Paul E wrote:

- quote -

True, but in that case the same thing would have happened
*without* the guarantee in place and the pricipal would have
been even larger.

This is an interesting option to show such illustrations on,
since any time the feature "pays off" it's because the
underlying investment that is being sold tanked. That's not
normally considered a good selling point <grin> , which I
suspect is why you were shown a positive return illustration
instead. But that illustration, as I note, argues against
buying the coverage on a purely rational analysis basis.

The real selling point of this product is based on peace of
mind, because honestly you *HOPE* like mad that it doesn't
"pay off" since you'd prefer to have principal growth over
that time period.

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

Paul E wrote:

- quote -

I understand, but the protection you are buying appears to
me to be for the wrong period if you are looking at only a
very short term issue (a few years). A "perfect" solution
would offer you principal protection for that exact period
of time.

Generally, your draws against this annuity will work just
like drawing against your stocks (since that is what you are
doing if the annuity is invested in equities) unless you
would be "in trouble" over 14 years with a relatively
diversified portfolio. And the odds are pretty heavily
stacked against that if there is sufficient diversity in the
portfolio.

I haven't looked at the offerings on the investment choices
here, but I would be surprised if Hartford put something in
there that was as much of a "bet" on a single stock as were
many of the investment portfolios of those that got hit with
the worst case returns from 1999-2001. Remember, you can't
put these funds 100% into a bet on Real Networks <grin> ,
something some of my technology industry clients might have
thought would be a "good idea" back in the 1990s.

It would be interesting to look back at the performance of
the actual subaccounts in question during that 1999-2001
period. Did any of them manage to lose enough so that
Hartford would appear to have to "make good" on such a
guarantee, had it existed then?

By the way, the more interesting point to me is that when
people *should* have been looking for such provisions was
back in the late 1990s, when almost everyone here seemed to
agree that the market was overvalued. Of course, at that
point a) the herd mentality was that the market could never
go down, so why would I need to worry about a downturn and
b) more rational minds at the Hartford probably realized
that (a) would make this almost impossible to market and
that, if the market truly was grossly overvalued, this was
the worst possible time for them to take on this risk <grin> .

Now that we've gone through a correction, there is now both
a market for this sort of thing (you're looking, right?
<grin> ) *AND* the risk of having to pay off is less (since
the Hartford knows the investments are starting from a lower
value to begin with). So it's not surprising this option
appeared about a year ago--that's when I fully expected such
options to appear.

As I noted, any time this would have paid off you would have
been *better* off with the money market fund over the
fourteen years. And any time it doesn't pay off, you would
have been better off having not taken the protection.
That's not bad--it functions like insurance, which is
exactly what it is meant to do.

But, as the Hartford realizes, the odds are very much
against the policy paying off and, if it does, they get to
pay the "claim" over fourteen years at a zero rate of
interest--not a bad deal considering for other insurance (a
life policy for instance) they generally have to pay up
immediately and/or pay interest from the date of the claim
until the date of payment. That's why they can offer it at
a 0.25% charge against the value of the policy--in most
cases they pick up an increasing fee each year (as the
balance of the account grows) while at the same time their
risk goes down (there's less time for the crash and farther
that the investment has to fall).

But, as I note, if you psychologically need to have this
security blanket in order to do something other than invest
the funds in a money market account paying virtually
nothing, it *is* a good deal for you, because even if it
turns out that, as I expect, $0 is ever paid on this
insurance, you'll still earn a better return than you would
have had you taken the "safe" alternative of stuffing the
money in a money market account.

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

I wish there were a way I could post the pdf file I have demonstrating what
would have happened to the principle in the last 10 yrs, with the 7% payouts
taken annually, showing the more than doubling and a half of the principle
during the payouts.. If anyone wants me to send them a copy, just make sure
your email address is listed correctly in your NG posting, and let me know.

Paul E

"Ed Zollars, CPA" <ezollar[at]mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bstik901shs[at]enews2.newsguy.com...
- quote -

Ed,

I just posted in another answer to a post you made that I dont need it
forever; that there is a healthy inheritance down the road; the longer the
better as I also said This is to help get me there after being retired
about 10 yrs earlier than I expected....And, hey, it makes it all possible.
That I like along with the other things I mentioned..

Thanks to everyone for their comments.

Paul

"Ed Zollars, CPA" <ezollar[at]mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bst0o102kfp[at]enews1.newsguy.com...
- quote -

Thank you for your careful analysis Ed.. Actually, the principle first ryder
costs .35% annually, not .25%. But youre right. Im giving up $700 per year
of returns to fund this option. Its the nature and function of financial
analysists such as your self to find things wrong with products.

Nevertheless, if I came to you and said, look, Ed, I have about $300k in
available stocks currently, and another $150k in IRA stocks, will be getting
a fairly large inheritance down the road a bit (the longer the better far as
Im concerned; I love my parents ), Ive been recently laid off from a
good job in the IT field, Im 54 and job prospects, especially in this field
even though I have a masters degree are dismal, and I need about $14k more
each year, beyond the current $25K im drawing from various sources to cover
my yearly expenses, what should I do?

Prior to discovering this plan I was going to rob my $55k money market acct
of the 14k annual shortfal. Then in 5 years my ira becomes available and Id
be ok.. But I didnt like the idea of depleting the money market completely.
Then, when this plan came along, and I saw I could get 14% on the 200k I put
into it, and still get growth onthe principle, it sounded like a dream come
true.... I still think its better than writing myself a check against my
stock account, because of the downside. I got burned badly as did most of us
at the end of the 90s runup, and anything I do again in stock Has to have
some kind of protection feature. Im just not willing to run naked ever
again.. .I feel much better about staying in the market with this plan.
...Incidentally we chose 3 conservative funds in the plan to put the principle
in, and were going into it with a nice DCA feature; I chose a cap app fund,
a mixed asset fund, and a dividend and grth fund.

You have to be comfortable with the risk you take, and this plan , with the
income it throws off, makes me pretty damn comfortable, considering!

Thanks again,

Paul E

"Ed Zollars, CPA" <ezollar[at]mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bssm0d01l4a[at]enews1.newsguy.com...
- quote -

- quote -

language you use is phrased the way a rep would put it.<<

Given my positive stance on the product I guess this is a fair question.
NO! I have nothing to do with the product professionally. Im using the
language Ive read in the material, because Ive been very seriously
evaluating the product for myself, as I became laid off from my IT job at GE
last year, and I need to kick up my other income streams to fund whats
turning into an early retirement. Im 54. This afternoon, I pulled the
string. After much due deliberation, there is just no place for my money to
work for me, with as good a result, in both good markets and bad. So, what
youre hearing is the result of a very positive analysis about this product.
Not annuities in general, but about this product. Like I said, because the
Principle First ryder was only added last year, alot of folks arent familar
with it, and misunderstand now it works.. Its clear that everyone likes to
be skeptical first, before understanding.. Then, they usually come around,
as I did.

- quote -

both? (draw the income and end up with $520k) The numbers sound high but
I haven't looked at that specific period. Did you repeat it for other
illustration periods? And what did you compare it to?<<

Tad, I appreciate your comments. Id like to send you a pdf file showing you
exactly how it would ahve worked on a 200k investment 10 yrs ago, and how ,
yes, you do get both .... Ill try and use your email address. Hope it works,
cause it shows it well..

Paul E

"Tad Borek" <borekfm[at]pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:HYjIb.3721$GD4.2506[at]newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
- quote -

Elizabeth Richardson wrote:

- quote -

No, it works pretty much like a "standard" annuity product
*unless* it turns out that these draws are greater than the
balance of the account--that is, you would have exhausted
the balance earlier.

So, in esssence, you are guaranteed to get back your initial
investment (or balance when you "turn on" this option) as
long as the Hartford is given the right to pay it out over
14.2 years.

Think of it like having made a $100 investment that each
year you will take $7 from. If the price dropped by $93 the
first year, that first $7 draw would exhaust the investment
(you'd have to sell the whole thing). Now that may not be
realistic, but for illustration let's hold to that extreme
example <grin> . Obviously, you won't be able to draw $7 the
next year because you've exhausted the investment.

With this guarantee, Hartford would "cough up" the $7 for
the next year and would continue to give you $7 a year until
you got back $100 (which would be just after the 14th year).

Now, if the fund earned positive returns each year (or even
had some down years, but still net had earnings), you would
get the $100 back over that same period with or without the
guarantee. That is, Hartford picks up 0.25% each year, so
you'd have less than you would otherwise if Hartford doesn't
have to throw money in to get you back to even after 14 years.

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

"Ed Zollars, CPA" <ezollar[at]mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bst0o102kfp[at]enews1.newsguy.com...
- quote -

This is the part I have a question about. Does this principal guarantee mean
that you use your principal for 14.2 years and at that time it is gone?
Nothing at the end unless your investments have earned more than the 7%
payout? Am I still confused about this product?

Elizabeth Richardson

Gene E. Utterback, EA wrote:

- quote -

Actually, I believe elsewhere it's been indicated this is an
"early retirement" and the poster is in his early 50s. As
such, 14.2 years is not a very long time and if he truly
*needs* 7% per year from that money for the rest of his
life, this doesn't appear to be how to assure you get there.

As well, it's probably useful to remember that in addition
to the 0.25% charge for this guarantee, you also have to
accept the other expenses that are involved with this
particular product even if you wouldn't otherwise accept
them. That may or may not also factor into the decision.

The other key catch is that this guarantee does you no good
if you need to access your principal *earlier* than the 14.2
year period--that is, the guarantee only works if Hartford
gets 14.2 years to pay it off. You are still exposed to a
risk of a market decline hitting at the same time you have a
need to access the principal in the portfolio.

But, as I said, if the peace of mind is deemed "worth it" by
this investor, then it may very well allow him to achieve a
higher return than he would otherwise be willing to tolerate.

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

"Paul E" <elliott.paul[at]att.net> wrote in message
news:iPJGb.532299$0v4.22246666[at]bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
- quote -

I've followed your thread since your first posted, including the responses
and your responses to the responses. There are few things I would like to
make note of - first, most of the respondents here are doing their best to
make you aware of what they believe you need be careful of. With that in
mind, please keep in mind that many people don't like annuities because of
what they USED to be. Building on that note, keep in mind that many
advisors, certainly most who have been around any length of time, have long
since adopted portfolio models based on a wide variety of things, not the
least of which is their past experience with the various investment products
available. And finally, most of us are reluctant to change - if an annuity
left a bad taste in my grandfather's mouth and I heard about it for years
and years it not likely that I would bother to keep up on the newest annuity
features.

With all of that being said - I am not familiar with the Hartford product
you mention, however, I do know that Pacific Life has a very similar product
which guarantees you cannot lose your principal. You get to draw up to 7%
of your initial contribution out every year and PacLife will guarantee you
that you can continue to draw on that contract for 14.2 years no matter how
bad the market does. Their up side scenario is similar, using assumptions
from the past in an attempt to project future performance. I know you've
heard the caveats about this so I won't repeat them here.

Based on your own statements you are in "early retirement". But you don't
elaborate on what this means. I could interpret this two ways - first, you
retired early at 25 years of age; or second, you are 99 years old and just
retired. Both could be considered "in early retirement" yet both are vastly
different.

One of the things you need be mindful of is how long you NEED your money to
last. If you are 25 years old then 14.2 years is not very long. However,
if you are 99, then 14.2 years is a very long time.

Some of the responses you've gotten are directed at the effect of
annuitizing the payout, and which you think aren't pertinent. But let me
see if I can ask the question another way - If you select the 7% of
principal payout (and I do understand that you are drawing off your
principal and you have not annuitized the contract) and the market tanks
such that your contract's true value is ZERO (understanding that if you live
you will continue to get paid for 14.2 years), what happens if you die?
Does your beneficiary get payouts for the remainder of the 14.2 years or
does your contract revert to Hartford? It is possible that the contract
offers options either way.

I hope this helps. And for what it is worth, I happen to like annuities. I
do lean toward ManuLife because they seem to offer the better options for
living benefits and death benefits and the provide for annual step ups in
the contract. That being said, Hartford is a pretty strong company and they
have been around a while, I just am not familiar with their particular
products.

Good luck,
Gene E. Utterback, EA

Paul E wrote:

- quote -

Looking at the prospectus, it appears that for a charge of
0.25% annually, you are guaranteed the right to withdraw
your principal over slightly more than 15 years no matter
what the actual returns may be, with a maximum draw of 7%
per year if you want the full guarantee (though I'd have to
go through the details to be sure--this is based on a very
quick glance at a very thick prospectus).

Note that as I read the document, if you exhaust the balance
of the account with that 7% annual draw, you will have a
zero balance during that fifteenth year--so it's not the
same as annuitizing the balance at a fixed amount where you
would be guaranteed the return per year.

So, as I see it, if you invest $100, you are allowed to draw
up to $7 per year even if your contract balance long ago
dropped to zero after negative returns and your draws, up
until you have received back your entire nominal investment.

Note that if you "cash out" the policy before the 15th year,
you are going to get an amount based on actual performance,
not based on this guarantee.

- quote -

Umm--for that option on this product, that's the *best case*
scenario. If, in fact, there is a generally positive return
then you will always end up worse off with the option in
place, since you will have gotten 0.25% less of a return on
an annual basis than did someone who elected not to take
this option.

If you expect a significant chance of a long run of negative
returns or a high risk of "front end loaded" negative
returns, then this product would make sense. Of course, if
you really know that's going to happen, then an FDIC
guaranteed money market account looks even better <grin> ,
because even at the miserly returns we have now a positive
return still beats a zero return (which is what you get over
15 years if you end up having to take advantage of this clause).

So I think what this really provides is peace of mind that
might enable you to "take the risk" of investing in equities
in the accounts, even though you are giving up 0.25% of your
return annually to do so.

Note that once you start this option, you can only get out
of it by getting out of this product. And, as the
Hartford's actuaries have figured out, the major risk they
face would be a string of bad returns early on--after a few
years of good returns, even a real bad year wouldn't expose
them to much risk of the investments not being able to
sustain that 15 payout limited to only the initial investment.

As Brent notes, a Monte Carlo simulation would be one of the
best ways to truly evaluate this option, since the *timing*
of returns (both positive and negative) would have a
tremendous impact on when this protection would actually
come into play.

I would also note that if the truly nightmarish return
scenario came to pass in general for the stock market (a
negative 25% return each year on stocks in general over an
extended period), that might make it more likely that the
insurer would be unable to "make good" on its guarantee,
since it would suggest some extremely major problems in the
economy--problems that likely would impact the insurer as well.

- quote -

As I note, that part of the deal could be met with a bank
money market account or perfectly duplicated by stuffing the
funds in a mattress and taking 7% out per year <grin> . In
fact, the mattress is even better since you could always
cash it out entirely and get your principal back at any
point in time.

There is no scenario I can see where, if you knew *exactly*
what was going to happen in the future, that this investment
would be the "optimal" one. Rather, you are paying the
0.25% because you are admitting that you don't know what the
future will bring and while you think returns will be
positive, you have enough concern about performance being so
bad that your principal couldn't be repaid to you over 15
years that you are willing to give up 0.25% annually on your
returns vs. investors in the same product who do not want
that insurance.

As I note, I think this is principally a useful tool if you
otherwise would not invest in anything but a very low yield
"safe" investment. And, frankly, that may be more than
enough reason why you should buy it.

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

Paul E wrote:
- quote -

Paul,
First - I can't tell from your posts, are you involved in the business
in some way, or are you a consumer evaluating the product? A lot of the
language you use is phrased the way a rep would put it.

As for your basic question...a few general things to consider:

* you began by saying that you have "a need for income" and that your
stock portfolio won't provide that. Many investors have a perspective of
"leaving principal alone and living off interest" but when spending
assets in retirement, it's completely acceptable to sell assets to raise
cash. Your returns come from income as well as capital appreciation, and
it's acceptable to tap into both of them (also, unless you're planning
to pass the money to heirs - which a VA isn't so good at by the way -
you do want to draw down principal at some point). Of course setting
your withdrawal rate isn't a simple task, and at 54 it would need to be
low. A VA (or any annuity really) simplifies the task because you in
effect pay the insurer to figure those things out for you.

* Is access to the funds an issue and if so, what costs would you bear
if you wanted to tap that $200k in a couple of years? Are you certain
you won't want to do that? Are the restrictions on liquidity/costs
acceptable?

* I haven't been able to decipher the principal-protection rider from
your descriptions - and anyway, it's up to your agent to describe it
fully. Regardless, this is one of those things whose value is, in part,
what you perceive it to be. Think of it as simply one method of reducing
risk; you pay some money, you have a guarantee of - it sounds - not less
than a 0% return over a 14-year period beginning on the date of your
first withdrawal. You're insulated from market fluctuations. OK,
fine...but what sort of fluctuations are your chosen investments likely
to have? Did you compare this approach to other methods of insulating
yourself from market fluctuations? - there are other ways to do it. One
nice aspect of doing it within a VA is you're essentially outsourcing
that "investing problem" to the insurer, for a cost. But it isn't the
only way to do it - in fact I'd say most people don't do it that way.

* You mention a scenario of drawing $14k/year, then $33k/year, then
having $520k+ left over. Confirm those numbers; could you have done
both? (draw the income and end up with $520k) The numbers sound high but
I haven't looked at that specific period. Did you repeat it for other
illustration periods? And what did you compare it to?

* At age 54 it's worthwhile considering the 20-30 year kinds of
scenarios for this product, and comparing them to alternatives. That's
one issue, if you're paying 1.5% a year, or whatever it is, you see
dramatic differences in outcomes from those costs. Your agent may not be
the one to do this for you - might not be able to make the appropriate
comparisons. Modeling four years of (-25%) returns is a bit extreme; a
well-diversified portfolio shouldn't do that.

* Have you factored in taxes at all? From your description they might
not be much of a concern but a VA does turn capital gains into ordinary
income and over a long-enough time period you could really effect your net.

* assuming you used this product, and based on your descriptions, it
seems an optimal use of your principal protection feature would be to
use this wrapper to invest in the most-volatile assets immediately
before fixing your benefit value and beginning any withdrawals. Ask the
agent that - "could I put 100% in the small-cap growth sub account and
count on the rider to protect me?" The answer might give a better
understanding of how the rider works and how it might be priced in the
future.

-Tad

Again, Ill have to say it.. Your comments, plus those of most of the others
in this thread, show a lack of understanding of how This product works...
Its not 'interest' you get paid...its a benefit amount, which represents 7%
of your principle...

When you choose the 'Principle First' feature, which only came into
existance 1 YR AGO!, the annuity works entirely differently from what you
may have been familiar with with traditional annuity products. This ryder
makes the product function like an entirely different animal. Weve run the
numbers and in the worst case scenario, of , say, a negative 25% return of
the market, you still make out Way better with this product than you do with
your money invested in the market, without benefit of the product.

If you need high current income as a guaranteed 7% of principle, with your
principle invested in the market protected so that you are guaranteed 100%
of it back, we havent found any other product to work nearly as well.

Paul

"Jeff Johnson" <goldengate2[at]nospamexcite.com> wrote in message
news:a4s1vvsq9js6j4phnm0utbtgj7r47abf22[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

Paul, you'll want to be careful on these products. As you can see the
prospectus is 195 pages so there is a lot of data to understand. The
advisor will sell you on the benefits without telling you the
downside. Be careful on the fixed interest to make sure it's
guaranteed, they have a tendency to show a high first year and they
reserve the right to change it each year. Also, when you annuitize an
annuity, you'll have to be careful as to what happens to the money
when you die. If you die, in some cases the insurance company keeps
all the principle.

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:32:45 CST, "Paul E" <elliott.paul[at]att.netwrote:

- quote -

TT,

- quote -

NO.

Paul E

"TT" <tool[at]box.net> wrote in message
news:stidnbNhS6N4iG2iRVn-gQ[at]comcast.com...
- quote -

Must he annuitize to receive the benefit?


"Brent D. Gardner, ChFC" <bgardner20[at]cox.net> wrote in message
news:nmEHb.1708$zf.1612[at]okepread05...
- quote -

Brent,

I replied today to a few of the statements made by others in this thread,
and at the end, I replied to your post. I unfortunately referred to you as
'Brad'. Forgive me.. I meant to say 'Bret'.

Paul E

"Brent D. Gardner, ChFC" <bgardner20[at]cox.net> wrote in message
news:X2sHb.1678$zf.1491[at]okepread05...
- quote -

- quote -

happens, you are gonna get 7% income each year and also get all $100k back
after ten years.<<

Ok, yes, youre right.. thats not how it works...The socalled principle
guarantee works like this. .First, its called the 'Principle First' option,
which tips you off as to how its going to work.

Heres an example from the brochure, and its one Ive quoted in this thread.
If the market crashes -25% each year for the next several years, god forbid,
if you had the money in a stock fund, for instance, youd be wiped out in
about 6 years or so. Completely gone. But if the same thing happened with
your money in this VA, because you get paid guaranteed 7% per year,
regardless of what happens to your principle and what its invested in, you
will receive 7% of your benefit amount which is equivalent to your premium
amount when you first set up your program, with 5 year step up provisions
which will increase the benefit amount and hence benefit payments, where the
principle has appreciated (benefit payment can never ber reduced though!)
for the duration, for approx 14.2 years! If you had invested $200,000, and
taken this 'principle first' option, your benefit amount starts at $200,000,
equal to your contract value, and your benefit Payment is $14,000. In this
market crash condition of -25% returns for several years, you continue to
get this $14,000 for approx 14.2 years, even though your principle has been
depleted in about 6 years! Because you get back your entire principle, over
this ~14.2 year period, it is in effect a guarantee of principle. Its
certainly preferable to watching your $200k stock investment dwindle to
nothing! And how is it better than if you were to just write yourself an
annual $14k check against your stock acct? Because, using the same example
of the crashing market to spell out worse case scenario, if you withdraw
your $14,000, and then reduce the balance by 25%, this will last you 5
years, after which your $200,000 principle will have been reduced to about
$7500 in just 5 years, and you would have paid yourself just $70,000. So,
instead of recovering the entire $200,000 principle in the sustained
crashing market of my example, youd have recovered just $70,000!

Clearly, while not quite the same as a guaranteed untouched principle in a
crashing market, (I dont think they have the product for That yet ), its
still a far sight better than the alternative. Conversely taking an example
of a 'normal' or average 10 yr performance of about 10% over 10 yrs ,which
I believe is what the stock market has averaged in any 10 yr period since
its inception, The same $200,000 investment had it been made in this
annuity would have paid $14,000 per year for each of the first 5 years, at
which point it gets stepped up to $33,000 per year for the last 10 years.
At the same time, the $200,000 principle has grown to ~520,000 after the
10th year. This represents a total benefit payment of $235,000, having been
made over the decade, combined with a principle balance of $520,000 at
that time! If ever there was a 'cake and eat it too' scenario, this sounds
like it. And people have said, well, you know, this was a strong bull
market, etc. But as a whole the period '94 - '03 returned a very average
%10. The point has been made that the results for this particular 10 yr
period while averaging a 'normal' 10% , was nevertheless heavily front
loaded with gains. And its been said that that very positively impacted the
sequence of payouts. I guess thats true, as I dont really know how the
numbers would have changed had the loss occurred near the first two years
rather than near the end. But even so, I cant see the results having
changed so much that it would totally steer me away from a program that I
think is essentially a very good one assuming you need both current
protected income at a significant percentage, and market growth rates.

- quote -

is .35%, totaling 1.5%. Im not sure I see the other .05% .. But, whatever,
the example given me, and I ve quoted from are After these expenses have
been taken out. I know that fees are one objection often given for annuity
programs. but, I guess theyve got to have some way to pay for the various
features, tax deferrment, etc, etc. To me, the program features and benefits
seem well worth the expenses. I dont mean to sound like a cheerleader for
this program. But if someone else can show me a way that I can invest
$200,00, and give me the requisite $14,000 income per year, while protecting
my principle while giving me good growth potential, as well as this program,
well, Id love to hear it.

- quote -

income from variable investments without the risk of losing any principal in
a protracted bear market.<<

Brad, it sounds like you too believe in the program... I think the
complexity of these programs scares alot of potential customers off. Ive
done enough research on the materials to lead me to believe I have a pretty
decent grasp of how it works. And from what I can tell, there is Nothing in
it to lead me to feel this is anything but a fantastic opportunity, given my
need. All the market has to do over the next decade or two, or three, etc,
is to perform as well , ie, no better, and no worse, than its 10% avg over
any avg 10 yr period. But the beauty of it is that it doesnt Have to
perform this well, for me to make out nicely. I love what Ive seen in it,
and am anxious to get started..

Paul E

"mark" <mark2741[at]verizon.net> wrote in message
news:13sHb.6545$BJ4.2967[at]nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
- quote -

Request: To save clutter, please consider trimming the post to which you respond. Thank you. -HWW

"mark" <mark2741[at]verizon.net> wrote in message
news:13sHb.6545$BJ4.2967[at]nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
- quote -

Incorrect.

What he's describing is a LIVING BENEFIT -- NOT a death benefit.

Brent D. Gardner, ChFC
Chartered Financial Consultant
http://members.cox.net/brentdgardner1378/

"Be ever questioning. Ignorance is not bliss. It is oblivion. You don't go
to heaven if you die dumb. Become better informed. Learn from other's
mistakes. You could not live long enough to make them all yourself." - Hyman
George Rickover (1900-86), Admiral, US Navy, advocated development of
nuclear subs & ships

The Chartered Life Underwriter (CLU) and Chartered Financial Consultant
(ChFC), designations owned and exclusively offered by The American College,
signify the highest standards of academic study and professional excellence
in the financial services industry.

I used to work for ING Variable Annuities. It's been a few years, but IIRC
that 7% guaranteed payout is on your principal (that same principal that is
affected by the market), and the guarantee on the principal that you mention
is a death benefit. In other words, there ain't no way they are going to
guarantee that if you put in $100k today and wait ten years, no matter what
happens, you are gonna get 7% income each year and also get all $100k back
after ten years.

You have to die to get the money...

"Paul E" <elliott.paul[at]att.net> wrote in message
news:NF_Gb.537168$0v4.22324741[at]bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
- quote -