As the deleveraging of the world economy progresses with rapid ferocity, all things equity have been decimated beyond recognition. 401(k)s and mutual funds are back to the levels they were when today's crop of college graduates were in the fifth grade.
Many rules of thumb about equity investing have been blown to smithereens. No longer will we be able to confidently say "Since 1926, equities have averaged 10% per year." It's now in the single digits on the order of 8 or 9%. The definition of "long term" will undoubtably be called into question, as 10 years now appears to be not nearly long enough to ensure positive returns in the markets. As evidence, consider the Dow Jone Industrial Average first hit 10,000 on March 29, 1999, and as I write this stands about 35% BELOW that level, ten years later.
And herein lies the rub - the insurance industry, having launched en masse living benefits in the post 2000-2002 tech bubble to much fanfare, is on the wrong end of a Faustian bargain in which it traded its soul - rooted in mortality pooling - for the much sexier and palatable investment-hedged approach to retirement income guarantees.
That said, all is not lost, though there is much work to be done to rebalance to a healthier, more sustainable product mix. For example, the top six sellers of variable annuities in the financial planner channel in 2008 sold about $30 billion of the product, most of it with a living benefit guarantee. This represents about 75% of variable annuity sales in this channel. Meanwhile, these same leading companies sold all of $190 million in income annuities in this channel. That's a ratio of roughly 160/1, or $160 dollars of variable annuity premium for every $1 dollar of income annuity. At the other end of the spectrum, the top single seller of income annuties in this channel sold 40% more in income annuities than these six top VA sellers combined, and in fact sold less in variable annuities than in income annuities.
Of course, it's fair to assume that many of the VA purchasers weren't yet ready for retirement income and thus wouldn't be income annuity candidates, yet it's also reasonable to assume that far more than 1 out of 160 clients was ready for retirement income and thus would have been income annuity candidates. So here is the irony: the vast majority of clients in the financial planner space do not own an income annuity, at precisely the time in the financial and economic history of this country that they most need this product, and that manufacturers need less VA with guarantees on their books.
Much has been written in financial and academic journals about asset allocation optomization and the stabilizing benefits it provides investors and portfolios. As the insurance industry works to solve the retirement income needs of today's pensionless retirees, a similar optomization exercise needs to be performed at the manufacturer and distributor level to determine the appropriate mix of risk pooled (annuitized) and investment-centric (living benefit) solutions. I am most certainly not the guy to do that, but something tells me 99.5/.5 is not a healthy, sustainable mix.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Ignoring the cure, or "Why I don't want an income annuity"
Imagine being chronically ill, suffering with the symptoms of your illness, all the while ignoring the cure that is readily available. Seems senseless, right?
Well, there are millions of financially ill retirees today in the wake of the worst financial crisis in eighty years. They're wondering if their retirement incomes will last as long as they do given the shrunken size of their nest eggs invested in the financial markets. Those retirees who own income annuities, while not immune from the financial concerns caused by the markets, are likely feeling much more confident, comforted by the knowledge that their payments will continue to show up in their bank accounts whether the bear market continues or not.
The time would appear ripe for income annuities, yet standard objections aren't likely to disappear, crisis or not. Perhaps it would be helpful to assume the role of an "income objector" today in the wake of this crisis to see if the arguments remain valid.
I Don't Want an Income Annuity Today Because:
I'll lose control of my retirement asset
True- in most cases, you will not be able to get your lump sum back once you make the decision to buy an income annuity. You've exchanged a lump sum for the promise of a monthly stream of lifetime income. So all you'll get is......income for a lifetime. Sound bad right now?
Your retirement nest egg today is worth 30-50% less today than it was a year ago, so be honest when answering this questions. Do you feel more "in control" because you still own that asset and and haven't irrevocably converted it to lifetime income?
The income you could have purchased a year ago with your retirement assets is likely 100% greater than what you can now generate on your own through a withdrawal program. For instance, if your portfolio was worth $500,000 a year ago, an income annuity might have generated about $35,000 a year for life for a 65 year old couple, guaranteed until the last spouse dies. Now that $500,000 nest egg is worth maybe $350,000. At a 5% withdrawal, that's $17,500 a year in annual income that would be generated today - exactly one half of what could have been generated in an income annuity a year ago.
To have that $17,500 income grow to the $35,000 that would have been generated by the income annuity a year ago, you'd need to have your asset value - $350,000 - double, to $700,000. Since you still need income, you continue your 5% - $17,500 - withdrawals each year. Your portfolio will need to grow at approximately 12.2% per year in order to have your asset value reach $700,000 in ten years. I arrive at this number by simply taking 7.2% - the annual return that doubles money in ten years - and adding 5% to it to compensate for the 5% withdrawal coming out each year.
Again -how "in control" do you feel having ignored the dull, permanent, inflexible income annuity?
I want to keep my options open and have all my assets liquid
This presumes there is the possibility that in retirement you'll need to call in all of your discretionary assets and spend them in one fell swoop. List below the potential life events that may require you to write one check equal to the value of all of your discretionary retirement assets:
Now that you've listed those events, ponder this question. Assuming you still have income needs, and yet you've liquidated all of your assets, where will your income come from?
I don't want to disinherit my children
This presumes you think an income annuity is an all or nothing proposition. In fact, you can own other income-producing assets (mutual funds, deferred annuities, etc.) and an income annuity. But just for the sake of argument, let's assume you do put all your assets into an income annuity. By doing so, you've likely assured your adult children that you won't need to move in with them due to lack of income and retirement resources. Alternatively, by not owning an income annuity, and risking depletion of retirement resources, there is the possibility you'll need to move in with the adult kids. Which sounds more palatable to both you and your adult children: remaining independent but leaving nothing after your death, or moving in with them and leaving little to nothing after your death?
Next Post: More Than Four
Well, there are millions of financially ill retirees today in the wake of the worst financial crisis in eighty years. They're wondering if their retirement incomes will last as long as they do given the shrunken size of their nest eggs invested in the financial markets. Those retirees who own income annuities, while not immune from the financial concerns caused by the markets, are likely feeling much more confident, comforted by the knowledge that their payments will continue to show up in their bank accounts whether the bear market continues or not.
The time would appear ripe for income annuities, yet standard objections aren't likely to disappear, crisis or not. Perhaps it would be helpful to assume the role of an "income objector" today in the wake of this crisis to see if the arguments remain valid.
I Don't Want an Income Annuity Today Because:
I'll lose control of my retirement asset
True- in most cases, you will not be able to get your lump sum back once you make the decision to buy an income annuity. You've exchanged a lump sum for the promise of a monthly stream of lifetime income. So all you'll get is......income for a lifetime. Sound bad right now?
Your retirement nest egg today is worth 30-50% less today than it was a year ago, so be honest when answering this questions. Do you feel more "in control" because you still own that asset and and haven't irrevocably converted it to lifetime income?
The income you could have purchased a year ago with your retirement assets is likely 100% greater than what you can now generate on your own through a withdrawal program. For instance, if your portfolio was worth $500,000 a year ago, an income annuity might have generated about $35,000 a year for life for a 65 year old couple, guaranteed until the last spouse dies. Now that $500,000 nest egg is worth maybe $350,000. At a 5% withdrawal, that's $17,500 a year in annual income that would be generated today - exactly one half of what could have been generated in an income annuity a year ago.
To have that $17,500 income grow to the $35,000 that would have been generated by the income annuity a year ago, you'd need to have your asset value - $350,000 - double, to $700,000. Since you still need income, you continue your 5% - $17,500 - withdrawals each year. Your portfolio will need to grow at approximately 12.2% per year in order to have your asset value reach $700,000 in ten years. I arrive at this number by simply taking 7.2% - the annual return that doubles money in ten years - and adding 5% to it to compensate for the 5% withdrawal coming out each year.
Again -how "in control" do you feel having ignored the dull, permanent, inflexible income annuity?
I want to keep my options open and have all my assets liquid
This presumes there is the possibility that in retirement you'll need to call in all of your discretionary assets and spend them in one fell swoop. List below the potential life events that may require you to write one check equal to the value of all of your discretionary retirement assets:
Now that you've listed those events, ponder this question. Assuming you still have income needs, and yet you've liquidated all of your assets, where will your income come from?
I don't want to disinherit my children
This presumes you think an income annuity is an all or nothing proposition. In fact, you can own other income-producing assets (mutual funds, deferred annuities, etc.) and an income annuity. But just for the sake of argument, let's assume you do put all your assets into an income annuity. By doing so, you've likely assured your adult children that you won't need to move in with them due to lack of income and retirement resources. Alternatively, by not owning an income annuity, and risking depletion of retirement resources, there is the possibility you'll need to move in with the adult kids. Which sounds more palatable to both you and your adult children: remaining independent but leaving nothing after your death, or moving in with them and leaving little to nothing after your death?
Next Post: More Than Four
Sunday, October 12, 2008
It's time to Refinance Retirement
After completing the worst week for the markets in over 75 years - and in some cases in stock market history - it is time to completely change our thinking about retirement. Trillions have been wiped out of stock market value, much of this in retirement accounts. It is time to refinance retirement.
Just as the days of no money down, interest only, or even adjustable rate mortgages are largely dead and gone, the days of thinking retirement income can be effectively and sustainably produced with a strategy based on withdrawing from assets designed for asset accumulation are gone. While income annuities were about a $7 billion market in 2007, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this number will grow tenfold in the next five years, to $70 billion. Even then, that's still less than half the sales volume of VAs in 2007.
The long ignored and unloved income annuity is going to get it's due, and fast. It is in effect the 30 year fixed rate mortgage of the retirement income world. How many folks stuck in two year ARMs today would give their eye teeth to avoid that horrible upward jolt in their interest payments, and refinance to a 30 year note? Unfortunately, they can't. Their homes are worth less, and thus they don't have the required ratios to qualify.
Let's take the spirit of that question and apply it to retirement income. How many retirees today who started withdrawals from mutual funds or variable annuities in the last few years would love to turn back the clock and refinance that income stream, and instead of having it come from a shrinking asset, have it come from a source guaranteed to never stop paying them? An example will help illustrate how the drastically altered financial landscape of 10/12/08 will very likely drastically change perceptions about what is a good deal - or not.
Assume you had retired 2 years ago with $1,000,000 in savings at age 65. The market had been doing well for the last few years, and that income annuity you'd read about was unappealing to you because you had to irrevocably give up some of your savings in exchange for the income. For example, you were not interested in giving up half your $1million in exchange for a $35,000 income stream (equivalent to a 7% cash flow) guaranteed to last as long as you and your wife, or 20 years, whichever was longer. In effect, you were guaranteed that you or your heirs would be guaranteed to receive back no less than $700,000 from your $500,000 investment($35,000/yr x 20 years minimum guaranteed payout). If you and/or your wife lived to be 95, the total income you'd have collected would be more than $1 million. In any case, this sure thing didn't seem appealing when the market returns were healthy and you felt you could not only get income but continue to grow your nes, egg from which you were taking your income.
Instead, you're now 2 years into retirement. The 5% withdrawals you have been taking ,combined with the market collapse, has your nest egg at about $600,000. You've lost $400,000 of nest egg, the equivalent of 8 years of income at $50,000 per year (5%) from your original $1million portfolio. Readjusting your 5% withdrawal to the value of your shrunken nest egg means your $50,000 income is now $30,000 - a 40% reduction in income. Simply growing that $600,000 back to the $1million starting value will require a heroic 70% net return in underlying assets...and an even larger gross return if you account for continuing withdrawals and investment expenses. That may translate into several years of things going right - a significant chunk of a 20 or 30 year retirement.
The loss of control that so many focus groups and studies have indicated is the slam against income annuities may, in a cruelly ironic way, be the issue that turns the tide in favor of income annuities. Control is a double-edged sword. How much control does the retiree who saw $400,000 evaporate from their nest egg feel today, vs. the control that the income annuity owners feels in knowing that their $35,000 income stream will continue whether the markets recover in 2 years or 20 years.
We have overconsumed as a country for too long, and part of that overconsumption was built on the belief that we could have it all no matter what. Exotic mortgage products brought the dream of granite countertops, two story foyers, and three car garages to those who weren't satisfied with their more modest digs, despite income that didn't really support the mcmansion.
In the same fashion, exotic retirement income products sprang up promising retirees a no-compromise approach to retirement. Stay in the market, and you can be guaranteed an income stream for life of a specified minimum amount, and the opportunity to have that income grow, and.... you don't have to give up control of that asset - you can have it all! All of this is supported behind the scenes by hedging programs which require PhD levels of understanding about risk and assumption making - sound familiar?
Greyhound used to have a slogan that worked well in the days before long distance bus travel became relegated to drifters and wackos: Leave the driving to us. It meant don't worry - take a load off - come aboard, relax, and know that you will arrive at your destination relaxed and unharried, because we're looking out for you.
The income annuity provides that same peace of mind - relax, your checks will continue come hell or high water, just go about your business of enjoying retirement and leave the driving to us. That message is going to begin resonating as retirees begin to refinance their retirements.
Just as the days of no money down, interest only, or even adjustable rate mortgages are largely dead and gone, the days of thinking retirement income can be effectively and sustainably produced with a strategy based on withdrawing from assets designed for asset accumulation are gone. While income annuities were about a $7 billion market in 2007, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this number will grow tenfold in the next five years, to $70 billion. Even then, that's still less than half the sales volume of VAs in 2007.
The long ignored and unloved income annuity is going to get it's due, and fast. It is in effect the 30 year fixed rate mortgage of the retirement income world. How many folks stuck in two year ARMs today would give their eye teeth to avoid that horrible upward jolt in their interest payments, and refinance to a 30 year note? Unfortunately, they can't. Their homes are worth less, and thus they don't have the required ratios to qualify.
Let's take the spirit of that question and apply it to retirement income. How many retirees today who started withdrawals from mutual funds or variable annuities in the last few years would love to turn back the clock and refinance that income stream, and instead of having it come from a shrinking asset, have it come from a source guaranteed to never stop paying them? An example will help illustrate how the drastically altered financial landscape of 10/12/08 will very likely drastically change perceptions about what is a good deal - or not.
Assume you had retired 2 years ago with $1,000,000 in savings at age 65. The market had been doing well for the last few years, and that income annuity you'd read about was unappealing to you because you had to irrevocably give up some of your savings in exchange for the income. For example, you were not interested in giving up half your $1million in exchange for a $35,000 income stream (equivalent to a 7% cash flow) guaranteed to last as long as you and your wife, or 20 years, whichever was longer. In effect, you were guaranteed that you or your heirs would be guaranteed to receive back no less than $700,000 from your $500,000 investment($35,000/yr x 20 years minimum guaranteed payout). If you and/or your wife lived to be 95, the total income you'd have collected would be more than $1 million. In any case, this sure thing didn't seem appealing when the market returns were healthy and you felt you could not only get income but continue to grow your nes, egg from which you were taking your income.
Instead, you're now 2 years into retirement. The 5% withdrawals you have been taking ,combined with the market collapse, has your nest egg at about $600,000. You've lost $400,000 of nest egg, the equivalent of 8 years of income at $50,000 per year (5%) from your original $1million portfolio. Readjusting your 5% withdrawal to the value of your shrunken nest egg means your $50,000 income is now $30,000 - a 40% reduction in income. Simply growing that $600,000 back to the $1million starting value will require a heroic 70% net return in underlying assets...and an even larger gross return if you account for continuing withdrawals and investment expenses. That may translate into several years of things going right - a significant chunk of a 20 or 30 year retirement.
The loss of control that so many focus groups and studies have indicated is the slam against income annuities may, in a cruelly ironic way, be the issue that turns the tide in favor of income annuities. Control is a double-edged sword. How much control does the retiree who saw $400,000 evaporate from their nest egg feel today, vs. the control that the income annuity owners feels in knowing that their $35,000 income stream will continue whether the markets recover in 2 years or 20 years.
We have overconsumed as a country for too long, and part of that overconsumption was built on the belief that we could have it all no matter what. Exotic mortgage products brought the dream of granite countertops, two story foyers, and three car garages to those who weren't satisfied with their more modest digs, despite income that didn't really support the mcmansion.
In the same fashion, exotic retirement income products sprang up promising retirees a no-compromise approach to retirement. Stay in the market, and you can be guaranteed an income stream for life of a specified minimum amount, and the opportunity to have that income grow, and.... you don't have to give up control of that asset - you can have it all! All of this is supported behind the scenes by hedging programs which require PhD levels of understanding about risk and assumption making - sound familiar?
Greyhound used to have a slogan that worked well in the days before long distance bus travel became relegated to drifters and wackos: Leave the driving to us. It meant don't worry - take a load off - come aboard, relax, and know that you will arrive at your destination relaxed and unharried, because we're looking out for you.
The income annuity provides that same peace of mind - relax, your checks will continue come hell or high water, just go about your business of enjoying retirement and leave the driving to us. That message is going to begin resonating as retirees begin to refinance their retirements.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
The Entry Level Millionaire
You did everything right. Saved, lived within your means, and remained steadfast in your long term investing discipline. And by retirement, you've managed to amass a seven figure portfolio, which will be fuel for your retirement income over perhaps the next 30 years.
So what kind of income can you reliably and sustainably squeeze from that million dollar pile that took you maybe 40 years to put together? According to most of the current research among practitioners and academics, the maximum sustainable, inflation adjusted withdrawal percentage starts at about 4% of initial principal. This percentage is often referred to as the maximum sustainable withdrawal, meaning it has about a 90% chance of producing inflation adjusted income of $40,000 a year for 30 years.
So here's the irony - you're officially a millionaire, but you're retirement income is no bigger than that earned by a typical entry level college graduate. Take out more than that $40,000, and you risk taking out too much at the wrong time and jeopardizing the future of your retirement income producing nest egg.
What are the alternatives? You could try to find some high dividend paying stocks, but they would increase your risk of being in a single stock, and the dividends aren't guaranteed.
You could invest in bonds, but you'd again increase your risk by having significant capital in just a few high yielding issues. Or you could try one of the newfangled payout funds designed to preserve principal while paying out income, but they can't guarantee principal won't be eroded and thus your nest egg could again be in jeopardy.
What to do? Here's a crazy thought - why not consider a good old fashioned income annuity? For a 65 year old couple, you can guarantee income that lasts as long as either spouse is alive, and get a cash flow of about 7%. Note that 7% is not merely 3% greater than 4% as in our withdrawal scenario - it's 75% greater. That's a serious cash flow improvement. That $1million nest egg would produce $70,000 a year for as long as either spouse is alive.
Of course, no one would or should put all their retirement money in an income annuity, but to th extent you can stretch finite resources to get better cash flow, the annuity can be a valuable addition to an income portfolio.
So what kind of income can you reliably and sustainably squeeze from that million dollar pile that took you maybe 40 years to put together? According to most of the current research among practitioners and academics, the maximum sustainable, inflation adjusted withdrawal percentage starts at about 4% of initial principal. This percentage is often referred to as the maximum sustainable withdrawal, meaning it has about a 90% chance of producing inflation adjusted income of $40,000 a year for 30 years.
So here's the irony - you're officially a millionaire, but you're retirement income is no bigger than that earned by a typical entry level college graduate. Take out more than that $40,000, and you risk taking out too much at the wrong time and jeopardizing the future of your retirement income producing nest egg.
What are the alternatives? You could try to find some high dividend paying stocks, but they would increase your risk of being in a single stock, and the dividends aren't guaranteed.
You could invest in bonds, but you'd again increase your risk by having significant capital in just a few high yielding issues. Or you could try one of the newfangled payout funds designed to preserve principal while paying out income, but they can't guarantee principal won't be eroded and thus your nest egg could again be in jeopardy.
What to do? Here's a crazy thought - why not consider a good old fashioned income annuity? For a 65 year old couple, you can guarantee income that lasts as long as either spouse is alive, and get a cash flow of about 7%. Note that 7% is not merely 3% greater than 4% as in our withdrawal scenario - it's 75% greater. That's a serious cash flow improvement. That $1million nest egg would produce $70,000 a year for as long as either spouse is alive.
Of course, no one would or should put all their retirement money in an income annuity, but to th extent you can stretch finite resources to get better cash flow, the annuity can be a valuable addition to an income portfolio.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Liquidicide: The Ugly Side of Liquidity in Retirement
What a crazy week - words like apocaplyptic, biblical, and cataclysmic come to mind. By all accounts the financial world was crashing down in such a manner as to make October 19, 1987 look like a junior varsity scrimmage game.
In times like these, the ability to make decisions with regard to one's retirement assets can ironically be, um, a bad thing. How many of you in the last week or two threw in the towel and moved equities into cash? How many of you could have possible guessed that after a string of ulcer-inducing days, the market would rally an historic 8.5% on Thursday and Friday, in the wake of historic moves by the Fed and Treasury? The weeks losses were nearly completey erased! Talk about to hell and back. HOLY COW WAS THAT EVER NUTS!
So here's the rub. If you did decide to go to cash at or near the bottom - you were not alone. Historic volumes of flows jetted into short term treasury notes paying historically low yields. But the massive boomerang effect of the 8.5% rebound happened with lightning speed - those who pulled out Wednesday missed out on an average years worth of gains in 48 hours.
And hence the term "liquidicide". Not yet recognized by Webster's, but intended to define what it sounds like: financial destruction due to unfettered access to and control over the disposition of retirement assets. Hey, let's start with me. Yours truly bought an internet mutual fund on March 11, 2000, when the NASDAQ was at it's all time high of 5000 and change. Why? Because I could! I turned $40,000 into $8,000 in about 4 months. And eight years later, it's back up to a whopping $12,000! That's liquidicide! Fortunately, I'm 20 years from retirement, God willing. But what about those who are retired right now? I contend that there's a high risk of liquidicide when all assets used to produce retirement income are left liquid and in complete control of retirees.
So what can be gleened from this? Be Wise - Annuitize.
Consider the alternative that continues to be a rare choice precisely because it removes the ability of the retiree to have access to the income producing asset. It's a bilateral lifetime contract where the company and the client are committed for life. And that is offputting to some folks - many folks - at first blush.
But think about the emotional and practical advantages of knowing you have a baseline of guaranteed lifetime income - in good times and very, very bad times like we just experienced. The emotional, fear based desire to call in all assets and hibernate until the storm subsides is reduced, because the stakes are lower. Your bases are covered with the annuity and Social Security, maybe a pension. The rest, while still precious, can be left to recover when the smoke finally clears. The annuity is for surviving - cover that first. The rest is for thriving.
Next Post: The Entry Level Millionaire
In times like these, the ability to make decisions with regard to one's retirement assets can ironically be, um, a bad thing. How many of you in the last week or two threw in the towel and moved equities into cash? How many of you could have possible guessed that after a string of ulcer-inducing days, the market would rally an historic 8.5% on Thursday and Friday, in the wake of historic moves by the Fed and Treasury? The weeks losses were nearly completey erased! Talk about to hell and back. HOLY COW WAS THAT EVER NUTS!
So here's the rub. If you did decide to go to cash at or near the bottom - you were not alone. Historic volumes of flows jetted into short term treasury notes paying historically low yields. But the massive boomerang effect of the 8.5% rebound happened with lightning speed - those who pulled out Wednesday missed out on an average years worth of gains in 48 hours.
And hence the term "liquidicide". Not yet recognized by Webster's, but intended to define what it sounds like: financial destruction due to unfettered access to and control over the disposition of retirement assets. Hey, let's start with me. Yours truly bought an internet mutual fund on March 11, 2000, when the NASDAQ was at it's all time high of 5000 and change. Why? Because I could! I turned $40,000 into $8,000 in about 4 months. And eight years later, it's back up to a whopping $12,000! That's liquidicide! Fortunately, I'm 20 years from retirement, God willing. But what about those who are retired right now? I contend that there's a high risk of liquidicide when all assets used to produce retirement income are left liquid and in complete control of retirees.
So what can be gleened from this? Be Wise - Annuitize.
Consider the alternative that continues to be a rare choice precisely because it removes the ability of the retiree to have access to the income producing asset. It's a bilateral lifetime contract where the company and the client are committed for life. And that is offputting to some folks - many folks - at first blush.
But think about the emotional and practical advantages of knowing you have a baseline of guaranteed lifetime income - in good times and very, very bad times like we just experienced. The emotional, fear based desire to call in all assets and hibernate until the storm subsides is reduced, because the stakes are lower. Your bases are covered with the annuity and Social Security, maybe a pension. The rest, while still precious, can be left to recover when the smoke finally clears. The annuity is for surviving - cover that first. The rest is for thriving.
Next Post: The Entry Level Millionaire
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Welcome to Be Wise Annuitize
Welcome to my blog where I invite discussions and debate about the topic of annuitization and other methodologies available today to the retail investor seeking to generate retirement income from discretionary retirement accumulations.
I have spent over 21 years in the insurance industry, with over 20 of those years in the annuity business, the last 17 in a marketing capacity. I have read countless articles on the topic of retirement income, and engaged in numerous discussions and debates on which method is best in particular situations. I look forward to further exploring these issues with whomever would like to join in, and hope to share new perspectives on these issues.
My next post will be titled "Liquidicide: The Ugly Truth About Liquidity" to underscore one important reason why annuitization is so critical to retirement success and well being for the majority of us without rich pensions.
I have spent over 21 years in the insurance industry, with over 20 of those years in the annuity business, the last 17 in a marketing capacity. I have read countless articles on the topic of retirement income, and engaged in numerous discussions and debates on which method is best in particular situations. I look forward to further exploring these issues with whomever would like to join in, and hope to share new perspectives on these issues.
My next post will be titled "Liquidicide: The Ugly Truth About Liquidity" to underscore one important reason why annuitization is so critical to retirement success and well being for the majority of us without rich pensions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)