By the way...JNL doe not have ETF's. Your limited research should have
at least yielded that information. What's more important to you, lower
fees or ending up with more money in your pocket?

Cal Lester wrote:
- quote -

Have either of you LOOKED at the performance of the JNL 5? What about
the Value Line Target 25? It's up 12%, year to date, net of expenses.
Howard, don't be a putz. Call your advisor and do the Jackson National
then tell ALL of your friends about it and give them your advisors
phone number. Don't be an idiot and step over a dollar to save a
quarter.


======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Please trim the post to which you are responding. "Trim" means that except for a few lines to add context, the previous post is deleted.

Howard Slomer wrote:
- quote -


IF that were true, then you could by-pass those "very high costs",
by simply investing in the same portfolio of stocks that they use ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Cal






- quote -

Cal,

Thanks for the quick reply. The claim is that the high gains of the
Variable annuity more that make up for the high costs compared to Vanguard's
lower cost. My limited research doesn't seem to support this claim.

Howard


"Cal Lester" <cal-lester[at]comcast.net> wrote in message
news:-tKdnVD4Kahj50ffRVn-gg[at]comcast.com...
- quote -

I retired recently (age 62) and have been advised to move my Vanguard 403
funds to a ETF Variable Annuity with Jackson National Life (JNL 5) instead
of a Vanguard IRA. Does this seem reasonable?

Not unless you have a DIRE need for EXPENSIVE Life Insurance.
Cal Lester CLU



Howard Slomer wrote:
- quote -