in your financial plan and the companies operate at a profit. When you were young and had kids, you needed to protect them against the potential loss of your income. You made sure they would be fine even if you weren't.

2) Insurance operates for profit and they aren't going to tell you when you are over insured. Also, additional premiums take away from investments that yield higher returns.

3) It is in the best interest of the salesperson to stop their efforts the moment you know that you aren't interested. Time is money. They aren't going to last as a salesperson if their feelings are hurt, so when you know, let them know. They move on.

 

[fkkkjm]

I don’t understand this thread. The issue seems more about you being a people
pleaser who struggles to tell people off vs. needing more info on this insurance investment.

It’s not a bad thing - but stop feeling like you need a good reason. Tell the sales lady to buzz off.

My in-laws made some investments with an insurance company and they are a pain in the ass to unwind later in life or from an estate perspective.

 

[cvilleelkscoach]

I am getting a hard, hard, hard sell on this stuff. From what I read it's not a good deal but I can't articulate it enough to get this person off my back.

Their sell is it will make more money on a return than my current stuff (index funds capturing the entire stock market, in Vanguard, and other similar things). Their stuff ties to some other index, plus gets a multiplier ("participation rate" they call it) and part of the sell is that it's non-taxable someday, but then again so is a lot of my retirement money already because it's Roth.

I'd be interested in your opinion of UIL, good or bad. This person is relentless. But it scares the f out of my to take a few hundred K out of Roth IRAs and put it in some vehicle I don't understand. (The UIL stuff seems very complicated to me.) I at least need a good enough reason to back this person off.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Ned Ryerson is on the Pitt board, might want to check there.

 

[junior1]

I definitely don't fully understand the mechanics of it.

Other than "cost of insurance," they say there are no costs, which doesn't sound right.

I don't need life insurance. I already have a small amount and I don't think I need more. And the person isn't a friend at all but rather someone that I contacted via an email at work about retirement planning.

I just sat through a presentation on indexed universal life and, as you said, it does sound too good to be true. The one I am being pitched provides a "bonus" the day you sign up..bonuses can be 35% on the money you put in.
The idea is you are buying insurance, but in reality you are buying the minimum amount of insurance allowed by law and the remainder goes into investments. The interesting thing is that you can borrow against your cash value, not from your money but from the company, tax free, at a rate of 1% (in this policy) and you never have to pay it back.....it comes from your death benefit.
I'd recommend you look up iul on you tube. There are some really good explanations about what these policies are and the pros and cons.
Like others suggested, I would not transfer a Roth to one of these.

 

[bdgan]

I just sat through a presentation on indexed universal life and, as you said, it does sound too good to be true. The one I am being pitched provides a "bonus" the day you sign up..bonuses can be 35% on the money you put in.
The idea is you are buying insurance, but in reality you are buying the minimum amount of insurance allowed by law and the remainder goes into investments. The interesting thing is that you can borrow against your cash value, not from your money but from the company, tax free, at a rate of 1% (in this policy) and you never have to pay it back.....it comes from your death benefit.
I'd recommend you look up iul on you tube. There are some really good explanations about what these policies are and the pros and cons.
Like others suggested, I would not transfer a Roth to one of these.

I'll repeat... What do you think the insurance company is doing with your premium payments? They invest them expecting to realize more gains than what they will ever pay to beneficiaries.

 

[junior1]

I'll repeat... What do you think the insurance company is doing with your premium payments? They invest them expecting to realize more gains than what they will ever pay to beneficiaries.

of course they are, but why do you care as long as you are making an acceptable return and the benefits outweigh the costs. You purchase these things because of the benefits they provide you. By the way, the policy I was being pitched provided a 6% return with participation rates (what you get) of 150-175% of what the index returns. Think about that for a second. You could be getting upwards of 12% depending on the index returns. And, yes the insurance company is also making money. Supposedly they make money on covered options.
I'm not trying to sell anyone on the concept. But for someone just starting out, these things might be a better option than a 401k in that your money is tied to an index (S&p for example) and when you take it out its a loan, tax free, your account grows and your available insurance increases as well.
And yes, the insurance company makes money which is kind of important. You want a strong company to make good on your "loans"

 

[bdgan]

of course they are, but why do you care as long as you are making an acceptable return and the benefits outweigh the costs. You purchase these things because of the benefits they provide you. By the way, the policy I was being pitched provided a 6% return with participation rates (what you get) of 150-175% of what the index returns. Think about that for a second. You could be getting upwards of 12% depending on the index returns. And, yes the insurance company is also making money. Supposedly they make money on covered options.
I'm not trying to sell anyone on the concept. But for someone just starting out, these things might be a better option than a 401k in that your money is tied to an index (S&p for example) and when you take it out its a loan, tax free, your account grows and your available insurance increases as well.
And yes, the insurance company makes money which is kind of important. You want a strong company to make good on your "loans"

I'd be very wary of a fixed annuity promising a participation rate of 150% of what the index returns. Index annuities typically have a participation rate closer to 70% and they often have a cap close to 8%. So if the market is up 10% you get 7%. If the market is up 20% you get the 8% cap. Almost all of them impose a surrender charge if you get out before 10 years. This is how insurers make their money. They earn 100% and give you 70%. The benefit is that you're protected on the down side which is nice, but history tells us that there won't be a down side if you stick it out for 10 years.

Individuals have to assess their risk tolerance. Index annuities might be good for you if you simply can't stomach the ups and downs but chances are you would be better off just staying invested on your own.

 

[PSUSignore]

This person is very persistent.

Because universal life is a high commission product. You are speaking to a salesman, not a financial advisor. The odds that their insurance + investment combo product can beat stock index funds over the long term without cherry picking data and being misleading to sell you something are pretty much zero. The conventional wisdom is to buy term life and invest the difference in premiums, because universal life has significantly higher premiums. I believe there are a few odd circumstances where it makes sense, but it's not for most people.

 

[PSUSignore]

I definitely don't fully understand the mechanics of it.

Other than "cost of insurance," they say there are no costs, which doesn't sound right.

I don't need life insurance. I already have a small amount and I don't think I need more. And the person isn't a friend at all but rather someone that I contacted via an email at work about retirement planning.

Said it in the last post but it's worth repeating. You are not speaking with a financial advisor, you are talking to an insurance salesman. You said you're looking for a reason to say no. Ask if they are a certified financial planner or fiduciary. The answer will be no. Then tell them you only take financial advices from a fiduciary, and walk away.

 

[junior1]

I'd be very wary of a fixed annuity promising a participation rate of 150% of what the index returns. Index annuities typically have a participation rate closer to 70% and they often have a cap close to 8%. So if the market is up 10% you get 7%. If the market is up 20% you get the 8% cap. Almost all of them impose a surrender charge if you get out before 10 years. This is how insurers make their money. They earn 100% and give you 70%. The benefit is that you're protected on the down side which is nice, but history tells us that there won't be a down side if you stick it out for 10 years.

Individuals have to assess their risk tolerance. Index annuities might be good for you if you simply can't stomach the ups and downs but chances are you would be better off just staying invested on your own.

this is not an annuity....this is an insurance policy.
You're right though about fixed index annuities.....capped upside and downside protection. .you're also right about returns. Last 10 year S&P annualized return is about 12.5%, whereas returns on the FIA is somewhere closer to the 5% range.
The indexed universal life is a whole different product.

 

[junior1]

Because universal life is a high commission product. You are speaking to a salesman, not a financial advisor. The odds that their insurance + investment combo product can beat stock index funds over the long term without cherry picking data and being misleading to sell you something are pretty much zero. The conventional wisdom is to buy term life and invest the difference in premiums, because universal life has significantly higher premiums. I believe there are a few odd circumstances where it makes sense, but it's not for most people.

and yet, it's one of the biggest sellers in the US

 

[dvin41]

I got a similar $100k whole life policy when I was in my 20s. Once I had built up a cash value of about $5k, I stopped contributing to it and just let the cash value support the policy for the last 30 years or so. I supplemented that policy with term life policies until my kids were out of college.

I still have the whole life policy and the cash value is about $8k now. I haven’t given them a premium payment since the early 1990s. But every year, I get what looks like a premium bill from the insurance company, trying to get me to contribute again. My father in law continued to pay the “premium” until he passed away in his 70’s. I don’t think he understood the insurance product very well, and the insurance company wasn’t about to help him out.

As I get older, it gets easier to politely tell sales people to f*ck off. If they persist, I get less polite.

At your stage in life, you don’t need a reason to decline a sales pitch. Simply say that it is not for you. They will get over it.

Do you know that if you die, your family doesn’t get that cash value from the whole
Life policy? They only get the policy value. So I’m a sense you are wasting that $8k.

 

[LemonEars]

I don't need any life insurance at all, which is one more reason this sounds crazy to me.

They insist the returns are better. They have one of those "0% returns in the years the market is down" things. So it never goes down. They don't use the DIJA or S&P 500 for their index, rather they use something called Pimco, and one other one. And they have a "participation rate" of 1.75, which means the return on their index is multiplied by 1.75. Of course that rate could change and they might be quoting me an unusually high participation rate in the first place.

This person is very persistent. I just need a decent reason to tell them no. I mean, I can tell them no regardless, but I'd feel a lot better if I have a better reason. My reason now is "I don't trust that it will give the return that you say it will."

From what I read I get the impression that this can be good for people in right circumstances but that those people are ones that make a lot of money, like a half million a year at least.

If the person is persistent to have you give him money for his wonderful investment product, tell him to get lost. If the investment product was that good, then why isn't he lying on the beach in Barbados instead of perstering you to give him money?

 

[SLUPSU]

I'd be very wary of a fixed annuity promising a participation rate of 150% of what the index returns. Index annuities typically have a participation rate closer to 70% and they often have a cap close to 8%. So if the market is up 10% you get 7%. If the market is up 20% you get the 8% cap. Almost all of them impose a surrender charge if you get out before 10 years. This is how insurers make their money. They earn 100% and give you 70%. The benefit is that you're protected on the down side which is nice, but history tells us that there won't be a down side if you stick it out for 10 years.

Individuals have to assess their risk tolerance. Index annuities might be good for you if you simply can't stomach the ups and downs but chances are you would be better off just staying invested on your own.

This sales pitch was made to me a couple of years ago on an Annuity. What do you think?

Guarantees a 6% annual return (simple), put in 100k get 6k for up to 10 years or double the 100k if held for 12 years.

Offers 100% participation and no cap on a selection of 100+ stock/bond funds (with fees of 0.5% to 2%)

The underlying fees add another 1.5%, so if you're 100% in stocks your return is effectively reduced by a minimum of 2%. With the underlying guarantee of 6%, you need to make 8%+ in the market to overcome the fees, and if you do then the base on which you get the 6% grows. For example, if the market goes up 15% in your first year, your return would be 13% and your base 100k grows to and locks in at 113,000, if the market goes down 5% the second year then you get 6% on the 113k. The annual locked-in balance effectively becomes a life insurance amount, if you die after you annuitize you get what's left of the balance minus any payouts.

The withdrawal rate is 5% of your balance at age 65 to 75.

Examples:
Put in 100k at 60, do nothing, wait for 10 yrs, and get 667/mo for life (about 4.75%/yr compounded for 10 years)

Put in 100k, do nothing, wait for 12 yrs, and get 833/mo for life (about 6%/yr compounded for 12 years)

Put in 100k, invest in stocks, have two good years in the market, earn 50%, do nothing and get 6% for 3 years, and get 779 for life starting at age 65.

There is another feature that will allow you to get even more upfront based on earnings but it's too complicated to explain, the 779 in the example above would be ~1000/mo for the first 2-3 years.

 

[junior1]

This sales pitch was made to me a couple of years ago on an Annuity. What do you think?

Guarantees a 6% annual return (simple), put in 100k get 6k for up to 10 years or double the 100k if held for 12 years.

Offers 100% participation and no cap on a selection of 100+ stock/bond funds (with fees of 0.5% to 2%)

The underlying fees add another 1.5%, so if you're 100% in stocks your return is effectively reduced by a minimum of 2%. With the underlying guarantee of 6%, you need to make 8%+ in the market to overcome the fees, and if you do then the base on which you get the 6% grows. For example, if the market goes up 15% in your first year, your return would be 13% and your base 100k grows to and locks in at 113,000, if the market goes down 5% the second year then you get 6% on the 113k. The annual locked-in balance effectively becomes a life insurance amount, if you die after you annuitize you get what's left of the balance minus any payouts.

The withdrawal rate is 5% of your balance at age 65 to 75.

Examples:
Put in 100k at 60, do nothing, wait for 10 yrs, and get 667/mo for life (about 4.75%/yr compounded for 10 years)

Put in 100k, do nothing, wait for 12 yrs, and get 833/mo for life (about 6%/yr compounded for 12 years)

Put in 100k, invest in stocks, have two good years in the market, earn 50%, do nothing and get 6% for 3 years, and get 779 for life starting at age 65.

There is another feature that will allow you to get even more upfront based on earnings but it's too complicated to explain, the 779 in the example above would be ~1000/mo for the first 2-3 years.

first of all, assuming your numbers are correct...
couple of questions I would ask...what is the company....Best rating?
what are your needs? how comfortable are you with each of the options?
and, what other products are out there that might be better than the options you listed above?

 

[Obliviax]

 

[SLUPSU]

first of all, assuming your numbers are correct...
couple of questions I would ask...what is the company....Best rating?
what are your needs? how comfortable are you with each of the options?
and, what other products are out there that might be better than the options you listed above?

Jackson... A (Excellent) Best rating.
That's one of the big problems with annuities, you can get information on one or two annuities from an advisor but you don't really know if you have the best option available, it's a research nightmare to get details/specifics on these complex products. Barron's does an annual rating of annuities, and this one has been on their list in the past, and a closely related product is currently on the list.

https://www.jackson.com/static/jwp/pdf/jmv26125.pdf

The 100 Best Annuities for Today’s Market

Higher inflation, higher taxes, and lower bond yields have retirees justifiably worried about income. Annuities can help—if you choose well.

www.barrons.com

 

[NewEra 2014]

Do you know that if you die, your family doesn’t get that cash value from the whole
Life policy? They only get the policy value. So I’m a sense you are wasting that $8k.

I'm not sure that I understand your comment. My family would get a $100k death benefit if I die. You are correct that they would not get the $8k cash value.

I have not paid anything for the $100k death benefit for my family for 30+ years. I'm comfortable letting the policy ride as is, because the cash surrender value has fluctuated between about $3k and $10k since I stopped contributing. If the cash value ever got above $10k, I would probably think about whether I wanted to keep the policy in effect. It also pays a small quarterly dividend.

 

[junior1]

Jackson... A (Excellent) Best rating.
That's one of the big problems with annuities, you can get information on one or two annuities from an advisor but you don't really know if you have the best option available, it's a research nightmare to get details/specifics on these complex products. Barron's does an annual rating of annuities, and this one has been on their list in the past, and a closely related product is currently on the list.

https://www.jackson.com/static/jwp/pdf/jmv26125.pdf

The 100 Best Annuities for Today’s Market

Higher inflation, higher taxes, and lower bond yields have retirees justifiably worried about income. Annuities can help—if you choose well.

www.barrons.com

to me, it depends on what you want. I have 2 variable annuities...everyone says stay away from them...I bought them in 2009, solely for the death benefit..one has a guaranteed 6%/year or market and the second has 5%/year or market. The cash value has been up and down as you might imagine, but that doesn't bother me.
If I were you, I'd contact a couple of different annuity selling companies..allianz, brighthouse, fidelity, for example. if you're looking for steady cash income they should be able to help...big this is fees, be careful there.

 

[The Spin Meister]

I don't need any life insurance at all, which is one more reason this sounds crazy to me.

They insist the returns are better. They have one of those "0% returns in the years the market is down" things. So it never goes down. They don't use the DIJA or S&P 500 for their index, rather they use something called Pimco, and one other one. And they have a "participation rate" of 1.75, which means the return on their index is multiplied by 1.75. Of course that rate could change and they might be quoting me an unusually high participation rate in the first place.

This person is very persistent. I just need a decent reason to tell them no. I mean, I can tell them no regardless, but I'd feel a lot better if I have a better reason. My reason now is "I don't trust that it will give the return that you say it will."

From what I read I get the impression that this can be good for people in right circumstances but that those people are ones that make a lot of money, like a half million a year at least.

You don’t need a reason. If you give one she will just try to counter it. No discussion, be polite. “Sorry, not interested” and that is it, say nothing more. Repeat the exact same phrase in a firm but calm voice over and over. After about five times, she will give up.

I have avoided fights doing this exact same thing with drunks at bars.

This works great for kids too. Say “Clean up your room.“ No matter what they say or do just repeat it in a calm voice. They will soon realize arguing isn gonna work and comply.