Allan Roth

The Irrational Investor
Click Here

Progress on Insurance Investing and the $100,000 Challenge

By Allan Roth | Oct 7, 2009 |

Approximately a week and a half ago, an insurance producer by the name of Brett Anderson accepted a gauntlet that I had thrown down. That gauntlet was a quid pro quo challenge, in that I’d fork over $100K (the quid) for any product that gave me market returns with limited downside risk (the pro quo). I wrote about the challenge in Annuities and the $100,000 challenge.

You’ll notice that I changed the headline to “Insurance Investing” rather than “annuities.” That’s because the product Brett is proposing is called an Indexed Universal Life (IUL) policy, rather than an annuity. An IUL offers flexible premiums to pay for two things — life insurance and a cash value asset.  That asset is based on an index such as the S&P 500 index.

Mr. Anderson quickly pointed out he was using this IUL rather than an annuity to meet the challenge. What he didn’t point out until days later was that the challenge he accepted was not going to yield a guaranteed eight percent minimum return. What he was proposing was a product that he claims has market returns and limited downside risk.

Well, I did actually write about this in my first column, “Why So Critical on Annuities?” What the heck, I’ll still game for shelling out the $100K if it meets this challenge, even though I don’t get a guaranteed eight percent return.

I admit I’m a little surprised that Mr. Anderson would offer a product with life insurance costs, when the challenge didn’t identify any need for insurance, and those costs would seemingly be a drag on returns. But let it never be said that I’m trying to tell Mr. Anderson how to meet my challenge.

I’ve clocked a fair amount of work on this, and here’s an update on where I am right now. I’m hoping to write the final outcome of my $100K on Monday, October 12, 2009.

  • I’ve got hundreds of pages of documents and a book Mr. Anderson wrote entitled “Last Chance Retirement.”  The cover notes “Just say ‘NO’ to an IRA, 403(b), 457, SEP or Roth.”
  • I’ve had several calls with Mr. Anderson and, unlike many insurance producers, he has been very respectful and hasn’t questioned my ancestry.
  • Mr. Anderson has, however, sent me multiple products and I’m still trying to figure out which one he wants me to buy.
  • I have had two telephone conversations with the actuary and director of life products of this multi-billion dollar insurance company this producer is using to meet my challenge.

Am I about to make my first investment through an insurance wrapper?

How is this endeavor turning out? Well, I’m still sorting through things, though I will give you a hint and confess that it’s not what I expected. I’ll name this multi-billion dollar insurance company next week, but for now I will say that this director of life products blew me away!  I went in arrogantly asking the same questions I have asked many officers of insurance companies and expecting the same answers.  And I was not only wrong — I was dead wrong.

So stay tuned and next week I’ll reveal the surprises I’ve had over the past few days. You’ll see I have quite a bit of new found respect for this to-be-named insurance company. Still, the burning question remains . . . will I be forking over $100K?

See whether the poll and discussion on the Bogleheads Forum.

More on Money Watch

I am a Boglehead!

Wisdom from Bogelheads VIII - Day One

Wisdom from Bogleheads VIII - Day Two

Tough Questions for Your Financial Adviser

Investors Going it Alone - Revisited

Smarter Retirement

 
Reply to Story

MoneyWatch TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    Brett A

    10/07/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Progress on Insurance Investing and the $100,000 Challenge

    I am the agent who accepted Allan's "challenge", and he has asked that I post my responses to his column here.

    First, the challenge was not to be able to guaranty 100% an 8% ROI in year 10. The challenge was to be able to show how to "earn market gains with limited downside risk". Indexed Life allows you to do just that. With the right company and design there is a very high probablility that the net return in year 10 can be 8%. I will go into that in much more detail Monday when Allen posts his next column about this.

    I have presented Allan with the same product designed two different ways: one allows gains to be withdrawn tax free and the other they are taxable. The latter attains an 8% Net of fees IRR faster to meet his 10 year condition - I prefer the method that gets there a bit slower - but that's his choice. More detail next time.

    Indexed Life is NOT what most likely expect that it is - even with the insurance costs the overall cost can be much less than a mutual fund type of investment. That and the fact that you KEEP ALL of your annual index linked gains which you can access Tax Free allows the product to actually outperform most mutual funds.

    I appreciate that Allan has kept an open mind as we go through the process of understanding what it is and how it works. Part of this was arranging for him to talk with the chief actuary of this co. I look forward to learning too if he has seen the "light", and that there is a way to earn 'market' returns without 'market' risk! Along with other benefits you cannot get with any other kind of investment. As he said - stay tuned.

  •  
    2

    Allan Roth

    10/07/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Progress on Insurance Investing and the $100,000 Challenge

    Brett,

    Below is your email of 9/19/09. It states "How about a NET return of 8% that allows you to take out the gains Tax Free for retirment income, with NO downside market risk."

    I can blow away saving for retirement in any market fund, with an Indexed Life policy. How about a NET return of 8% that allows you to take out the gains Tax Free for retirment income, with NO downside market risk. I can bury you with analysis I've done that proves this, but my time is too valuable to waste it if you are not serious about being open minded to the concept. There is a catch though - you must do it with the right co. and plan, and you must know how to design the policy to perform with maximum efficiency. I teach advisors from all over the country how to do this, in part through my book on it - "Last Chance Retirement" (www.lastchanceretirement.biz). If you are serious about learning more let me know. My experience though is most press writers have no interest in something that is not a security, or another asset just because its chassis is insurance. Surprise me.

    Brett Anderson
    760 433 5432

  •  
    3

    Brett A

    10/08/09 | Report as spam

    Why Not a Qualifed Plan and Mutual Fund

    Why not a 401(k), 403(b) or any Qualified Plan for retirement?

    FORBES 8-19-09. The Tax-Deferral Trap: Don't put any more money in your tax-deferred retirement savings.
    http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0907/opinions-william-baldwin-side-lines.html

    Bill Schultheis, author of ?How to Build Wealth, Ignore Wall Street, and Get on with Your Life?. ?I am an adamant believer that the 401(k) is going to be one of the biggest debacles in our history."
    http://www.detnews.com/article/20090928/BIZ01/909280338/1010/Workers-discover-401%28k%29-plans-are-failing-them-in-retirement

    9-18-09. Workers discover 401(k) plans are failing them in retirement: 401(k) fees may be eating away retirement funds: "Many plans are in the range of 3 to 5% in yearly costs ? the worst plans charge even more.?
    http://www.azcentral.com/business/consumer/articles/2009/09/18/20090918biz-401K.html

    8-17-09: CBS Money Watch (the co. Allan Roth writes for) & Morningstar. Mutual Fund Management Fees: the average U.S. fund fee is 1.37%.
    http://moneywatch.bnet.com/investing/article/mutual-fund-fees-jump-5-percent/331641/

    6-19-09: CBS Money Watch & Morningstar. Transaction costs cut the performance of the average equity fund by 1.64% a year. The effect is most dramatic on small-cap growth funds, which suffer a 2.8% hit on average. And that?s before adding in an expense ratio of 1 to 1.5%, plus a sales load if you buy through a broker. Transaction costs from frequent buying and selling are ?vastly more important than expense ratios and no one?s talking about it.?
    http://moneywatch.bnet.com/investing/article/avoid-mutual-fund-transaction-costs/313551/?tag=content;col1


    8-28-09. NYTimes: Indexing vs. Funds.
    A semiannual study by Standard & Poor?s finds that over the five years ended June 30, only 37.1% of actively managed funds made up of large-capitalization stocks beat the category?s benchmark, the S.&P. 500. Most large-cap investors would have done better with a plain old S.&P. 500 index fund.
    http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/active-vs-passive-the-debate-keeps-going/?ref=your-money

    10-1-09: Putnam CEO Reynolds Calls for a ? New Generation? of Workplace Savings Plans with Lower Volatility and Lifetime Income Solutions.
    Reynolds noted the potential danger of excessive reliance on index funds and other passive investments as a core element of a mature retirement portfolio, saying that ?preserving wealth is an active endeavor. Index funds and other passive investments that track benchmarks are guaranteed to lose value when the markets they track sink, as we saw happen to the investments of many workers last year. People in or near retirement are not well served by too-great a concentration of passive investments, thinking they are a protection against a downturn.?
    http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20091001005239&newsLang=en

    10-7-09: TIME: Why It's Time to Retire the 401(k).
    The ugly truth ? is that the 401(k) is a lousy idea, a financial flop, a rotten repository for our retirement reserves. In the past two years, that has become all too clear. From the end of 2007 to the end of March 2009, the average 401(k) balance fell 31%, according to Fidelity. The accounts have rebounded, along with the rest of the market, but that's little help for those who retired - or were forced to - during the recession. In a system in which one year's gains build on the next, the disaster of 2008 will dent retirement savings long after the recession ends. The 401(k) Alternative: ? (is) a new type of insurance. Retirement savings, it turns out, are exactly the type of asset we need insurance for. We need insurance to protect against risks we can't predict (when the market collapses) and can't afford to recover from on our own.
    http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1929119,00.html

    Summary. Indexed Life solves the biggest problem of Qualified Plan mutual fund investing because you KEEP ALL of your annual gains which are linked to the performance of the S&P 500 or other index (including DOW Global). When the market crashes you are guaranteed your cash savings will NOT go down in value even $1 because of the market so it does NOT need a recovery - instead it grows in value on top of your savings! Without the losses it can outperform the market over time without the sleepless nights. The articles above don?t talk about Indexed Life because they don?t know it exists, and if they do they don?t really understand how it works, how well it can perform over time and how much less the fees can be than mutual funds. For most the gains can be 7-9% net of fees depending on your age and time to save, and the income withdrawn for retirement is Tax Free. It does not have the contribution and income limits that a Roth has. You at least now know that it does - it is up to you to learn how much more it could benefit you vs. investing in mutual funds.

    Brett Anderson

  •  
    4

    Allan Roth

    10/08/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Progress on Insurance Investing and the $100,000 Challenge

    Brett,

    If you read my columns, you'll see that I argue low cost indexing. If you read my book, you'll see specifically just how low. Emotions and expenses are our enemies.

    Why not tax-deferred investing with low cost index funds?

    You quote many people in your book. I know many of these people and to say that they wouldn't support your position and would object to you using their quotes to get people not to invest in traditional and Roth vehicles is an understatement.

  •  
    5

    Brett A

    10/08/09 | Report as spam

    Why Not plain Index Investing

    Great Question -- I guess you got my memo! I?m FOR Index Investing! It is just a lot SMARTER to do it in an asset where you KEEP ALL of the gains! The life insurance is just a means to an end -- it is the ONLY asset allowed by Congress to take out the earnings TAX FREE with unlimited annual contributions (and many other benefits)! It is also why Universal Life was invented by a stock brokerage co. -- E.F. Hutton. So that their clients could enjoy the gains of the market along with the tax free benefits of life insurance.

    In the Putnam article above, their CEO states the great failing (so Achilles heel) of even low cost index investing is that when the indexes crash, so too do your retirement savings and income. What value is there in lower cost index investing if you can lose all your gains and principal?! They are not really gains until you have them moved into an asset where they are locked in and guaranteed. When you do that your potential future gains are cut - but you do not have this risk with Indexed Life. This means the fees for index investing just got a lot higher. Do you think you would pay a bit more to be assured that you KEEP your principal and annual gains? Especially when you are in your 70s, 80s and 90s. For that to happen you need to create the plan in your 30s, 40s and 50s.

    The TIME article above states the failing of retirement plans today is the same problem -- and that investors need insurance to guarantee they do not lose their lifetime of savings when the markets crash. They did not mean insurance in this sense, but that is exactly what Indexed Life does -- investing in the market with low lifetime costs, with your principal and gains always guaranteed to NEVER go down in value because of the market.

    As for the people I quote in my book about Index investing, I know people too who know them, and they do not think they would object at all to showing people how to do index investing without the market risk -- something that did not exist when many of these quotes were made. And unfortunately most are not index investing. The typical investor according to the Dalbar report this year, after fees, dividends and timing costs made only 1.87% net per year! (http://www.dalbarinc.com/content/showpage.asp?page=2009030901&r=/pressroom/default.asp&s=Return+To+Press+Releases)

    As to why not tax-deferred investing (which means it is in a Qualified Plan), I have two words for you -- Excise Tax. Back in 1986 - only 23 years ago - Congress was low on money (sound familiar with a record deficit) so they increased withdrawal taxes on large Qualified Savings amounts by 15%. They also increased the Estate Tax another 15% if they thought you died with too much of your savings left. A court later ruled that the maximum legal tax was 100%! What good are the lowest fees now?! But rulings by the Supreme Court have made it clear this can NEVER happen with an insurance account (for plans created before any tax law changes). In 1996 Congress stopped this additional tax and massive amounts were moved out at only the current normal tax rates and penalties -- and they were glad to do so to eliminate this tax risk from their savings! Index fees could be zero, but the risk and costs of being in qualified plans is much greater - some would say too much.

    The other reason is we all know tax rates ARE going up - the first bump is coming in 2011. So why defer a tax bill we know will only be larger if we do so? Your low cost index fees just got a lot higher - again. If you save after-tax in Indexed Life you guaranty that all future tax rate increase risk is gone forever! Congress can never raise the taxes on the retirement income money you take out of the plan -- and when you die all of the remaining value transfers to your beneficiary Tax Free -- because it?s life insurance.

    A third reason is the withdrawals from a Qualified Plan are included in the formula to tax up to 85% of your Social Security benefits. The withdrawals from Indexed Life are NOT! This means that -- again -- your low cost index fees just got a lot higher. And is there anyone who thinks that eventually they will not tax 100% of your Social Security! (Along with higher tax rates!).

    When you look at the fees (and risk) of vanilla index investing you need to look at the WHOLE Lifetime picture of fees and lost opportunity cost - not just what is on your account statement next year. If you cannot keep your gains (or principal), if it means more taxes on it and Social Security for decades in retirement, then what have you really saved or earned? Bottom line -- nothing. It will actually ending up costing you much more in actual $s -- and in peace of mind.

    As for a Roth, the short answer is that there are no income or age limitations -- with Indexed Life you can contribute as much as you want at any age -- and it does not have to be earned income. For the most part your Roth savings are not accessible to you (if you want it to keep accumulating for retirement). With IUL you have access to all of the surrender value in the form of a loan - so you can actually use it for 20 or 30 years while waiting to retire to finance your life at 0.1% (or less). And unlike qualified plan loans, payments and repayment are not mandatory. There are no late fees or credit reporting. After all, you borrowed it from yourself. This is just one of the many things you cannot do with these terms with any other kind of investment or qualified plan.

    So why not just plain index investing? Even with its lower fees now it actually costs much more over a lifetime; has unlimited risk and cannot be used for any of the other strategies to benefit your life. It is also the best College Savings plan there is! It will have as much if not more cash value long term, and if you die after putting only a $1,000 into a qualified plan or index investment your beneficiary will get $1,000. With Indexed Life - based on age - they could get a tax free check for $200,000, 300,000, $400,000 - which will go a long way to guarantee completion of their retirement savings. Nothing else can do this however low the investment fees! With all these benefits, which plan do you think your spouse prefers! It is also the smarter plan you should prefer.

  •  
    6

    Brett A

    10/08/09 | Report as spam

    PS Dalbar

    Dalbar (above) found that the annual gains for the past 20 years for the typical funds investor was only 1.87% per year.

  •  
    7

    MrRosemary

    10/08/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Progress on Insurance Investing and the $100,000 Challenge

    Risk is never "unlimited." Unless you are foolish enough to use leverage (and I don't mean leveraged ETFs) you can only lose what you put in. That's not unlimited. That's the very definition of limited.

    Unlimited risk would be like me buying an index fund and when it declines, I die.

  •  
    8

    Allan Roth

    10/09/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Progress on Insurance Investing and the $100,000 Challenge

    Brett,

    Regarding your statement:

    "As for the people I quote in my book about Index investing, I know people too who know them, and they do not think they would object at all to showing people how to do index investing without the market risk."

    Not only do I think they would object, I've talked to them about it. On page 196 of my book "How a Second Grader Beat Wall Street," Jack Bogle and his office gave me a list of the top five misuses of his work.

    Number one on the hit parade was:

    "Using his criticism of the mutual fund industry to sell stuff that is even worse."

    Regarding you thinking they would not "object at all to showing people how to do index investing without market risk," trust me, they would. You quoted folks like Jack Bogle, William Bernstein, and Jonathan Clements. I've had many discussion with all three about market risk.

  •  
    9

    Brett A

    10/09/09 | Report as spam

    Index Quotes and Market Risk

    Ooops, I think he let the cat out of the bag - another challenger loses - Surprise! But why?

    First, let me address my quoting these indexers. There is a chapter in my book about historical returns of the market, and I certainly don?t claim to be an expert about everything about financial planning - so it quotes notable figures in the field who state that Index investing is the best way to invest in the market. Never in the book do I say or even imply that any of them are in favor of Indexed Life - I don?t know if they are or not. Now let?s assume Allan is right and that they totally disagree 100% with Indexed Life. Even if that is so they would ALL be in favor of being quoted to foster a discussion about the subject -- because our society is based on the free exchange of ideas and opinions - especially those different from ours.

    Let me add that it is legal to quote them, in part because of our bedrock principal of free speech and something called the 1st Amendment and ?Fair Use?. I?m sure Allan believes it is ok to quote them in his book because they do agree about regular indexing. But you are on dangerous ground to not allow those you disagree with the same right.

    But can you believe his statement that these people ?would object to showing people how to do index investing without market risk??! Are you serious! At least we now know that Allan does not believe in ?market? investing without risk -- that?s just dumb! Especially when your net return over time can be the same or more, along with other benefits not available in a regular mutual fund - like taking gains out tax free. I guess he didn?t read the articles I posted above, including the one from TIME this week that says ?The 401(k) Needs to be Retired? in part because retirement savings need ?insurance? to protect them from -- all together -- MARKET RISK! Why does the CEO of Putnam (above) say index investing is a failure? MARKET RISK -- and the massive losses people still suffer with their retirement savings with index investing because of it (despite its lower fee cost)!

    So I find it interesting that he seemingly cannot make a single argument about what I have stated about Indexed Life based on the MERITS of the product. After all he dislikes one of the main benefits of it that the experts all say is needed for retirement savings. I know for a fact in his column on Monday he will attack it for other reasons like just the fact it?s ?life insurance? and that I did not determine first if he had a need for any (if he does or not is totally irrelevant to the other features and benefits, and the ?Challenge?). Also my supposed lack of ?credibility because? I could not provide him immediately with a reference for an unrelated statement on my website about long term care. I know Allan wants to have the last word. Maybe he?s saving up what little he has for Monday - and it will be fun to discredit what he does say that?s negative - so if he can stop himself from continuing to snipe at me about these irrelevant matters I?ll wait until then to see what he?s got before commenting more on the merits of his comments about Indexed Life.

    Brett Anderson

  •  
    10

    mfinder

    10/09/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Progress on Insurance Investing and the $100,000 Challenge

    Allan,
    Well, I had to stay under the radar and wait for your final response...until now. Brett gave you the most comprehensive litany of reasons to back up his assertion that an IUL will outperform even your mythical second grader that beat wall street and the best you have is to criticize the usages of "actual" quotes in his book! Nothing to bolster your claims, no evidence to counter his exhaustive research, just some lame rant about how you know these people and you talk to them too...! WOW that's impressive. Your moniker of "irrational investor" is becoming perversely clearer as you weakly counter Mr Anderson. I sincerely doubt that you'll have the intestinal fortitude to be honest and forthright with your "final assessment. However I'll wager that in your final words we will find several references to your literary skills and recommendations to "read my book". As an investor that did NOT have a wasted decade because of an IUL, I will await your final bloviated response to Mr. Andersen. I hope that your "clients" are following along.

  •  
    11

    Allan Roth

    10/09/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Progress on Insurance Investing and the $100,000 Challenge

    mfinder and Brett,

    Let's look at Brett's claims, the numbers, and the position of Minnesota Life on the appropriateness of this product for the use you are recommending this for. You can read it on Monday. Then you can clobber me with with your views on my ancestry.

  •  
    12

    mfinder

    10/09/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Progress on Insurance Investing and the $100,000 Challenge


    If you took what I said as "my views" on your ancestry, your issues are better addressed on a couch than a blog! Blaming it on your ancestry is simply a cop-out. I would say to my son at times like this..."man-up". You are right where you want to be, by decision and design. Blaming your ancestry is an an affront to the time and energy that was bestowed upon you in your youth. I think I'll start referring to you as The Teflon Investor.

  •  
    13

    Allan Roth

    10/09/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Progress on Insurance Investing and the $100,000 Challenge

    mfinder,

    I don't think your credibiltiy is increased with posts like the ones you are doing. Please stick to facts.

    I'll post the facts on Monday and you should feel free to adress them.

  •  
    14

    mfinder

    10/10/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Progress on Insurance Investing and the $100,000 Challenge

    Allan,
    I think it is laughable that you now want me to "stick to the
    facts". You persist in your usage of "credibility" and "your ancestry" as both your offense and defense, clearly this is
    where you come by your oft lauded second grader strategy.
    It is the same technique used by magicians and
    politicians..."look at the shiny thing" or using race or
    "ancestry" as an rouse and distraction from the facts. It
    reminds me of the poor sap, painting a floor, finding himself
    painted into a corner. We'll all see on Monday...I hope the
    paint is dry.

  •  
    15

    DougDiggerEberhardt

    10/10/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Progress on Insurance Investing and the $100,000 Challenge

    So I see that Minnesota Life is the company...

    hehe

    Thanks for that....

    Look forward to your response Allan...

    Until then, I'll refrain from saying anything more and glad you replied in the other thread.

    Doug

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
advertisement

Allan Roth

Allan S. Roth is the founder of Wealth Logic, an hourly based financial planning and investment advisory firm that advises clients with portfolios ranging from $10,000 to $50 million. He is mocked on a semi-regular basis by some financial professionals for his hourly fee model and its obvious inability to make him rich.

Roth is also the author of How A Second Grader Beats Wall Street. He teaches behavioral finance at the University of Denver and is an adjunct faculty member at Colorado College.

Allan Roth

Allan Roth has a lot of credentials (CFP, CPA, MBA) and business experience (McKinsey consulting and officers of mega-billion dollar companies). But he insists that said credentials and business experience do not interfere with his ability to keep investing simple.

Roth has worked with many a lawyer over the years, so he feels compelled to note that his columns are not meant as specific investment advice, especially since any such advice would need to take into account such things as each reader’s willingness and need to take risk, which can vary significantly. His columns will specifically avoid such foolishness as predicting the next “hot stock” or what the stock market will do next month. Roth’s goal is never to be confused with Jim Cramer.

Click Here
track your portfolio