Maybe 2001 was a worse year...

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
dodgersteve182
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:41 pm

Maybe 2001 was a worse year...

#1 Post by dodgersteve182 » Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:22 pm

but losing 5 clients to death, the market declining by 39% as of today's close, and now the SEC eliminating a product that produced 40% of my Income last year in 2011 (starting me scrambling for a new business plan today when I thought I was relaxing and coasting to the end of a really bad bad year), who knows we still have 13 (lucky 13) more days in 08, I'm not ruling out any more bad business news before this year ends! Oh well on the bright side, 09 and beyond can only be better than 08.
Like the old song in Damn Yankees says "it's gotta get betta cuz it can't get worse...". :D

User avatar
MarleysGh0st
Posts: 27966
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Maybe 2001 was a worse year...

#2 Post by MarleysGh0st » Fri Dec 19, 2008 8:58 pm

dodgersteve182 wrote:now the SEC eliminating a product that produced 40% of my Income last year in 2011
Hmmmm? What would that be?

User avatar
Snaxx
Posts: 4671
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:24 pm
Location: I've been everywhere. Really? Not quite really.
Contact:

Re: Maybe 2001 was a worse year...

#3 Post by Snaxx » Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:51 am

MarleysGh0st wrote:
dodgersteve182 wrote:now the SEC eliminating a product that produced 40% of my Income last year in 2011
Hmmmm? What would that be?
I wonder if this is the answer:
http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs ... /812178487

User avatar
MarleysGh0st
Posts: 27966
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Maybe 2001 was a worse year...

#4 Post by MarleysGh0st » Sat Dec 20, 2008 12:37 pm

jacorbett70 wrote:
MarleysGh0st wrote:
dodgersteve182 wrote:now the SEC eliminating a product that produced 40% of my Income last year in 2011
Hmmmm? What would that be?
I wonder if this is the answer:
http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs ... /812178487
That says the SEC will start regulating EICs (Equity Index Annuities), not eliminate them.

Considering how close we came to having the new mortgage product and hedge funds destroy our entire financial system, is a little regulation a bad thing?

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 24614
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Maybe 2001 was a worse year...

#5 Post by silverscreenselect » Sun Dec 21, 2008 10:22 am

MarleysGh0st wrote:
jacorbett70 wrote:
MarleysGh0st wrote: Hmmmm? What would that be?
I wonder if this is the answer:
http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs ... /812178487
That says the SEC will start regulating EICs (Equity Index Annuities), not eliminate them.

Considering how close we came to having the new mortgage product and hedge funds destroy our entire financial system, is a little regulation a bad thing?

An equity indexed annuity is similar to a fixed annuity (one that pays a guaranteed rate of interest) with a twist. It is also tied to the performance of some major market index like the S&P 500. If the market goes up sufficiently, the annuity is guaranteed to pay a higher rate of interest. This is not the same as a variable annuity, in which the customer's funds are used to buy shares in a stock or bond fund, which, if it goes down, can result in the customer's losing money (many variable annuities are sold with a guarantee, which, for a price, ensures that this won't happen). Needless to say a bunch of varibale annuities haven't done real well lately. An equity indexed annuity will always return some stated (often very low) interest rate, but one which could go higher if the market does well.

Currently, equity indexed annuities are considered standard annuities and regulated by the State Insurance Departments. The person selling them must be a licensed insurance agent. The SEC is considering regulating these because of widespread complaints about these annuities being pushed on senior citizens who aren't aware that they are tying up their money in an essentially illiquid investment with steep withdrawal penalties. If the SEC rule becomes final, the people who sell these annuities would need to be federally registered like stockbrokers (many of them already are) and the funds themselves would have to file SEC prospectuses and so forth. It's very likely that there would be a lot fewer of these around in that case.

The annuities themselves won't be regulated in the sense of making sure they are financially sound before they can be offered to the public. Plenty of risky stocks and bonds are already being sold out there. It's the state insurance departments who make sure that insurance companies maintain sufficient assets to pay their obligations. Instead, the SEC's concern is with full disclosure of the potential risks of the annuity and regulation of the people who sell them.

The main benefit of federal regulation would be making the firm itself responsible for what the selling representative does. With variable annuities, new regulations require that a higher-up in the firm personally review every proposed sale and approve it as suitable for the particular customer. That would undoubtedly be extended to equity indexed annuities.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

Post Reply