c*********g
发帖数: 154 | 1 我花了一些时间仔细研究了New York Life的WL跟Nationwide的IUL。期间看了各大BBS
上帖子，发现用金融知识理性分析IUL的帖子比较少。趁星期五有空码码字，希望对大
家有所帮助。
我主要比较三种寿险+投资方案：WL，IUL和term+VFINX（显然，保额都得要一样才具可
比性）。最后会顺带提提其它可能的方案。要注意，一般30岁左右有孩子的人买term都
是只买20年，即20年后对寿险的需求急剧下降，并且20年之后term的费用会大规模提高
。而WL和IUL都是终身寿险，所以term+VFINX跟WL或IUL直接比较不算完全fair。
先老生常谈一个金融界的黄金法则，天下没有免费的午餐，或，高风险高（期望）回报
。从另一个角度说，如果风险相当，理性人应选择高回报的投资方案；如果回报相当，
理性人应选择低风险的方案。
一、ROR
我觉得大家首先要建立起一个最基本的金融或投资概念，就是Rate of Return(ROR)。
假设你在(t_1,t_2,…,t_n)这些时间点有如下的cash flow(c_1,c_2,…,c_n)，注意c_j
可正可负，并假设你的ROR已知，那么你在T(T>=t_n)时刻的value就是：
FV = sum(c_j*(1+ROR)^(T-t_j)) (j=1,2,…,n)
很简单吧。那反过来，给定了FV和整个cash flow，也就可以求出ROR（Excel应该很容
易做这件事，我会编程但不是Excel guy，大家自己去查查吧）。上面这样算出的ROR跟
time horizon很有关系，如果t_j的时间间隔是以天为单位的，那ROR就是“天化”ROR
，如果是以月为单位的，那ROR就是“月化”ROR。不过不管怎么样，都有办法给它“年
化”了，以方便比较。所以下面我提到的ROR就都默认是“年化”了的ROR。
对任何一种投资，我们都可以据此估算ROR作为“回报”的衡量。ROR将所有损益(
profit and loss)和费用(costs)都折合了进去，因而是一种可以用于比较不同投资方
案收益率的量化指标。
二、WL,IUL与VFINX的ROR
每个人从保险Agent那里拿到的illustrations都不尽相同，因为每个人的年龄、身体状
况等都不一样。不过不管怎么样，有了上面的一点金融知识，你应该可以根据
illustration中的数据大概算出你的WL或者IUL的ROR。
对于我个人来说，WL的ROR大概是4%左右。IUL按每年放固定一笔钱这样的schedule，20
年下来大概是5.0%左右，然后随年数增加ROR会增加，到80年下来大概是6.3%左右。
VFINX是一个常见的S&P500 Index Fund。很多Agent在帮客户做IUL的时候都是选择直接
跟S&P500，所以term+VFINX是一个比较好的对比组合。在Fidelity的网站上https://
fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/922908108，可以看到长期的“
Average Annual Total Returns”（即ROR）是8.88%。这个数字是折合了dividends的
税以及最后卖掉所有shares的税而得到的ROR。
要注意term的费用也要算到你最终的ROR里去。对我个人来说，term+VFINX组合长期下
来的ROR差不多是8.3%这样。
综合上面的几点信息，可以看出，WL或IUL的ROR相对来说是比较低的。
三、Illustration的关键参数
WL没有Fee Structure Breakdown，怎么计算费用无从得知，那么关键参数是Agent在
illustration中设的红利率。
IUL的每一项费用都是可以了解得非常清楚的，并且COI rate curve可以根据
illustration自己推算。在这基础上我编程实现了IUL的大部分细节，并在历史数据上
跑，而得到我的ROR。对大部分同学来说，只能依赖illustration，那么Agent所用的所
谓“平均增长率”就变成了关键参数。我个人认为，在floor=0%， cap=12%的条件下，
这个平均增长率设为7%左右是比较合理的。
在term+VFINX方案中，term的费用，income tax和capital gain tax的税率是关键参数
。我个人感觉，税率会持续增长，所以上面提到的term+VFINX组合的ROR会下降一些。
四、风险
衡量风险也有一些量化指标，比如说每年回报率的标准方差等。但对于一般人，风险是
一个很主观的东西，下面我就简单提提我个人对这几种方案的主观风险评估。
WL风险很小，尤其像New York Life这样的顶级寿险公司。
IUL由于有floor的存在，风险会比较小，但前提是投资要diciplined。还有其它一些风
险比如说寿险公司可以在保证guaranteed的前提下单方面调整你的policy细节，等等。
我个人认为，在有效竞争的市场环境下，这方面的风险较小。
term+VFINX的风险是这三种方案中最大的。最坏的情况是在你退休急需用钱的时候市场
来了大规模的crash。
五、其它方案
VUL也是大家热议的终身寿险产品之一。我强烈不推荐大家买VUL。理由是VUL的风险只
比term+VFINX略“小一点”，但对大部分人来说，长期下来，ROR基本上会比VFINX“低
不少”。要强调的是，我做此论断的前提假设是大部分的基金管理人都没法beat the
market。
term+VFINX风险较高，那我们加上option来做floor可不可以。可以，但长期下来，这
样做购买option的费用也会较高。而且大部分人不可能对option熟练运用，我自己就不
行，所以我不建议这个方案。
六、WL和IUL的其它可能好处
寿险公司可以通过loan的处理使得你从帐户里取钱不用给政府交税。年纪大的时候，通
过合理分配从寿险帐户里以及退休帐户里取钱的比例，以达到降低纳税目的。
在申请financial aid上面可以做到隐藏一部分财产而一定程度上增加获得FA的可能性。
总结一下，单纯考虑投资的话，与term+VFINX相比，WL和IUL风险小，以ROR作为量化指
标的回报率就会相应的比较低。从某种意义上说，相当于你把自己投资股市本该缴纳给
政府的税款，连同另外一些费用给了寿险公司，来换取到了投资的低风险。综合ROR跟
风险两方面考虑，对我个人来说，WL是最不好的选择，可以免去不谈。而IUL是一个可
以OK的选择，但在现阶段只能作为家庭理财diversification的一小部分。而IUL的其它
潜在好处不能在根本上改变它“作为家庭理财diversification的一小部分”的地位。 | r****m
发帖数: 1204 | 2 你的ROR 的计算是理性的. 但是关于风险的分析有问题, 这个实际上不是你的问题, 而
是金融领域关于风险的定义和计算的问题.
只有向下的surprise是真正的风险, 向上的surprise是大家欢迎的风险. IUL protects
the downside risk, but at the same time also shields you from the upside
opportunity.
ROR实际上不是一个好的比较指标, 一方面比较难以向大众解释, 一方面难以计算. 一
个简洁实用的指标是after-tax cash value of the three products, 因为这是大家实
实在在可以用得到的.
I am an Excel guy, I have done many comparisons of IUL and Term+Index and I
can say the following:
1. 单纯假设一个annual growth rate然后比较after-tax cash value of the two没意
义, 因为显然Term+Index会好得多 (due to its lower costs).
2. Back date testing is more convincing - 只要你有15-20年或以上的time period
, Term+Index 百分之百beat IUL, even considering tax for Term+Index.
还有一个非常重要的事情你没有考虑到, 那就是当你老了开始想从IUL里面用钱的时候,
你会发现那些 nice IUL illustrations are just on paper, in reality? You will
be in for a rude awakening! (I have discussed this in some of my previous
posts) | c*********g
发帖数: 154 | 3 先回答你关于ROR的问题吧。ROR可用于比较不同投资方案的收益率，在金融界早已人所
共知，但在大家的帖子里我看到得比较少，所以就连带科普一下吧。另外不同投资方案
可能很难做到投资的schedule都一样，这时候用未来某时刻的cash value来比较就变成
不可能。比如说，有一笔钱，是用来买投资房咧还是放在股市？投资房有cash flow，
那么未来的cash value跟放股市就不可比了。在我所讨论的这三种方案中，term+VFINX
跟IUL或者term+VFINX跟WL的schedule可以做到一样，但WL跟IUL就很难做到一样。用
ROR才能更清楚更公平的把三种方案放在一起进行比较。另外我说我不是Excel guy，不
是想说我自己不会算，这点你可能误会了。
1. 在我没有跑我的程序之前，没有实实在在的数据支持，我没法直接做你这个泛化到
所有情况的论断。因为如我在原帖说的那样，税率(income tax rate & capital gain
tax rate)以及term的费用是计算term+VFINX ROR的关键参数(当然VFINX的performance
也是另一个关键参数，只不过我是在历史数据上跑的，对我来说就不显得那么重要)，
对于某些人来说当税率过高或者term费用过高，而IUL的费用相对较低的时候，IUL有可
能会beat term+VFINX。当然你会说，term费用高的话一般IUL的费用也会相应增高，这
是make sense的，但我比较谨慎，习惯了具体问题具体分析，我要拿到具体参数跑程序
，最后用数字说话。
2. 我先聊聊风险吧。大概这么三个方面:
1) 历史会不会重演？很多金融分析都是基于历史会重演这一假设的(专业点叫你所
model的东西具有time homogeneous的性质)。但仍然存在未来没那么听“历史”话的风
险。比如说，美国在未来几十年中没法保持如前几十年那样的发展势头以及世界霸主地
位，那么就会导致VFINX的长期performance变差。
2) 风险的一种常用量化度量是回报率的标准方差。以此为据，VFINX的风险大约是18%
而IUL的风险大约是9.6%。用模糊一些的话来说就是比起IUL，VFINX有更大的可能性有
大规模的negative return，虽然长期ROR上VFINX比IUL强劲很多。Sharpe Ratio是一个
通用的综合了回报率和风险的量化指标。对于我来说，term+VFINX的Sharpe Ratio是0.
46而IUL的Sharpe Ratio是0.52，差别不大。
3）“百分之百”是一种危险的mind set，在金融以及投资领域。在次贷危机之前，很
多银行都用模型跑过了各种simulation，当时认为出问题的概率非常非常小，然后就都
纷纷大规模上马各种复杂的次贷衍生产品。即便这样，还有次贷危机发生，那如果当时
认为“百分之百”不会出问题，危机也许会更严重一些。搞金融的人讨论风险的时候不
会说百分之百，而是会想说怎么样合理控制风险以将其降至可控范围，
diversification是其中一条重要的手段。
所以说呢，虽然有back testing的支持，我仍然认为diversification是需要做的。从
Sharpe Ratio来看IUL并没有那么差劲，可以作为diversification的一部分。
3. 谢谢你的提醒。据我所知，如果我老的时候真想用钱而不打算把钱留给子女，我可
以loan出我cash value的90%，然后让policy自动lapse掉。另外，关于illustration是
否可靠，我在原帖里也说了，一般人没法像我这样做详细计算，但是将Agent所说的“
平均回报率”这一关键参数在floor=0%以及cap=12%的前提下设为7%是比较合理的。
再强调一下，所有我提供的数据都是根据我自己的情况计算得到的。我不希望向没有接
触过IUL的童鞋们提过于aggressive的正面或负面的意见和建议。我写这么多
，只是希望每个人可以根据自身情况对收益和风险进行全面评估以作出适合的投资选择。
protects
I
【在 r****m 的大作中提到】
: 你的ROR 的计算是理性的. 但是关于风险的分析有问题, 这个实际上不是你的问题, 而
: 是金融领域关于风险的定义和计算的问题.
: 只有向下的surprise是真正的风险, 向上的surprise是大家欢迎的风险. IUL protects
: the downside risk, but at the same time also shields you from the upside
: opportunity.
: ROR实际上不是一个好的比较指标, 一方面比较难以向大众解释, 一方面难以计算. 一
: 个简洁实用的指标是after-tax cash value of the three products, 因为这是大家实
: 实在在可以用得到的.
: I am an Excel guy, I have done many comparisons of IUL and Term+Index and I
: can say the following:
| r****m
发帖数: 1204 | 4 I am always proud of myself as a number guy. Let me comment a few of LZ's
points (sorry, typing Chinese is too hard for me, I will use English below):
1. ROR or IRR: Both WL and IUL's illustrations could include IRR. Most
angents don't show them to clients, because it's not default to include them
in the illustration. For anyone who is considering WL or IUL, I suggest you
ask your agent to include IRR in the illustration.
2. 风险的一种常用量化度量是回报率的标准方差。
Please note 标准方差 measures two directional swings (to the negative side
or positive side). So what you said following should add another 2 words:
以此为据，VFINX的风险大约是18%而IUL的风险大约是9.6%。用模糊一些的话来说就是
比起IUL，VFINX有更大的可能性有大规模的negative return or positive return，(
just think the market returns in 2013, while IUL holders only capped at the
low teen percent returns).
3. I said 100% back date testing supports IUL underperforms Term+Index, I
meant 100%!!!
Nobody knows the future, but history, especially the stock market history is
probably the best yard stick you can have for the future!
If not, please let me know a better way to compare the two. | p******g
发帖数: 15 | 5 IUL basically works like this:
Invest your premium in some fixed income security. Use the interests
generated from the fixed income to buy call options on indices like s&p.
Sometimes it gives up some upside potential by selling out of money put
option to generate additional income. This is the cap. for this strategy to
work, the income generated from the fixed income must cover the cost of
option premiums, demanding yield of at least 5-6%. low yield government
bonds will not do it. So the underlining fixed income must be some high
yield junk bonds, probably corp bonds issued by the same insurer.
So you are better off investing in the same bonds directly, the risk being
the same.
The most crucial difference between term and IUL is the commissions to your
insurance agent. as much as 10% of your total premiums go to your insurance
agent up front, this seriously hurt your profitability.
Another difference is that high surrender charges may apply if someone
cancels his policy. this actually works to your advantage, unless you are
the sucker who is canceling the policy. | r****m
发帖数: 1204 | 6 "The most crucial difference between term and IUL is the commissions to your
insurance agent. as much as 10% of your total premiums go to your insurance
agent up front, this seriously hurt your profitability."
Just 10%?
太小瞧咱们IUL agents'的智商了吧? 10%谁会这么使劲推啊 :) | i****e
发帖数: 157 | 7 "2. Back date testing is more convincing - 只要你有15-20年或以上的time
period
, Term+Index 百分之百beat IUL, even considering tax for Term+Index."
redsim,我对你这句话有疑问,想请教.我的理解,如果把iul or vul和买term/index看作
投资的一种方式的话,任何投资,timing都很重要,即使你在做15年甚至更长时间的长期
投资,
这里指的timing,我觉得更重要的是看你的investment到期的时候market的情况.
你提到back date testing, Term+index 百分百beat IUL
我觉得同样也应该具体问题具体来看,
举例:如果我们同样比较1993-2008年底这15年的投资情况:
我很难想象term + index可以beat iul
不过term+index应该可以轻松beat vul
所以,某种程度上讲,我感觉楼主的帖子说的比较客观和全面
iul提供了一个down market的protection,这一点,如果我们需要自己投资来100%任何时
间段都要beat它的话,就只有term+index+index put option; 但是term+index+index
put option具体操作起来,对普通人有一定难度,至少我目前不知道怎么来操作.
不知道我的理解对不对,还有,如果你对term+index+index put option的具体操作熟悉
了解的话,也想听听你的看法.谢谢! | p******g
发帖数: 15 | 8 Usually the commission is 100% of first year's premiums. so if you are being
sold a 10-pay policy, the commission rate is 10%. 10-pay is more common
these days. Note if it's less than 7-pay, the policy becomes MEC(Modified
Endowment Contract), and loses tax advantage. On top of the commission rate,
you probably have very high expense ratios too.
to illustrate, today's premium for s&p index ATM/5%OTM call put spread 3
month option is about 2%. to fully participate in the market, you need to
have 8% yield on the bond, which is very high risk.
This example is just for a moderate policy that has 0% floor and 5% cap. If
your agent sells you a policy with 0% floor 12% cap, he would be lying out
of his wall street derriere. you might as well give your money to Bernie
Madoff. | r****m
发帖数: 1204 | 9 pandabig -
Thanks for clarifying the "10% commission" (or rather 100% commission). You
also forgot the asset based trail commission for the life time of the policy
which is very lucrative.
iceeve -
Time horizon is important for any investment, but timing shouldn't be for a
long term investor.
Specifically, I did run a back testing from 1990 to 2008, Term+Index still
beats IUL even with after-tax cash value (I didn't consider any tax impact
for IUL, but if you are going use it up, there will be income tax
consequences. If you don't use it up, you will face higher insurance premium
due to depleting cash value when you are old).
For anyone who is considering IUL, just ask your agent to run a comparison
between Term+Index and IUL. If you see IUL results is better, please share
with this board to educate everyone.
Finally, do not try to pursue "自己投资来100%任何时间段都要beat它", LZ is
right - in wall street, high risk comes with high return, if you can grow
with the market, in the long term, you will be handsomely rewarded. (that's
why I don't recommend buying Index put option at the same time, too
complicated for majority of people and not worth it). | p****p
发帖数: 540 | 10 谢谢分析。
有个问题，如果保险公司倒闭，州政府接管后term最多只保二三十万美元，wl和iul是否
也是这样，如果是，这个风险不小。
BBS
【在 c*********g 的大作中提到】
: 我花了一些时间仔细研究了New York Life的WL跟Nationwide的IUL。期间看了各大BBS
: 上帖子，发现用金融知识理性分析IUL的帖子比较少。趁星期五有空码码字，希望对大
: 家有所帮助。
: 我主要比较三种寿险+投资方案：WL，IUL和term+VFINX（显然，保额都得要一样才具可
: 比性）。最后会顺带提提其它可能的方案。要注意，一般30岁左右有孩子的人买term都
: 是只买20年，即20年后对寿险的需求急剧下降，并且20年之后term的费用会大规模提高
: 。而WL和IUL都是终身寿险，所以term+VFINX跟WL或IUL直接比较不算完全fair。
: 先老生常谈一个金融界的黄金法则，天下没有免费的午餐，或，高风险高（期望）回报
: 。从另一个角度说，如果风险相当，理性人应选择高回报的投资方案；如果回报相当，
: 理性人应选择低风险的方案。
| | | r****m
发帖数: 1204 | 11 Yes. That's why you need to seek highly rated insurers for any life
insurance products (although that means premiums won't be cheap). | p******g
发帖数: 15 | 12 time horizon is important. actually, if you buy and hold VFINX from 2000-
2014 your total return(dividend reinvested) is 1.5% annual equivalent. if
you hold from 2000-2012 your annual return is -0.75%.
Without question, IUL would have beaten VFINX. even with averaging cost
basis method, IUL still beats VFINX.
In theory you can mimic IUL with a call spread option on SPX. the premium
for the option costs about 6-8%. so you need a fixed income instrument that
can generate 6-8% interest to fund the option hedging cost. you are
basically swapping a fixed 6-8% return for a floating (0-12%) one.
so compare IUL to physical index doesn't make much sense. IUL does not risk
the principal, you money is invested in a bond. There is nothing wrong with
this kind of financial product per se. just google principal protected
structured note. IUL is term + PPN.
but why shouldn't you buy IUL? in my opinions it's because
- IUL's exorbitant commissions plus surrender charges. 10% dent up front.
- high risks. IUL is being marketed as an insurance product. it has high
risk despite the guarantee. remember it's equivalent to an 6-8% bond, if the
underlying bond defaults, so does your IUL.
- it's not sustainable. those figures can and will change. the cap can go
down. so can the participation rate. if the income from the bond can only
hedge 80% of the principal, then the participation rate is set at 80%. this
will limit your return.
- don't be fooled by those riders like long term care. read the fine print.
So buy term. if you want higher returns with less downside risk (you are
bearish, retiring soon) find a PPN, or a junk bond fund that pays 6-8%
dividend. personally i wouldn't touch those either. but at least you get to
see the disclaimer that tells you about the risks involved. | p****p
发帖数: 540 | 13 谢谢精彩分析。
that
risk
【在 p******g 的大作中提到】
: time horizon is important. actually, if you buy and hold VFINX from 2000-
: 2014 your total return(dividend reinvested) is 1.5% annual equivalent. if
: you hold from 2000-2012 your annual return is -0.75%.
: Without question, IUL would have beaten VFINX. even with averaging cost
: basis method, IUL still beats VFINX.
: In theory you can mimic IUL with a call spread option on SPX. the premium
: for the option costs about 6-8%. so you need a fixed income instrument that
: can generate 6-8% interest to fund the option hedging cost. you are
: basically swapping a fixed 6-8% return for a floating (0-12%) one.
: so compare IUL to physical index doesn't make much sense. IUL does not risk
| m********3
发帖数: 22 | 14 楼主分析非常中立，IUL不是最好，但也不是谁都不应该购买，存在就是合理，至少适
合一部分人需求。Redsim 推销他的term，同时很多言论非常武断，（2. Back date
testing is more convincing - 只要你有15-20年或以上的time period
, Term+Index 百分之百beat IUL, even considering tax for Term+Index.）任何投
资都不能说100%，而且过去15年，IUL超出index回报。
【在 p****p 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢精彩分析。
:
: that
: risk
| r****m
发帖数: 1204 | 15 我同意IUL适合一部分人需求. 但关键是: 这个一部分人是什么样的人?
楼主用了一个看似合理的title, 但是没有点到IUL的根本点: It is NOT 理性 for
working class families to purchase IUL!
另外, 关于IUL 和 Term+Index 比较的问题 -
a. 如果是back date testing, 那些数据都在那里, you can test by yourself, 没有
什么可争的, Term+Index 100% best IUL based on historical data (even 1998 -
2013)!
b. 如果是比较将来的performance, because no one knows what future will be,
the typical procedure is to assume a reasonable rate (e.g. IUL uses a 7%
rate to illustrate). In this way, Term+Index 100% beat IUL, it's a no
brainer, thanks to Term+Index's super low cost!
楼上的, 如果您是IUL agent,那您说得挺到位, 如果您不是，我真不知道说您什么好.
我是力推Term, that's because I wholeheartedly believe every working family
needs it, and that's the only insurance your family need (unless you are 那
一部分人 :) | p******g
发帖数: 15 | 16 back test from 1998-2013
assuming a 0% floor 12% cap IUL
year s&p s&p IUL
13-Dec 1848 30% 12%
12-Dec 1426 13% 12%
11-Dec 1258 0% 0%
10-Dec 1258 13% 12%
09-Dec 1115 23% 12%
08-Dec 903 -38% 0%
07-Dec 1468 4% 4%
06-Dec 1418 14% 12%
05-Dec 1248 3% 3%
04-Dec 1212 9% 9%
03-Dec 1112 26% 12%
02-Dec 880 -23% 0%
01-Dec 1148 -13% 0%
Dec-00 1320 -10% 0%
Dec-99 1469 20% 12%
Dec-98 1229 0% 0%
total return s&p 16%
total return IUL 157%
this does not do justice to s&p because we do not take into account the s&p'
s dividend. if we replace s&p with VFINX, it's a lot better.
bench marks both with reinvested dividends
total return PTTRX 152% (pimco total return)
total return VFINX 95% (vangard s&p fund)
In a bear market, IUL outperforms s&p, similar to PTTRX. because it's
basically a fixed income not an equity index. don't compare it with S&P.
With that said, for your insurance needs, no one should ever buy IUL, period
. because of the high costs(steep commissions, surrender charge, fees,
expenses). Also, i don't believe the IUL strategy could lasts 20 years. it's
a Ponzi scheme.
A well-balanced portfolio + term outperforms IUL in any market. | y****i
发帖数: 778 | 17 Right, if you use MXLMX, Dec 98-Dec 13 total return is 260%. The ultimate
return for fixed income is based on the yield, but Fed pumps every asset to
a new high level which nobody knows what's next.
【在 p******g 的大作中提到】
: back test from 1998-2013
: assuming a 0% floor 12% cap IUL
: year s&p s&p IUL
: 13-Dec 1848 30% 12%
: 12-Dec 1426 13% 12%
: 11-Dec 1258 0% 0%
: 10-Dec 1258 13% 12%
: 09-Dec 1115 23% 12%
: 08-Dec 903 -38% 0%
: 07-Dec 1468 4% 4%
| w*****o
发帖数: 105 | 18 good analysis!
but the total return from S&P is 50% per my calc.
Also, if including the divident reinvestment, which I found online, the
total return of S&P is 102%.
for the IUL, if the cost is 1.5%, the total return would be 109%, which is
quite close to S&P's.
Does anybody know the ACTUAL cost of owning an IUL?
BTW, since 1960, there are only 3 years which have -20% or worse performance
, and there are two in the period btw 1999 and 2013. I.e., that period
probably would be the most favorable for the IUL.
【在 p******g 的大作中提到】
: back test from 1998-2013
: assuming a 0% floor 12% cap IUL
: year s&p s&p IUL
: 13-Dec 1848 30% 12%
: 12-Dec 1426 13% 12%
: 11-Dec 1258 0% 0%
: 10-Dec 1258 13% 12%
: 09-Dec 1115 23% 12%
: 08-Dec 903 -38% 0%
: 07-Dec 1468 4% 4%
| r****m
发帖数: 1204 | 19
pandabig -
Thanks for showing the return numbers.
However, I want to point out this is a simple, but not the right way to
compare IUL and Term+Index, because each year, IUL got chipped away a large
chunk of expenses and cost of insurances. Even at the same % returns of the
two over the same time period , if you compare the cash values of the two,
you will be amazed by how much Term+Index's cash value will outperform IUL.
Of course, if the policyholder dies during the period, Term+Index's payout
will a lot bigger.
Finally, you are right, IUL's index return excludes dividends, what a bummer
and misleading name for IUL!
【在 p******g 的大作中提到】
: back test from 1998-2013
: assuming a 0% floor 12% cap IUL
: year s&p s&p IUL
: 13-Dec 1848 30% 12%
: 12-Dec 1426 13% 12%
: 11-Dec 1258 0% 0%
: 10-Dec 1258 13% 12%
: 09-Dec 1115 23% 12%
: 08-Dec 903 -38% 0%
: 07-Dec 1468 4% 4%
| M********r
发帖数: 278 | 20 wouldn't it be more realistic to compare the returns of IUL with a
diversified and balanced portfolio instead of a sole SP500 or VFINX? In
reality, a mature investor would separate investment and insurance. And for
investment part, he would almost unlikely to only invest in a single US
large cap index. | | | S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 21 did one pay iul premiums every year? if so, should it be compared with dca?
large
the
bummer
【在 r****m 的大作中提到】
: pandabig -
: Thanks for clarifying the "10% commission" (or rather 100% commission). You
: also forgot the asset based trail commission for the life time of the policy
: which is very lucrative.
: iceeve -
: Time horizon is important for any investment, but timing shouldn't be for a
: long term investor.
: Specifically, I did run a back testing from 1990 to 2008, Term+Index still
: beats IUL even with after-tax cash value (I didn't consider any tax impact
: for IUL, but if you are going use it up, there will be income tax
| p****p
发帖数: 540 | 22 谢谢大家的分析，我觉的结论还是和以前的共识差不多，对工薪阶层term最好，很有钱
的wl iul等等有tax的好处，对这少部分人是不错的选择。
BBS
【在 c*********g 的大作中提到】
: 我花了一些时间仔细研究了New York Life的WL跟Nationwide的IUL。期间看了各大BBS
: 上帖子，发现用金融知识理性分析IUL的帖子比较少。趁星期五有空码码字，希望对大
: 家有所帮助。
: 我主要比较三种寿险+投资方案：WL，IUL和term+VFINX（显然，保额都得要一样才具可
: 比性）。最后会顺带提提其它可能的方案。要注意，一般30岁左右有孩子的人买term都
: 是只买20年，即20年后对寿险的需求急剧下降，并且20年之后term的费用会大规模提高
: 。而WL和IUL都是终身寿险，所以term+VFINX跟WL或IUL直接比较不算完全fair。
: 先老生常谈一个金融界的黄金法则，天下没有免费的午餐，或，高风险高（期望）回报
: 。从另一个角度说，如果风险相当，理性人应选择高回报的投资方案；如果回报相当，
: 理性人应选择低风险的方案。
| p******g
发帖数: 15 | 23 redism, you are 100% correct. the problem with IUL is its high costs. long
term return doesn't come close to term + index.
bummer
Actually, IUL's works by hedging the equity risk using options. as we know,
dividends are priced into the option price. so IUL will not miss out on
dividends. it's implicitly included in the returns.
In theory, IUL could work. it's basically a combination of fixed income and
options. but you need to understand the risks, especially interest rate risk
. as an investment vehicle, there are far better alternatives. | p******g
发帖数: 15 | 24 redsim, you are 100% correct. the problem with IUL is its high costs. long
term return doesn't come close to term + index.
bummer
Actually, IUL's works by hedging the equity risk using options. as we know,
dividends are priced into the option price. so IUL will not miss out on
dividends. it's implicitly included in the returns.
In theory, IUL could work. it's basically a combination of fixed income and
options. but you need to understand the risks, especially interest rate risk
.
there are better cheaper alternatives. | i****e
发帖数: 157 | 25 pandabig,
Could you comment a little more about "there are better cheaper alternatives"
Thanks.
,
and
risk
【在 p******g 的大作中提到】
: redsim, you are 100% correct. the problem with IUL is its high costs. long
: term return doesn't come close to term + index.
: bummer
: Actually, IUL's works by hedging the equity risk using options. as we know,
: dividends are priced into the option price. so IUL will not miss out on
: dividends. it's implicitly included in the returns.
: In theory, IUL could work. it's basically a combination of fixed income and
: options. but you need to understand the risks, especially interest rate risk
: .
: there are better cheaper alternatives.
| p******g
发帖数: 15 | 26 redism, you are 100% correct. the problem with IUL is its high costs. long
term return doesn't come close to term + index.
bummer
Actually, IUL's works by hedging the equity risk using options. as we know,
dividends are priced into the option price. so IUL will not miss out on
dividends. it's implicitly included in the returns.
In theory, IUL could work. it's basically a combination of fixed income and
options. but you need to understand the risks, especially interest rate risk
. as an investment vehicle, there are far better alternatives.
s&p is already very diverse. but it's only equity. your portfolio should
include some other instruments, bonds, real estate, etc. the objective is to
have lower risk profile. | r****m
发帖数: 1204 | 27
Yes, when I do the comparisons, I always use DCA for Term+Index, which you
know any market downturn actually becomes a great opportunity!
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: did one pay iul premiums every year? if so, should it be compared with dca?
:
: large
: the
: bummer
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 28 PIMCO StocksPLUS series acutally do just that: invest in S&P 500 Index
derivatives, backed by a portfolio of Fixed Income Instruments. I am not
aware any other fund companies do similar things.
Navigate PIMCO funds is really a big headache.
,
and
risk
【在 p******g 的大作中提到】
: redsim, you are 100% correct. the problem with IUL is its high costs. long
: term return doesn't come close to term + index.
: bummer
: Actually, IUL's works by hedging the equity risk using options. as we know,
: dividends are priced into the option price. so IUL will not miss out on
: dividends. it's implicitly included in the returns.
: In theory, IUL could work. it's basically a combination of fixed income and
: options. but you need to understand the risks, especially interest rate risk
: .
: there are better cheaper alternatives.
|
|
