@batsy71 wrote:What OP is suggesting is something that I believe every property owner can do by alternate means albeit with a slightly higher risk but not that much high. Here's how everybody else can do it without an annuity plan:
If you own a property with a few 100ks worth of equity already built in, then do a cash out refinance in your property. In
That isn't an option when you have nothing to refinance! 
I don't have a mortgage. I own my home free and clear. So I have $1.7M of equity, and no lien on the property.
@sarge12 wrote:Funny that AIG is the financial institution you are earning such high yield at. AIG is the very institution that was handeling my Mothers retirement funds. Then they got swept up in the sub-prime home loan debacle and required a Government bailout to pay their investors. There were quite a few months, when it looked like my mothers money was not going to be returned. So no, I would not do it, based on her experience. The money you invest at AIG is not guaranteed, or backed by collateral.
When we were first introduced to this annuity [at work], it was *not* AIG; I didn't bother going into all that since I didn't think it was relevant. At one point it was Western National. It changed hands one or two times and ended up where it is now. But, my funds definitely ARE protected; I believe they're FDIC insured, but I don't want to carve that in stone. All I can say with certainty at this moment is that its two biggest selling points were: its fixed 4% interest for life, and its guaranteed safety. I wouldn't have put the brunt of my savings in something that could be lost--I'm not that kind of investor! (That's why I did so badly TRYING to 'play the stock market.') I'm ULTRA-conservative when it comes to investing.
@jmw1 wrote:
@SoCalGardener wrote:
When we were first introduced to this annuity [at work], it was *not* AIG; I didn't bother going into all that since I didn't think it was relevant. At one point it was Western National. It changed hands one or two times and ended up where it is now. But, my funds definitely ARE protected; I believe they're FDIC insured, but I don't want to carve that in stone. All I can say with certainty at this moment is that its two biggest selling points were: its fixed 4% interest for life, and its guaranteed safety. I wouldn't have put the brunt of my savings in something that could be lost--I'm not that kind of investor! (That's why I did so badly TRYING to 'play the stock market.') I'm ULTRA-conservative when it comes to investing.I seriously, seriously doubt it is FDIC insured (you need to get this in writing, not just unrecorded oral conversations from the salesman who will deny ever saying that in court). And it's guaranteed by what, a private insurer? Or a salesman's oral unrecorded lies? I still remember 2008 well and insurance companies like AIG almost failed too.... so the only insurer worth anything is FDIC or anything government backed when times get real tough (March 2000 downturn if it extended for more months would have qualified just like Fall 2008). This is unlikely to be a safe investment.
I have all my original paperwork....somewhere. It was 1986 when I opened this account. And it is 100% safe. All it's done for 35 years is add 4% interest to the funds in the account; it's never lost one single cent. The stock market has no effect on it, inflation has no effect, recessions have no effect, etc. I would not have gambled my retirement on an account that wasn't safe. As noted earlier, its two main selling points [for me] were its guaranteed 4% fixed interest rate for life AND its guaranteed safety.
@sarge12 wrote:
@SoCalGardener wrote:I have all my original paperwork....somewhere. It was 1986 when I opened this account. And it is 100% safe. All it's done for 35 years is add 4% interest to the funds in the account; it's never lost one single cent. The stock market has no effect on it, inflation has no effect, recessions have no effect, etc. I would not have gambled my retirement on an account that wasn't safe. As noted earlier, its two main selling points [for me] were its guaranteed 4% fixed interest rate for life AND its guaranteed safety.
My money is in Vanguard Fiduciary Trust, and they did not have issues even in the worst of times, if you chose the safest investment option. I will say this though, no investment is 100% safe...period. Even FDIC is not 100% safe. Countries can and do, through fiscal irresponsibility, themselves go belly-up. Even Rome fell in time, and so can the USA. Social Security is not 100% safe either. The investment you chose may be as safe as there is, but even home ownership is not 100% safe even if paid for. Government backed is only as safe as the Government that backs it. World history suggests that even the most stable systems of Government ever devised have in time failed, and the USA is less than 400 years. At 63, it is not likely to do so in my lifetime, but it still could. If it does, there will be little or nothing I can do about it, but I do know we are not immune to the entire system collapse. In fact, based on history, it is almost a certainty that some day, in the hopefully very distant future it will. The best we can do is invest our savings in the safest manner available.
63, eh? I'm *cough* slightly older than you.
You're making an excellent, albeit VERY unlikely point. (Although with the domestic terrorism we saw in January, it's not that far-fetched, is it?) You're right, if the US itself fell to, say Russia, sure my money could be gone, my paid-for home could be taken, etc. But barring anything that drastic, my money is safe! And it sounds like yours is, too.
I can't stress strongly enough how ultra-conservative I am when it comes to money. I mean back when I was planning for the future, I refused to gamble AT ALL on anything that could lose value. I just wasn't willing to do that. I preferred lower possible returns with guaranteed safety over higher possible returns and the risk of loss. NO WAY would I have put the brunt of my retirement savings in an account that could lose money. Period.
