Jul 02
Regular readers know where I stand on Variable Annuities, and I though thought I’d share this quote from a Suze Orman interview on CNN Money which caught my eye;
“I hate them with a passion – a passion! – especially in a retirement account like an IRA. Variable annuities have all these extra fees and tax issues and penalties, but – oh, that’s okay! – because they give you a tax deferral. But a retirement account is already tax-deferred without all those fees. It’s absolutely ridiculous. I think variable annuities exist for one reason only: to make money for the financial advisers who sell them.”
I’ve had some disagreements with some of her advice, but lately I’m finding more of her quotes that are right on target.
Joe
Related JoeTaxpayer Posts- Money Merge Account Analysis Pt 2
- Good Reading This Week
- Weekly Roundup - The Credit Card Edition
- Roth Mania!
- Pay Off Your Mortgage, Then Retire
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Are variable annuities more expensive because they are charging for ‘tax deferral’? What does tax deferral cost and who’s collecting the fees for tax deferral? Last time I checked tax deferral was free.
The proper question is what am I getting for the extra fees the variable annuity charges? Perhaps an income that rises at the roughly the same rate as the cost of everything I buy. An income that is provided until death, no matter how long that is. If that is of no value to an investor looking to provide a guaranteed income through retirement than buy an index fund and hope for the best.
By the way, what extra “tax issue” is Suze speaking of for variable annuities inside of an IRA? That’s a new one to me.
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Well, two tax issues I can suggest is 1) VAs take potential long term gains and convert them to ordinary income, although to be fair, an IRA is guilty of the same, and 2) the growth within the account does not get a stepped up basis on death, but again is treated as an IRA with some basis. I’m certainly an IRA/401(k) fan, just not a fan of the huge expenses the VAs carry.
Joe
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Joe,
You’re entitled to your own opinions on variable annuities but you and Suze are not entitled to your own facts. The facts are the annuity adds no “tax issues” to an IRA and you both lose credibility when you make that claim. Your response confirms that fact.
Again, the question is whether or not an income that provides for a husband and wife over potentially three decades of retirement that rises with the cost of everything you buy each and every year is worth the additional fees. With the lack of guaranteed sources of lifetime income available in America today (pensions, etc) it might be worth taking the time to study that issue.
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
I don’t see where I made up any facts. Both VAs and IRAs are both subject to the two negative tax issues I state above. It’s the extra expense of the VAs that still have my objection. FWIW, I have no issue with a good immediate annuity.
Joe
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Where is your discussion around what you are actually getting for the extra fees in a variable annuity? According to you and Suze the fees pay for tax deferral. Nothing could be further from the truth. Tax deferral is FREE. No charge for that gift from the federal government. So what are you actually paying for?
My guess is you have no idea what annuities provide beyond tax deferral. Otherwise you would mention the fact you for a fee you get an income that addresses the duration problem (a paycheck until I die) and the direction problem(rising at roughly the cost of inflation). Let the reader decide if the fees are worth it. But to mention fees without any discussion of what you get for the fees beyond tax deferral is irresponsible.
By the way, you like a good immediate annuity. If the cost of everything we buy increases each year and you propose to “FIX” my income with a level payment of an immediate annuity how do I pay for goods and services at prices 30 years from now assuming I’m 65 and live to 95 or 100? Have YOU received any pay raises over the last 30 years of your career? I would hope so. What if you didn’t? What if you were receiving the same amount of income as you did when you were 21? The loss of purchasing power is EVERYTHING over longer retirements. Your obsession with fees rather than solving for the real problems of running out of money and purchasing power can really hurt those without guaranteed sources of income in retirement.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:21 am
Variable Annuities do have much of the same tax treatment as IRAs and 401(k)s. The reason is that a VA is designed to be a retirement income vehicle, and the tax-deferral they are granted is a result of that. That is an act of congress, not a feature that a VA issuer can legally charge for.
The reason you would consider a VA over mutual funds, as an example, is that you want some of the features unique to VAs, such as guaranteed lifetime income. Sure, you can structure a portfolio of mutual funds and if you take out no more than 4% per year as income, you PROBABLY won’t die broke, but you might. See T. Rowe Price’s website for some good calculators to illustrate this.
VAs offer guaranteed income through insured systematic withdrawal programs, that allow the owner to take 5 or 6% per year, maybe even more depending on their age, for their entire lifetime and their spouses — guaranteed.
You can also annuitize, and create pension-like income. Remember, annuities were spawned from pensions as a way to provide pensions to those who were not fortunate to have a pension plan at work. That used to be a minority, but now the majority of workers don’t have a pension.
Get the facts straight on just exactly what you are paying for with a VA. It is not the right investment for everyone, but anyone who wants guaranteed income needs to understand that as of 7/3/2008, annuities are the only investment vehicles that can guarantee income. Period. Everything else can probably provide income for life.
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Well said and I guess it’s my point in trying to call out those “experts” that really don’t have the facts on just exactly what you are paying for with a VA.
To “hate” something with a “passion- a passion!” as Suze writes and Joe agreeing with her hatred by making up facts that VA’s have additional “tax issues” when owned inside of an IRA borders is very silly.
Stop “hating” Suze and Joe and get your facts straight! Then we can have a meaningful discussion on the pros and cons of an investment that just might provide the income so many Americans will need.
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Jason – I approved this comment, but I’d like you to accept my offer. I emailed you to send me a Pro-VA post, which I will publish within a few days of getting. Offer the facts. If VAs are ‘good’, tell me why, and who they are best for. Stay away from personal comments, and I’ll publish it, unedited, fair enough?
Joe
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:26 pm
[...] my eye;. “I hate them with a passion – a passion! – especially in a retirement … Source: Suze on Variable Annuities Who Would Be A Worse Mom? Paris or Lindsey? Vote Now And Get A Free iPhone. Suze Orman Used [...]
February 5th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Variable Annuities are good for people that want principal protection, guarunteed growth, (yes there are companies that provides a VA with a guarunteed growth) and for those who want an income for life in the future. The fees, which are taken out of your account value pay for the guarunteed growth. The guaranteed growth is good and will hold true if your goal is FUTURE INCOME FOR LIFE. If you want to take a lump sum withdrawl or a 70-90% withdrawl of your total investment, then annuities are not for you. With IRA’s, u don;t have charges, but who knows what the market will do, and you can do whatever your heart desires with your money provided you’re between the ages of 59 1/2 and 70 1/2, but you run the risk of your $$$ = 0. Annuities put some restraints on your choices, but who cares, becuase you are creating a pension you cannot outlive. Also, u gotta start taking your IRA $$$ at 70 1/2 anyways. Just take your RMD’s and call me when u hit zero. Annuities you won’t have that problem.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:47 am
i don’t know if i did the right thing. i just became a widow and lost money in the market , no one advise me so i took it out and the bank advised me to put in something called annuities and john hancock.. i split my money which i have only 10 days or 30 days i think, before i can change. i just don’t know what i am doing. i hear so much.. i am 62 . reading all this scares me. if i have an emergency will i be charged a fee from them and for taxes? where can i get honest answers other than everyone trying to sell me their policies? i don’t know if it is to late. i signed some papers 3/26/09
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:10 am
I am sorry for your loss. A grieving widow (or widower) should not make any financial moves for at least 6 months.
Your right to cancel is 10 days, and since it’s clear you don’t understand what you bought, I would do just that. Even if this turned out to be a good product for you, one should never buy something they don’t understand.
There are many many sites where you can post questions and get advice, but some details are needed about your situation. I would avoid contact with people trying to make a buck off you. The advice should contain low cost options, such as index funds/ETFs for whatever is in stocks. The bank did you no favor, they took advantage of you, I’d find another bank.
(Note: I tried to email “leese” with this reply as well, and the email address left for me was not valid.)
April 8th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Joe,
I, like you, don’t like VAs in general. And if you are not aware many insurance companies are having a hard time honoring the “guarantees” in this tough market. I am sure they will honor the guarantees but it is hurting them and causing some capitalization issues. But, the real issue for me is that you can get an immediate annuity that pays out a much higher percentage on the face amount which can be used or partially used and partially saved as needed. And if you are not healthy you can even get them “rated” with a larger pay-out. With an immediate annuity you are making a “pure” bet with the insurance company over how long you will live. This is the fundamental business of the insurance company and it is the real reason annuities exist. All the rest is simply a future market bet! Making market bets while in retirement in my opinion is a dumb thing to do for many reasons starting with bear markets that occur more than twice a decade on average and 40%+ drawdowns that occur about every 10 years or so [8 times in the last 100 years].
As to inflation degrading your payout, that is very true, but you can transcend that in several common sense ways; leave a small amount in the market, own real estate which inflates a couple of percentage points over the inflation rate, etc.
Having had my father live to 99 years of age here is another fact. As you age over 80 your expenses actually can go down because you become less active. My father played golf and drove a car until age 93, traveled to Europe at age 92, etc. so I know about the possibilities of an active life well into retirement. And his expenses at 90 were significantly less than at 80. My parents simply didn’t do as much stuff like go out to eat, travel, drive as much, etc. once my father got into his high 80s because he couldn’t physically do it. And remember he was a serious outlier living to 99 and being very active well into his 90s.
The other issue is that home which so many seniors trying to hold on to way too long, but that is another post!
April 11th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I am the widow who emailed last week. I am updating my email address. It has been a year since my husband passed. I also put funds in something called Resources.. some IRA they told me would be good. so it is split with VA which I am just learning of and the other sounded good. I already signed papers but something said 30 days and the other said 10 which now has passed… but my money is split in these 2 . I am supposed to meet with them april 14… I am feeling awful now because everything sounded good but I can’t even explain what I have. as I mentioned before, I didn’t know where to get information becasuse everyone I statred to talk to just want to sell me something and they were all different. I am 62 and no longer work but now I can’t take out money they said for 5 years or get penalized.. a different penalty depending on the year.If I am able to stop this where do I put my money so I won’t get taxed for taking it out? I must find somewhere first I suppose..
Leese
April 11th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Leese, you wrote “but I can’t even explain what I have.” This scares the hell out of me. The bank guy who sold it to you should have his license pulled. What exactly did he tell you about it? What product is it ?
Worse, since I don’t know the actual product, I am unable to comment good or bad on it. Without any more details to understand your risk tolerance, I’d not have enough information to do a response justice. CDs are safe and even though they provide a low yield right now, you can’t lose a penny.
There are places on the net to ask questions, books to read, so you can understand what’s going on. An IRA or a VA is just a wrapper, the investment inside can be nearly anything.
At your age, unless you have a lot of assets, tax deferral is the last thing on my mind. Safety is first.
Yes, VAs typically have a decreasing penalty for 5-10 years, one of the many reasons I’d avoid them.
Joe
June 20th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Joe,
Great post – too bad there are one too many insurance agents posting on this. What’s the point of a VA when tax deferral is free and you’re income payouts (interest first) is taxed at ORDINARY income rates, possibly pushing you up a tax bracket or two as opposed to CAPITAL rates. I like how they personally attack you and Suze (who I don’t always agree with, though I do on this issue) yet can’t explain their positions in actual tax terms (ie no benefit of step-up basis). Don’t fold to these salesmen, thanks.
July 20th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Like all other insurance company products, variable annuities provide some protection but also have some opportunity costs. If you’re more conservative, they’re fine. If you’re more aggresive, do something else. Nuff said.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:02 am
If it’s fine for the conservative investor to underperform in both rising and falling markets, long term when compared to investing in treasuries, them I guess that ’nuff. I though my writings backed up my claims.
March 11th, 2010 at 8:46 am
66 years young,need income with 300,000. to invest.how would you divide this for income with slight risk
March 11th, 2010 at 11:48 am
A well diversified portfolio of corporate bonds would provide income and limited risk. Higher risk to principal, but greater gains over the years can be achieved with companies that offer a decent dividend, old names like McDonald’s, Coke, Verizon, J&J, etc.