Why You’re Better off with Variable Annuities than Mutual Funds?

Posted on December 3, 2010 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

Investing Under the Umbrella

By Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA, CMP™

[Editor-in-Chief]

http://www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.org

While participation in savings programs such as 401(k), 403(b), IRAs, and SEPs were at record numbers before the “flash-crash” of 2008-09, each of these plans is subject to a contribution cap.

Consequently, investors are always looking for tax-efficient methods to save more for retirement; especially medical professionals as the economy improves as it has been doing of late. Many have turned, or continue to use, mutual funds. In fact approximately 47% of mutual fund assets are composed of nonqualified funds. And, investors tend to buy mutual funds on the basis of before-tax performance rankings.

Enter the VAs

But these folks might far better off with variable annuities [VAs] according to C. Michael Carty and Robert E. Skinner in the article “Variable Annuities vs. Mutual Funds” (Financial Planning, November 1996, pp. 75–84, Securities Data Publishing, Inc). In fact, they present a strong case for investing in variable annuities (said to operate under an umbrella that protects them from current taxation and inflation) as compared to mutual funds, which may continue today.

The Dickson-Shoven Study

Carty and Skinner refer to a 1993 study by Dickson and Shoven conducted at Stanford University in which mutual funds were ranked on an after-tax basis. The change in relative rankings was dramatic. Dickson and Shoven concluded that:

  • Investors should always use after-tax rankings to evaluate and select mutual funds.
  • Given two investments with similar pretax returns, an investor should select the one involving fewer taxes.
  • A variety of approaches to sheltering or deferring taxes should be considered.

And, in one of the first comparison of returns between variable annuities and mutual funds, Rodney Rhoda of Fidelity Investments demonstrated that the difference in expense charges between variable annuities and mutual funds are less than one would expect because of lower variable annuity trading costs and a more stable asset base, which is usually more fully invested.

Assessment

I am not a fan of VAs as several essays in this ME-P suggest. Fees, expenses, loads and commissions are just too darned high.  And, most are sold, not bought.

However, the authors demonstrated that under either lump-sum or gradual withdrawal assumptions, variable annuities consistently beat mutual funds, particularly for medium to high tax-bracket investors who achieve only median investment performance. Low tax-bracket investors who achieve average or lower investment performance benefit least from variable annuities. Also, variable annuities have been shown to be more likely to withstand the ravages of inflation.

And so, the conundrum continues.

Conclusion

Your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com

OUR OTHER PRINT BOOKS AND RELATED INFORMATION SOURCES:

PRACTICES: www.BusinessofMedicalPractice.com
HOSPITALS: http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466558731
CLINICS: http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781439879900
ADVISORS: www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.org
BLOG: www.MedicalExecutivePost.com
FINANCE: Financial Planning for Physicians and Advisors
INSURANCE: Risk Management and Insurance Strategies for Physicians and Advisors

Product Details  Product Details

Filed under: CMP Program, Financial Planning, Investing, Portfolio Management | Tagged: , , , , , , | 7 Comments »