Search This Blog

Showing posts with label long term care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label long term care. Show all posts

Sunday, November 17, 2019

MYTH: I Hate Annuities

This is a myth.  I don't use some of them, the expensive ridiculously high commissioned restrictive poorly performing ones.  But I agree with the authors of the article below:  I neither like nor dislike "annuities" as a class because they are a widely divergent collection of financial tools.  Some are indespensible and some are useless.  It just depends on your goals.

As advisors who often talk about annuities to financial advisors, we are often asked whether we “like” annuities. To that question, our standard answer is that we neither like nor dislike them—because they’re just tools, which work well in certain circumstances and do not work well in others. Occasionally, that response will elicit what may appear to be a better follow-up question:
“When—that is, in what planning situations—does an annuity make good sense and when does it not make good sense?”
That’s a core question, and one that might be in the mind of you, our reader. What’s our answer? One answer might be that “it depends… on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.” That’s a reasonable and rather obvious reply, and what our audiences often expect to hear. But it’s not our answer.
Our answer to that question is that the question in unanswerable—until we know what the questioner means by an annuity in the first place. Are we talking about a variable deferred annuity or a fixed immediate annuity? Those contracts are hugely different.
Each is an “annuity,” but the two contract forms are designed to meet completely opposite needs. Generalizations, always hazardous, are especially unproductive when used with annuities. A true statement about fixed annuities is likely to be false when applied to variable ones, and vice versa. The same is true when the annuities are immediate versus deferred. Yet many, if not most, consumers—and all too many advisors—routinely generalize about annuities, often to the extent that their conclusions are so flawed as to be worthless.
If we bear in mind this caveat—that we must generalize only when our assessment can be generally accurate—can we now attempt to answer the question posed earlier: “When, and in what planning situations, does an annuity make good sense and when does it not make good sense?” We believe that we can, and should, construct bright line tests to help us determine when an annuity is likely to be suitable for our client.
1. Where the Goal Is Immediate Income
When immediate income is the primary goal, an immediate annuity may be appropriate, so long as it is understood that it may provide no benefit at the annuitant’s death. Indeed, if the annuitant lives beyond the point where any refund element is payable, an immediate annuity will not provide any death benefit.
2. Where the Goal Is Income in the Future
Where the goal is income in the future, several annuity strategies may be appropriate.
  1. Accumulating money now, to purchase an immediate annuity later
  2. Purchasing a longevity now
  3. Purchasing a “ladder” of longevity annuities over time
  4. Purchasing a deferred annuity now, and activating the Guaranteed Lifetime Withdrawal Rider later.
3. Where the Income Amount Must Be as High as Possible on a Guaranteed Basis
Where the primary goal is income and where the amount of that income must be as high as possible on a guaranteed basis, an immediate annuity is ideal. The key word, here, is guaranteed, given that other alternatives (e.g., portfolio-based strategies) merely have the potential of generating greater retirement income, but the investor/retiree cannot be fully assured that they will.
Where the income period is a fixed number of years, a Period Certain fixed immediate annuity will generally provide a greater amount per year than can be assured from any investment alternative because the non-annuity alternative must often preserve principal.
4. Where the Goal Is Accumulation of Capital
Where the goal is capital accumulation, an immediate annuity is clearly not suitable, but a deferred annuity may be. If preservation of principal is a requirement, a fixed deferred annuity might be appropriate, but a variable one, in the absence of a Guaranteed Living Benefit rider, might not. This is because a variable annuity, except to the extent that its cash value is invested in the fixed account, does not offer safety of principal.
If, however, the purchaser is willing to regard a return of purchase payments in installments, no matter what happens to policy earnings, as a guarantee of principal, a Guaranteed Minimum Withdrawal Benefit (GMWB) rider to a variable deferred annuity can serve as an instrument for capital accumulation with “safety of principal.”
Indeed, the GMWB provision of many contracts includes a step-up feature that not only assures the return of the original investment in installments, but also any contract gain accrued as of the point where the step-up option may be exercised. However, it is important to emphasize that in this context, the safety of principal provided by the deferred annuity exists only if the annuity owner accesses the principal according to the terms of the guarantee. In the context of a GMWB, this means that principal is not guaranteed, unless the annuity owner is willing to extract that principal as a series of periodic payments over a span of many years.
(Excerpted from The Advisor’s Guide to Annuities, 5th ed.)




Your Constructive Comments are Welcome!

Friday, November 6, 2009

Myth: The Government Will Take Care of Me

As we live longer and longer, the uncertain and usually untold story about quality of life needs to be looked at. The number one cause of debilitating but not immediately fatal conditions such as arthritis, dementia, heart & respiratory decline is longevity. How is this affecting us as families, communities and a society? How will it affect us?
I've met with more couples than I care to admit who are "in betweeners", that is, they are cornered into taking care of adult children and at the same time saddled with caring for one or both sets of their parents. The stress is palpable, incredibly emotionally and financially draining.
Right now, Medicare does not pay for long term care. State Medicaid programs do but only if you are virtually impoverished. I won't go into the details here, but the legal consequences of shifting assets to qualify for Medicaid keep getting more punitive as the financial solvency of the program becomes more and more scary. What are the options?
Well, you can:
  • Be really rich or have really rich kids. Seriously. This is an option that works for a few people.
  • Spend down your assets to qualify for Medicaid.
  • Set up an Income Cap Trust- see http://www.dhs.state.or.us/spd/tools/program/osip/wg5.htm
  • Buy Long Term Care insurance
  • Hope and pray that the health care reform bills in Congress will deal with this issue (not likely).
  • Only get malignantly terminal illnesses
Let's examine these primary alternatives.

The first one is the best but, based on statistics, the least probable. Even so, the reality is that even well-off folks buy Long Term Care insurance because they've done the math: If you could save the monthly premium for long term care insurance in an account earning 6% for 20 years- instead of buying the insurance -then you would have enough money to pay for about 9 months of care. The insurance, on the other hand, would give you inflation adjusted care for 5 years.
The second possibility is commonly used, but usually involuntarily. Plus, it leaves your spouse in a world of financial hurt, if you care about that.
The Income Cap Trust should be drafted by an attorney. It can allow you to qualify for Medicaid earlier, and stay on longer, by meeting the "300% of SSI standard income limit" test.
Buying Long Term Care insurance LTCi) is actually the cheapest option for all of us, if you can qualify. This is especially true in Oregon which is a "partnership" state, meaning that to the extent you have private long term care insurance you will be exempted from Medicaid recovery from your estate. For example, let's say you have LTCi, go on claim, and your insurer pays out a total of $300,000 before you die. Your Medicaid exempt assets will be increased by $300,000.
The fourth option, hoping Congress will fix it, doesn't look too promising. We can't afford the programs they've already promised us.
The last option is out of our control. And, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.