Colonel William A. Phillips

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Finance & Investment Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Business: Accounting This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Accounting task force.

I'm a financial planner. I prefer to not use annuities because my clients have to hold them a very long time to break even after tax over mutual funds. Regardless, all of the pros and the cons of these should be enumerated. I find that annuities are useful in a couple of circumstances. 1. The client will not otherwise invest in the market without the guarantees of the annuity, and thus the client will wind up with more after tax than using other guaranteed investments like government bonds and FDIC insured cash vehicles. 2. The client needs income guaranteed for life, and both fixed and variable annuities can do that, with variable annuities maximizing the possibility of earning more. 3. Defer taxes, but this applies to almost no-one, and most people don't put money in annuities to defer taxes because in mutual funds most gains are taxed at long term capital gains rates. (When I hear people knee-jerk response "why use something that's tax deferred in a retirement account?" I am completely disgusted by their ignorance, because people usually buy annuities for the guarantees and oh by the way if you use them outside a retirement account, your taxes are deferred, but you're probably worse off.)

These sound like arguments for annuities, and I suppose they are, but I can usually educate my clients enough to not want them. But some people won't care about costs, and aren't these articles supposed to educate everybody?

I charge for advice based on a percentage of assets under management. I make more money over the long run if my clients make more money over the long run, that's why I don't like annuities. If I charged on an hourly basis, the client would be paying much more. If people don't want to pay for professional advice, they can work with a no-help company like Fidelity or Vanguard. Aaronchall 21:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the reason there's not much discussion of no-load annuities: there's virtually no reason to use them except to defer taxes. Here's the sole situation where it's useful: the client only wants money in non-tax favored investments (like real estate, commodities, and bonds), is in a high income bracket (like 35%) and will eventually be in a low income bracket (which few planners expect for someone in a high income bracket.) The main reasons people use annuities are for the guarantees. No load annuities have very few guarantees, if at all. This may change in the future, but it's currently the case now. So quit complaining. Aaronchall 21:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC) I left another possibility out. Say the money is in a guaranteed product, and the client decides the guarantees aren't important, and doesn't want any help, but wants to continue deferring taxes. A 1035 exchange can move the money into a lower cost annuity or no-load annuity without incurring current tax liability. Aaronchall 21:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel the cautions are biased. For any investments, an encyclopdic article should point out the pros and cons in a clear fashion. I still think it is best to address issues right at the section where they occur, versus having a separate "cautions" section. One possibility would be to work the materials into the main text, so they do not appear out of place. -MegaHasher 16:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cautions may or may not be biased. The only caution I would offer someone as a financial planner is to only use them if you absolutely need the guarantees, because you pay for the guarantees. You don't pay for tax deferral, that's granted free of charge by Uncle Sam. Cautions regarding sales commissions are irrelevant to the client. The client should only be concerned about the internal expenses, the surrender charges, the investment options, and the guarantees. The sales compensation varies and is determined by the market, and isn't much different from the other investment options the salesman may present. An annuity salesman with a large brokerage firm makes much less percentage-wise than an annuity sold by an independent salesman, but the internal expenses may be identical. Another caution might be that the taxation of annuities is at the higher income rates, instead of the capital gains rates of stocks and stock mutual funds. But highlighting cautions in yellow is a bias towards caution. Some people need variable annuities with guarantees to keep them from buying when the market goes up out of greed, and then selling when the market goes down in a panic, and I'd feel very bad if I steered someone away from annuities and into the market who doesn't have the internal strength to not panic and sell low. Aaronchall 21:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very soon this section will evolve into a long list of names. I do not feel there are good criteria to decide why some names should be kept while deleting some others. My take is to delete all of the names. MegaHasher 02:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need a section explaining why States allow these legal mechanisms to exist. Perhaps old men understand it. I would guess to promote savings.Holon67 (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section needs to be updated to reflect the rapidly changing market of Living Benefit annuities. I too am an asset-under-management advisor, and have hated most annuities for my entire career. However, living benefits have changed my tune (IF you can find a low cost product!), and it fits the client (i.e. they refuse to invest in stocks/funds without a guarantee). Geoffvf (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that the payments from an annuity end when you die, the insurance company dies or the currency dies -- whichever comes first.

I feel that there should be some mention of the possiblity of the currency dying. Even a large shrinkage in the currency could reduce an annuity payment to a pittance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.1.186 (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Annuities in the United States/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Substituted at 00:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Annuity (American). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060209151158/http://www.sec.gov:80/investor/pubs/equityidxannuity.htm to http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/equityidxannuity.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]