As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Search: variable-annuity


Earlier this week, I reviewed common financial rules of thumb and offered a quick evaluation of how each rule would likely perform if accepted by an individual as the final word. One of these was the rule that convinces retirees they will be financially secure if they withdraw 4% of their nest egg for income one year and continue withdrawing the same amount adjusted for inflation each year.

Walter Updegrave has a much more detailed strategy for retirees who would like to make their money last from age 65 to 95 and beyond. He offers three alternatives that one can follow depending on their assets and their needs in retirement.

Three strategies for retirees

The first strategy is for retirees who have enough income from Social Security and pensions to cover basic expenses and who are confident in their ability to manage their portfolio.

For those in this situation the 4% withdrawal rule has a chance of succeeding — having your money last 30 years — 77% of the time. If you need more income than 4% would provide, you’re risking not having enough to last that long. For example, someone retiring today with a $1 million nest egg could withdraw $40,000 that first year. But if you’re 33 years old like me, you better plan on having much more than $1 million when you retire; thanks to inflation, an income of $40,000 thirty years from now will probably not be sufficient.

In order to maintain a 4% withdrawal rate, according to the article, is to maintain a portfolio of 50% stocks and 50% bonds. And by the way, a bad year in the stock market could wipe you out.

The second strategy offered by Walter Updegrave is for retirees who need more income for basic expenses than is provided by Social Security and pensions or who do not want to subject their portfolio to as much risk as required in the first strategy.

Take part of your nest egg and purchase a lifetime immediate annuity. This will provide you with steady paychecks for the rest of your life. According to the article, recent annuities pay out 8%, so you would only need $500,000 to make that $40,000 income mentioned earlier. These are most beneficial for people who live longer because money is pooled with other investors. Those who die earlier help fund the incomes of those who survive in retirement longer. The problem with annuities is your money is often locked inside them, and you can’t get it if you need it without paying steep penalties.

Walter Updegrave also offers a third strategy for retirees who need more income than Social Security and pensions provide but want access to more of their money. In addition to a portfolio of stocks and bonds, and an immediate lifetime annuity, add a variable annuity with a guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit to the mix.

Variable annuities are flexible but they are also expensive. Rather than 8% like the lifetime immediate annuity above, a 65 year old is likely to receive a 5% return. It is not rare for these accounts to charge a fee of 3% of your account balance each year. The author suggests that the optimal mix between these products and investments would be 25% of your portfolio in variable annuities, 25% in immediate annuities, and the remaining 50% in the diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds.

The problem with annuities

The sale of annuities, particularly variables annuities, is riddled with problems. These are very popular products for salespeople because they make a lot of money for the companies that sell them. It’s not rare for salespeople to misrepresent the product. Often customers are not given the full information regarding withdrawal penalties.

Here’s an example of an 86-year-old man who was pressured into buying a product he did not understand and would never benefit from. Dateline investigated annuities salespeople and found more deception in the industry. Ben Stein, however, credits variable annuities for making his parents rich, though it might be important to note that a Ben Stein’s long-time working partner is Phil DeMuth, a registered investment adviser (salesperson) who benefits financially when more people are convinced that annuities are good products.

How to make your money last, Walter Updegrave, Money Magazine, September 23, 2009

{ 10 comments }

Last year, a reader wrote into Consumerism Commentary with a story about how her elderly father was convinced to buy a variable annuity, locking away his money until after his likely passing. He had wanted to talk to a financial adviser, but found his way to Banc of America Investment Services.

Recently, Dateline took a look into Annuity University, seminars designed to teach brokers how to sell annuities to the elderly. Undercover, the Dateline producers infiltrated seminars and sales calls to show how the salesmen deceive would-be customers.

Dateline: Annuity UniversityDateline’s four-part special shows how these particular salesmen play down or intentionally ignore surrender fees, claim annuities are more liquid than CDs, and “puff up” their credentials by putting their photos on official-looking books and magazines and by creating recordings of fake radio shows.

Agents in these seminars are taught to treat the elderly like they are 12 years old and use scare tactics. They are instructed to tell clients that money is riskier in an FDIC-insured bank account than in an annuity product.

I firmly believe that any customer has the responsibility to research any financial product before purchase. Problems arise when seniors (or others) are trusting and when agents flat out lie. It’s difficult to make informed decisions if the information you receive is intentionally incorrect or misleading.

Not all annuity salesmen follow these tactics, of course. I would suggest being wary of any salesperson whose fiduciary interest is in their own commission from the sale. Not all annuity products are bad, either. Even Ben Stein is a big fan (with friends in the annuity business).

Please take the time to view the four-part Dateline presentation which uncovers the truth about Annuity University and some of its “graduates.”

{ 4 comments }

Although Ben Stein likes variable annuities, these insurance products can be an expensive way of investing. They do “assure” a level of income over a certain time period, but depending on where you go to receive this product, you could be paying too much for a service that can be found somewhere else for less.

Additionally, the variable annuity product is not right for some people. Not all salespeople are ethical and even when innocent, they often have their own commission check in mind rather than the fiduciary health of their customer.

If you find yourself with an expensive variable annuity, you can switch. The IRS allows you to transfer your assets to a different annuity product, even one offered by a different company than the current insurance carrier. Normally there’s a 10% IRS withdrawal penalty if you liquidate the annuity before the age of 59½, but this penalty is waived for a qualifying transfer.

There are two catches:

1. You can only switch products if you haven’t begun to receive payments.
2. Your insurance carrier may require you to pay a surrender fee.

Catch number one has no wiggle room. Either you can perform the transfer or you can’t. The second catch requires you to weigh the surrender fees against the lower expenses of the new annuity product.

This escape clause should come in handy if you or a loved one is “trapped” in an annuity product that was misunderstood at the time of contract.

Does Your Variable Annuity Cost Too Much? [Schwab]

{ 8 comments }

Focusing on small spending habit changes is a good way to save significant money over the long term. No matter how many daily lattes you forgo, if you make poor spending decisions on major expenditures, all your ECRD savings could be negated in one moment. Consumer Reports has identified some of these major mistakes that, while common, could cost thousands of dollars unnecessarily. Earlier, I wrote about six such mistakes. Here are six more.

7. Maintaining an unhealthy lifestyle. Living healthy, including an acceptable body weight, low cholesterol, normal blood pressure, and no smoking, can reduce your expenses by $4,600 to $42,000 throughout your life. These savings come from reduced life insurance premiums for healthy individuals. Consumer Reports offers this advice:

Before you apply for life insurance, consult a doctor about the best ways to get your stats in line with the “preferred plus” underwriting requirements. Insurers are OK with you taking medications to achieve normal blood pressure and cholesterol levels.

I’m surprised Consumer Reports’ analysis stops at life insurance. There are many ways healthy individuals spend less than unhealthy. First of all, smoking is an expensive habit. Cigarettes are expensive and the health problems smokers will likely have to deal with will be financially difficult depending on the severity of the problem. Quitting smoking is one of the best things someone can do to save money, not just from the expensive cigarettes but from increasing health care costs. In general, unhealthy people visit the doctor more and perhaps require medication. While health insurance covers some expense, staying healthy is a much better choice.

Personally, I can do much better in this category by exercising and having at least annual check-ups with my doctor. I’ve tested my blood pressure recently, and that seems to be fine. I do not know where my cholesterol stands, and I could stand to lose a few pounds.

8. Ignoring Roth accounts. Roth IRAs and 401(k)s allow earners to set aside money for retirement while allowing that money to grow tax free. If withdrawn when allowed, and if the law does not change by then, earnings will be tax free as well. Roth accounts are excellent options for those who believe their tax rate now will be lower than their tax rate at retirement. I don’t think anyone’s guess is better than anyone else’s regarding future tax rates, so my approach is to diversify my tax exposure.

Consumer Reports estimates that ignoring the Roth option could cost $9,000 to $26,000.

9. Cashing out your 401(k). This figure surprises me. Consumer Reports mentions that 45% of workers cash out their 401(k) when they change jobs. I can only think of one situation in which this makes sense, and even then it’s sketchy. If someone finds himself out of a job unexpectedly after being fired or laid off, does not have any access to emergency funds, and cannot find a job immediately, I can understanding tapping into a 401(k). There are huge penalties for doing this, and I think it’s a bad option. Always be prepared for job loss by following these five suggestions, and you won’t have to worry about where your money will come from if you find yourself unemployed.

10. Underfunding your 401(k). One of the most common pieces of financial advice doles out by professionals is to maximize your 401(k) contributions to the IRS limit (after funding your emergency fund, meeting the requirements for your company’s matching contribution, and maximizing a Roth IRA). This is a somewhat difficult goal for many people. If you are single and earning $40,000 in New Jersey for example, and you have to pay for an apartment or a house, you’re going to find it difficult to pay all of your bills while diverting $15,500 to retirement. I only recenntly bumped my 401(k) contributions high enough to max out my 401(k), and I could only do so thanks to outside income.

Consumer Reports calculates that an average worker not contributing fully to a 401(k) would give up $36,000 in savings compared to one who does fully contribute.

11. Paying needless fund fees. Several years ago, when I first started investing, I set up a recurring purchase of a fund I had already owned through a UGMA account. I thought recurring purchases in AIVSX would help my portfolio grow. It turns out the fund did well when the market did well, but my purchase price did not seem to line up with the price of the fund on the purchase dates. The price I was buying the fund at was about 5% higher than the fund’s actual price. I later realized that I was paying a 5% premium each time I purchased the fund because it was a “load fund.” This load reduced my performance to below the market benchmark. Once I realized, I stopped purchasing the fund every two weeks. It was a waste of money and a lesson learned.

I could have easily found a no-load fund in which to invest. If I had continued with AIVSX, I might have wasted $4,000 over the course of my investment.

The high-cost fund that we chose had a 5.25 percent load and annual expenses totaling 0.45 percent. The low-cost fund was a no-load with annual costs of only 0.18 percent. The high-cost fund grew to $36,000, the low-cost one to $40,000. Note that we could have chosen a fund with even higher expenses, had we not done our comparison with index funds.

The magazine recommends Fidelity, T. Rowe Price, and Vanguard. I have accounts with Fidelity and Vanguard, and so far, I would have no problem recommending either of these companies. Both have low-cost, no-load index funds perfect for frugal investing.

12. Falling for a scam. Anyone can fall for a scam, even otherwise intelligent people. Professional con artists are good at what they do, and they continue to exist because the scams work often enough to make it worthwhile. Consumer Reports can’t even estimate how much someone could lose on a scam; it can be a family’s entire savings.

Always check out the license, reputation, and references of any company or individual you’re thinking of doing business with. Never respond to an unsolicited request for personal information, such as your Social Security number or online passwords, even if it appears to come from a business you know. Instead, call the company yourself. Be especially wary if you’re nearing or in retirement, a prime age group targeted by fraudsters because, as the bank robber Willie Sutton once said of his own favorite crime target, that’s where the money is.

On a smaller scale, sometimes gainfully employed professionals can commit what amounts to a scam. It pays to know all the details about any financial arrangement you agree to, whether it’s a car loan or a variable annuity. Many professionals are not required to act in their customers’ best interest, and what’s good for the salesman is not always good for the customer. If you are unsure, it’s best to wait before making a decision or bring someone knowledgeable and trusted with you. Last year, I wrote about an elderly person who was sold a variable annuity by Bank of America without really understanding the details. It’s likely she wouldn’t see any benefit from the product before she would pass away. It’s hard to always know who to blame, as there is often miscommunication, misunderstanding, and in some cases, misleading before the contract is signed.

12 money mistakes that could cost you $1,000,000 [Consumer Reports]

{ 1 comment }

Comparing a Lump Sum With an Annuity

by Flexo

Every since I wrote about the variable annuity sold to an 86-year-old, I’ve been trying to come up with some sort of situation in which this makes sense. Actually, I haven’t been putting effort into this issue at all, but this article from Charles Schwab happened to appear at the right time. Inside is a ... Continue reading this article…

6 comments Read the full article →

Financial Lessons From Television Fiction: House

by Flexo

I have to admit there are are two or three television shows I enjoy watching each week. House is one of those shows. I’m drawn to this show for several reasons. I’m a fan of Hugh Laurie from his Blackadder days, and his American accent is usually very convincing. Also, the show takes place in ... Continue reading this article…

4 comments Read the full article →