Well, current yields on PONAX are 4.14% ..some savings/investment vehicle. Q: how many years to the crossover point?
Anyone to contemplate the trade space between that vs an Annuity at twice that rate? Assume the 4% rule of thumb for one's retirement spend rate on the revenue stream for both, with the unspent excess income on the Annuity being saved to earn +4% in
-hh
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:04:51 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
Well, current yields on PONAX are 4.14% ..
Anyone to contemplate the trade space between that vs an Annuity
at twice that rate? Assume the 4% rule of thumb for one's retirement
spend rate on the revenue stream for both, with the unspent excess
income on the Annuity being saved to earn +4% in some savings/investment vehicle. Q: how many years to the crossover point?
If you want to have ANY credibility you would state exactly which annuity you are talking about.
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 4:00:02 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:04:51 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
Well, current yields on PONAX are 4.14% ..
Anyone to contemplate the trade space between that vs an Annuity
at twice that rate? Assume the 4% rule of thumb for one's retirement spend rate on the revenue stream for both, with the unspent excess
income on the Annuity being saved to earn +4% in some savings/investment vehicle. Q: how many years to the crossover point?
If you want to have ANY credibility you would state exactly which annuity you are talking about.Other RSG readers know exactly which one it is; why don't you?
-hh
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 1:22:34 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 4:00:02 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:04:51 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
Well, current yields on PONAX are 4.14% ..
Anyone to contemplate the trade space between that vs an Annuity
at twice that rate? Assume the 4% rule of thumb for one's retirement spend rate on the revenue stream for both, with the unspent excess income on the Annuity being saved to earn +4% in some savings/investment
vehicle. Q: how many years to the crossover point?
If you want to have ANY credibility you would state exactly which annuity you are talking about.
Other RSG readers know exactly which one it is; why don't you?
Don't have one, do you?
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 7:51:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 1:22:34 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 4:00:02 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:04:51 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
Well, current yields on PONAX are 4.14% ..
Anyone to contemplate the trade space between that vs an Annuity
at twice that rate? Assume the 4% rule of thumb for one's retirement spend rate on the revenue stream for both, with the unspent excess income on the Annuity being saved to earn +4% in some savings/investment
vehicle. Q: how many years to the crossover point?
If you want to have ANY credibility you would state exactly which annuity you are talking about.
Other RSG readers know exactly which one it is; why don't you?
Don't have one, do you?
Still jealous of what others have but you do not?
Need me to look up just how trivially small the amount was for the name that you couldn’t afford?
Or I’ll make a new offer: I’ll sell you the name for just 1% of what I’ve purchased in it this year.
But better hurry to accept; I’m planning on adding an August purchase.
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 7:51:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 1:22:34 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 4:00:02 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:04:51 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
Well, current yields on PONAX are 4.14% ..
Anyone to contemplate the trade space between that vs an Annuity
at twice that rate? Assume the 4% rule of thumb for one's retirement spend rate on the revenue stream for both, with the unspent excess income on the Annuity being saved to earn +4% in some savings/investment
vehicle. Q: how many years to the crossover point?
If you want to have ANY credibility you would state exactly which annuity you are talking about.
Other RSG readers know exactly which one it is; why don't you?
Don't have one, do you?Still jealous of what others have but you do not?
Need me to look up just how trivially small the amount was for the name that you couldn’t afford?
Or I’ll make a new offer: I’ll sell you the name for just 1% of what I’ve purchased in it this year.
But better hurry to accept; I’m planning on adding an August purchase.
-hh
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:25:40 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 7:51:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 1:22:34 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 4:00:02 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:04:51 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
Well, current yields on PONAX are 4.14% ..
Anyone to contemplate the trade space between that vs an Annuity at twice that rate? Assume the 4% rule of thumb for one's retirement
spend rate on the revenue stream for both, with the unspent excess income on the Annuity being saved to earn +4% in some savings/investment
vehicle. Q: how many years to the crossover point?
If you want to have ANY credibility you would state exactly which annuity you are talking about.
Other RSG readers know exactly which one it is; why don't you?
Don't have one, do you?
Still jealous of what others have but you do not?
Need me to look up just how trivially small the amount was for the name that you couldn’t afford?
Or I’ll make a new offer: I’ll sell you the name for just 1% of what I’ve purchased in it this year.
But better hurry to accept; I’m planning on adding an August purchase.
LOL! The bottom line is that you are BLOWING SMOKE! Put up or SHUT UP!!
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:32:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:25:40 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 7:51:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 1:22:34 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 4:00:02 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:04:51 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
Well, current yields on PONAX are 4.14% ..
Anyone to contemplate the trade space between that vs an Annuity at twice that rate? Assume the 4% rule of thumb for one's retirement
spend rate on the revenue stream for both, with the unspent excess
income on the Annuity being saved to earn +4% in some savings/investment
vehicle. Q: how many years to the crossover point?
If you want to have ANY credibility you would state exactly which annuity you are talking about.
Other RSG readers know exactly which one it is; why don't you?
Don't have one, do you?
Still jealous of what others have but you do not?
Need me to look up just how trivially small the amount was for the name that you couldn’t afford?
Or I’ll make a new offer: I’ll sell you the name for just 1% of what I’ve purchased in it this year.
But better hurry to accept; I’m planning on adding an August purchase.
LOL! The bottom line is that you are BLOWING SMOKE! Put up or SHUT UP!!You’ve tried that gambit before & failed. As still written above, others here know
who the issuer is. And as you’ve been told before, you’ve simply not earned that
information because of how often you’ve not substantiated your own claims far
too many times before.
Plus as I’ve said, I’ve already provided a recused illustration of the front cover:
<https://huntzinger.com/photo/2019b/brochure-pg1.jpg>
-hh
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:47:15 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:32:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:25:40 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 7:51:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 1:22:34 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 4:00:02 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:04:51 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
Well, current yields on PONAX are 4.14% ..
Anyone to contemplate the trade space between that vs an Annuity
at twice that rate? Assume the 4% rule of thumb for one's retirement
spend rate on the revenue stream for both, with the unspent excess
income on the Annuity being saved to earn +4% in some savings/investment
vehicle. Q: how many years to the crossover point?
If you want to have ANY credibility you would state exactly which annuity you are talking about.
Other RSG readers know exactly which one it is; why don't you?
Don't have one, do you?
Still jealous of what others have but you do not?
Need me to look up just how trivially small the amount was for the name that you couldn’t afford?
Or I’ll make a new offer: I’ll sell you the name for just 1% of what I’ve purchased in it this year.
But better hurry to accept; I’m planning on adding an August purchase.
LOL! The bottom line is that you are BLOWING SMOKE! Put up or SHUT UP!!
You’ve tried that gambit before & failed. As still written above, others here know
who the issuer is. And as you’ve been told before, you’ve simply not earned that
information because of how often you’ve not substantiated your own claims far
too many times before.
Plus as I’ve said, I’ve already provided a recused illustration of the front cover:
<https://huntzinger.com/photo/2019b/brochure-pg1.jpg>
Again, Put up or SHUT UP!
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:41:22 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:47:15 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:32:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:25:40 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 7:51:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 1:22:34 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 4:00:02 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:04:51 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
Well, current yields on PONAX are 4.14% ..
Anyone to contemplate the trade space between that vs an Annuity
at twice that rate? Assume the 4% rule of thumb for one's retirement
spend rate on the revenue stream for both, with the unspent excess
income on the Annuity being saved to earn +4% in some savings/investment
vehicle. Q: how many years to the crossover point?
If you want to have ANY credibility you would state exactly which annuity you are talking about.
Other RSG readers know exactly which one it is; why don't you?
Don't have one, do you?
Still jealous of what others have but you do not?
Need me to look up just how trivially small the amount was for the name that you couldn’t afford?
Or I’ll make a new offer: I’ll sell you the name for just 1% of what I’ve purchased in it this year.
But better hurry to accept; I’m planning on adding an August purchase.
LOL! The bottom line is that you are BLOWING SMOKE! Put up or SHUT UP!!
You’ve tried that gambit before & failed. As still written above, others here know
who the issuer is. And as you’ve been told before, you’ve simply not earned that
information because of how often you’ve not substantiated your own claims far
too many times before.
Plus as I’ve said, I’ve already provided a recused illustration of the front cover:
<https://huntzinger.com/photo/2019b/brochure-pg1.jpg>
Again, Put up or SHUT UP!Oh, you mean something like an actual payment receipt? Here ya go:
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2019b/recused_receipt.jpg>
FYI, its interest rate was a fixed 2.75% APR at this time, at a period where the five year
CD rate average was less than half as much, as per:
<https://www.bankrate.com/banking/cds/historical-cd-interest-rates/>
I'll leave it up to Tommy to document where he was getting short term (<5 year) Bank CD
quality grade yields (e.g., low risk) that were this good anytime within the past decade.
The only exception I'm aware of are I-Bonds (I have these too), but only post-CoVid, plus
without jumping through some hoops, their purchases are limited to just $10K/pp-year.
-hh
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 3:45:15 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:41:22 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:47:15 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:32:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:25:40 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 7:51:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 1:22:34 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 4:00:02 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:04:51 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
Well, current yields on PONAX are 4.14% ..
Anyone to contemplate the trade space between that vs an Annuity
at twice that rate? Assume the 4% rule of thumb for one's retirement
spend rate on the revenue stream for both, with the unspent excess
income on the Annuity being saved to earn +4% in some savings/investment
vehicle. Q: how many years to the crossover point?
If you want to have ANY credibility you would state exactly which annuity you are talking about.
Other RSG readers know exactly which one it is; why don't you?
Don't have one, do you?
Still jealous of what others have but you do not?
Need me to look up just how trivially small the amount was for the name that you couldn’t afford?
Or I’ll make a new offer: I’ll sell you the name for just 1% of what I’ve purchased in it this year.
But better hurry to accept; I’m planning on adding an August purchase.
LOL! The bottom line is that you are BLOWING SMOKE! Put up or SHUT UP!!
You’ve tried that gambit before & failed. As still written above, others here know
who the issuer is. And as you’ve been told before, you’ve simply not earned that
information because of how often you’ve not substantiated your own claims far
too many times before.
Plus as I’ve said, I’ve already provided a recused illustration of the front cover:
<https://huntzinger.com/photo/2019b/brochure-pg1.jpg>
Again, Put up or SHUT UP!Oh, you mean something like an actual payment receipt? Here ya go:
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2019b/recused_receipt.jpg>
FYI, its interest rate was a fixed 2.75% APR at this time, at a period where the five year
CD rate average was less than half as much, as per:
<https://www.bankrate.com/banking/cds/historical-cd-interest-rates/>
I'll leave it up to Tommy to document where he was getting short term (<5 year) Bank CD
quality grade yields (e.g., low risk) that were this good anytime within the past decade.
The only exception I'm aware of are I-Bonds (I have these too), but only post-CoVid, plus
without jumping through some hoops, their purchases are limited to just $10K/pp-year.
Looks fake to me -
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh, because it IS fictitious.
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 11:01:07 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 3:45:15 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:41:22 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:47:15 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:32:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:25:40 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 7:51:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 1:22:34 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 4:00:02 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:04:51 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
Well, current yields on PONAX are 4.14% ..
Anyone to contemplate the trade space between that vs an Annuity
at twice that rate? Assume the 4% rule of thumb for one's retirement
spend rate on the revenue stream for both, with the unspent excess
income on the Annuity being saved to earn +4% in some savings/investment
vehicle. Q: how many years to the crossover point?
If you want to have ANY credibility you would state exactly which annuity you are talking about.
Other RSG readers know exactly which one it is; why don't you?
Don't have one, do you?
Still jealous of what others have but you do not?
Need me to look up just how trivially small the amount was for the name that you couldn’t afford?
Or I’ll make a new offer: I’ll sell you the name for just 1% of what I’ve purchased in it this year.
But better hurry to accept; I’m planning on adding an August purchase.
LOL! The bottom line is that you are BLOWING SMOKE! Put up or SHUT UP!!
You’ve tried that gambit before & failed. As still written above, others here know
who the issuer is. And as you’ve been told before, you’ve simply not earned that
information because of how often you’ve not substantiated your own claims far
too many times before.
Plus as I’ve said, I’ve already provided a recused illustration of the front cover:
<https://huntzinger.com/photo/2019b/brochure-pg1.jpg>
Again, Put up or SHUT UP!Oh, you mean something like an actual payment receipt? Here ya go:
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2019b/recused_receipt.jpg>
FYI, its interest rate was a fixed 2.75% APR at this time, at a period where the five year
CD rate average was less than half as much, as per:
<https://www.bankrate.com/banking/cds/historical-cd-interest-rates/>
I'll leave it up to Tommy to document where he was getting short term (<5 year) Bank CD
quality grade yields (e.g., low risk) that were this good anytime within the past decade.
The only exception I'm aware of are I-Bonds (I have these too), but only post-CoVid, plus
without jumping through some hoops, their purchases are limited to just $10K/pp-year.
Looks fake to me -Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's Sour Grapes?
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh, because it IS fictitious.But I have named the annuity - - just not to you.
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic deposits, and when paying in that
fashion, I can use a credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1% discount as a cherry on top.
Want me to post a similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 3:24:53 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 11:01:07 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 3:45:15 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's Sour Grapes?
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:41:22 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:47:15 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Oh, you mean something like an actual payment receipt? Here ya go:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:32:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:25:40 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:You’ve tried that gambit before & failed. As still written above, others here know
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 7:51:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 1:22:34 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 4:00:02 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:04:51 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Well, current yields on PONAX are 4.14% ..Don't have one, do you?
Anyone to contemplate the trade space between that vs an Annuity >>>>>>>>>>>> at twice that rate? Assume the 4% rule of thumb for one's retirement
spend rate on the revenue stream for both, with the unspent excess >>>>>>>>>>>> income on the Annuity being saved to earn +4% in some savings/investment
vehicle. Q: how many years to the crossover point?
If you want to have ANY credibility you would state exactly which annuity you are talking about.
Other RSG readers know exactly which one it is; why don't you? >>>>>>>>>
Still jealous of what others have but you do not?
Need me to look up just how trivially small the amount was for the name that you couldn’t afford?
Or I’ll make a new offer: I’ll sell you the name for just 1% of what I’ve purchased in it this year.
But better hurry to accept; I’m planning on adding an August purchase.
LOL! The bottom line is that you are BLOWING SMOKE! Put up or SHUT UP!! >>>>>>
who the issuer is. And as you’ve been told before, you’ve simply not earned that
information because of how often you’ve not substantiated your own claims far
too many times before.
Plus as I’ve said, I’ve already provided a recused illustration of the front cover:
<https://huntzinger.com/photo/2019b/brochure-pg1.jpg>
Again, Put up or SHUT UP!
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2019b/recused_receipt.jpg>
FYI, its interest rate was a fixed 2.75% APR at this time, at a period where the five year
CD rate average was less than half as much, as per:
<https://www.bankrate.com/banking/cds/historical-cd-interest-rates/>
I'll leave it up to Tommy to document where he was getting short term (<5 year) Bank CD
quality grade yields (e.g., low risk) that were this good anytime within the past decade.
The only exception I'm aware of are I-Bonds (I have these too), but only post-CoVid, plus
without jumping through some hoops, their purchases are limited to just $10K/pp-year.
Looks fake to me -
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh, because it IS fictitious. >> But I have named the annuity - - just not to you.
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic deposits, and when paying in that
fashion, I can use a credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1% discount as a cherry on top.
Want me to post a similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your original question you will have to NAME said annuity. BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free, Asshole.
On 2022-08-08 17:06, TomS wrote:
On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 3:24:53 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 11:01:07 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 3:45:15 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's Sour Grapes?
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:41:22 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:47:15 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Oh, you mean something like an actual payment receipt? Here ya go:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:32:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:25:40 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 7:51:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 1:22:34 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 4:00:02 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:04:51 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Well, current yields on PONAX are 4.14% ..
Don't have one, do you?
Anyone to contemplate the trade space between that vs an Annuity
at twice that rate? Assume the 4% rule of thumb for one's retirement
spend rate on the revenue stream for both, with the unspent excess
income on the Annuity being saved to earn +4% in some savings/investment
vehicle. Q: how many years to the crossover point?
If you want to have ANY credibility you would state exactly which annuity you are talking about.
Other RSG readers know exactly which one it is; why don't you? >>>>>>>>>
Still jealous of what others have but you do not?
Need me to look up just how trivially small the amount was for the name that you couldn’t afford?
Or I’ll make a new offer: I’ll sell you the name for just 1% of what I’ve purchased in it this year.
But better hurry to accept; I’m planning on adding an August purchase.
LOL! The bottom line is that you are BLOWING SMOKE! Put up or SHUT UP!!
You’ve tried that gambit before & failed. As still written above, others here know
who the issuer is. And as you’ve been told before, you’ve simply not earned that
information because of how often you’ve not substantiated your own claims far
too many times before.
Plus as I’ve said, I’ve already provided a recused illustration of the front cover:
<https://huntzinger.com/photo/2019b/brochure-pg1.jpg>
Again, Put up or SHUT UP!
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2019b/recused_receipt.jpg>
FYI, its interest rate was a fixed 2.75% APR at this time, at a period where the five year
CD rate average was less than half as much, as per:
<https://www.bankrate.com/banking/cds/historical-cd-interest-rates/> >>>>
I'll leave it up to Tommy to document where he was getting short term (<5 year) Bank CD
quality grade yields (e.g., low risk) that were this good anytime within the past decade.
The only exception I'm aware of are I-Bonds (I have these too), but only post-CoVid, plus
without jumping through some hoops, their purchases are limited to just $10K/pp-year.
Looks fake to me -
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh, because it IS fictitious.But I have named the annuity - - just not to you.
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic deposits, and when paying in that
fashion, I can use a credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1% discount as a cherry on top.
Want me to post a similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt too? >>
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your original question you will have to NAME said annuity. BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free, Asshole.I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is.
On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 5:26:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-08 17:06, TomS wrote:
On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 3:24:53 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is.
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 11:01:07 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 3:45:15 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's Sour Grapes?
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:41:22 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:47:15 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Oh, you mean something like an actual payment receipt? Here ya go: >>>>>>
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:32:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:25:40 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 7:51:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 1:22:34 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 4:00:02 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:04:51 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, current yields on PONAX are 4.14% ..
Don't have one, do you?
Anyone to contemplate the trade space between that vs an Annuity >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at twice that rate? Assume the 4% rule of thumb for one's retirement
spend rate on the revenue stream for both, with the unspent excess
income on the Annuity being saved to earn +4% in some savings/investment
vehicle. Q: how many years to the crossover point? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you want to have ANY credibility you would state exactly which annuity you are talking about.
Other RSG readers know exactly which one it is; why don't you? >>>>>>>>>>>
Still jealous of what others have but you do not?
Need me to look up just how trivially small the amount was for the name that you couldn’t afford?
Or I’ll make a new offer: I’ll sell you the name for just 1% of what I’ve purchased in it this year.
But better hurry to accept; I’m planning on adding an August purchase.
LOL! The bottom line is that you are BLOWING SMOKE! Put up or SHUT UP!!
You’ve tried that gambit before & failed. As still written above, others here know
who the issuer is. And as you’ve been told before, you’ve simply not earned that
information because of how often you’ve not substantiated your own claims far
too many times before.
Plus as I’ve said, I’ve already provided a recused illustration of the front cover:
<https://huntzinger.com/photo/2019b/brochure-pg1.jpg>
Again, Put up or SHUT UP!
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2019b/recused_receipt.jpg>
FYI, its interest rate was a fixed 2.75% APR at this time, at a period where the five year
CD rate average was less than half as much, as per:
<https://www.bankrate.com/banking/cds/historical-cd-interest-rates/> >>>>>>
I'll leave it up to Tommy to document where he was getting short term (<5 year) Bank CD
quality grade yields (e.g., low risk) that were this good anytime within the past decade.
The only exception I'm aware of are I-Bonds (I have these too), but only post-CoVid, plus
without jumping through some hoops, their purchases are limited to just $10K/pp-year.
Looks fake to me -
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh, because it IS fictitious. >>>> But I have named the annuity - - just not to you.
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic deposits, and when paying in that
fashion, I can use a credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1% discount as a cherry on top.
Want me to post a similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt too? >>>>
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your original question you will have to NAME said annuity. BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free, Asshole.
SO WHAT?!
On 2022-08-08 18:51, TomS wrote:
On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 5:26:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-08 17:06, TomS wrote:
On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 3:24:53 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is.
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 11:01:07 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 3:45:15 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's Sour Grapes?
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:41:22 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:47:15 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Oh, you mean something like an actual payment receipt? Here ya go: >>>>>>
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:32:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:25:40 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 7:51:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 1:22:34 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 4:00:02 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:04:51 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, current yields on PONAX are 4.14% ..
Don't have one, do you?
Anyone to contemplate the trade space between that vs an Annuity
at twice that rate? Assume the 4% rule of thumb for one's retirement
spend rate on the revenue stream for both, with the unspent excess
income on the Annuity being saved to earn +4% in some savings/investment
vehicle. Q: how many years to the crossover point? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you want to have ANY credibility you would state exactly which annuity you are talking about.
Other RSG readers know exactly which one it is; why don't you? >>>>>>>>>>>
Still jealous of what others have but you do not?
Need me to look up just how trivially small the amount was for the name that you couldn’t afford?
Or I’ll make a new offer: I’ll sell you the name for just 1% of what I’ve purchased in it this year.
But better hurry to accept; I’m planning on adding an August purchase.
LOL! The bottom line is that you are BLOWING SMOKE! Put up or SHUT UP!!
You’ve tried that gambit before & failed. As still written above, others here know
who the issuer is. And as you’ve been told before, you’ve simply not earned that
information because of how often you’ve not substantiated your own claims far
too many times before.
Plus as I’ve said, I’ve already provided a recused illustration of the front cover:
<https://huntzinger.com/photo/2019b/brochure-pg1.jpg>
Again, Put up or SHUT UP!
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2019b/recused_receipt.jpg>
FYI, its interest rate was a fixed 2.75% APR at this time, at a period where the five year
CD rate average was less than half as much, as per:
<https://www.bankrate.com/banking/cds/historical-cd-interest-rates/> >>>>>>
I'll leave it up to Tommy to document where he was getting short term (<5 year) Bank CD
quality grade yields (e.g., low risk) that were this good anytime within the past decade.
The only exception I'm aware of are I-Bonds (I have these too), but only post-CoVid, plus
without jumping through some hoops, their purchases are limited to just $10K/pp-year.
Looks fake to me -
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh, because it IS fictitious.But I have named the annuity - - just not to you.
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic deposits, and when paying in that
fashion, I can use a credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1% discount as a cherry on top.
Want me to post a similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your original question you will have to NAME said annuity. BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free, Asshole.
SO WHAT?!So you're wrong when you claim the annuity doesn't exist.
Sorry, Sunshine.
On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 6:58:26 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-08 18:51, TomS wrote:
On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 5:26:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So you're wrong when you claim the annuity doesn't exist.
On 2022-08-08 17:06, TomS wrote:
On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 3:24:53 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is.
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 11:01:07 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 3:45:15 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's Sour Grapes?
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:41:22 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:47:15 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Oh, you mean something like an actual payment receipt? Here ya go: >>>>>>>>
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:32:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:25:40 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 7:51:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 1:22:34 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 4:00:02 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:04:51 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, current yields on PONAX are 4.14% ..
Don't have one, do you?
Anyone to contemplate the trade space between that vs an Annuity
at twice that rate? Assume the 4% rule of thumb for one's retirement
spend rate on the revenue stream for both, with the unspent excess
income on the Annuity being saved to earn +4% in some savings/investment
vehicle. Q: how many years to the crossover point? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you want to have ANY credibility you would state exactly which annuity you are talking about.
Other RSG readers know exactly which one it is; why don't you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Still jealous of what others have but you do not?
Need me to look up just how trivially small the amount was for the name that you couldn’t afford?
Or I’ll make a new offer: I’ll sell you the name for just 1% of what I’ve purchased in it this year.
But better hurry to accept; I’m planning on adding an August purchase.
LOL! The bottom line is that you are BLOWING SMOKE! Put up or SHUT UP!!
You’ve tried that gambit before & failed. As still written above, others here know
who the issuer is. And as you’ve been told before, you’ve simply not earned that
information because of how often you’ve not substantiated your own claims far
too many times before.
Plus as I’ve said, I’ve already provided a recused illustration of the front cover:
<https://huntzinger.com/photo/2019b/brochure-pg1.jpg>
Again, Put up or SHUT UP!
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2019b/recused_receipt.jpg>
FYI, its interest rate was a fixed 2.75% APR at this time, at a period where the five year
CD rate average was less than half as much, as per:
<https://www.bankrate.com/banking/cds/historical-cd-interest-rates/> >>>>>>>>
I'll leave it up to Tommy to document where he was getting short term (<5 year) Bank CD
quality grade yields (e.g., low risk) that were this good anytime within the past decade.
The only exception I'm aware of are I-Bonds (I have these too), but only post-CoVid, plus
without jumping through some hoops, their purchases are limited to just $10K/pp-year.
Looks fake to me -
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh, because it IS fictitious.But I have named the annuity - - just not to you.
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic deposits, and when paying in that
fashion, I can use a credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1% discount as a cherry on top.
Want me to post a similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your original question you will have to NAME said annuity. BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free, Asshole.
SO WHAT?!
Sorry, Sunshine.
Hey Dude, YOU are the one always barking for a cite!
On 2022-08-09 14:51, TomS wrote:
On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 6:58:26 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-08 18:51, TomS wrote:
On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 5:26:57 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So you're wrong when you claim the annuity doesn't exist.
On 2022-08-08 17:06, TomS wrote:
On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 3:24:53 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is.
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 11:01:07 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 3:45:15 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's Sour Grapes? >>>>>>> WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh, because it IS fictitious.
On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:41:22 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:47:15 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 7:32:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:25:40 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 7:51:19 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 1:22:34 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 4:00:02 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:04:51 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, current yields on PONAX are 4.14% ..
Oh, you mean something like an actual payment receipt? Here ya go: >>>>>>>>
Anyone to contemplate the trade space between that vs an Annuity
at twice that rate? Assume the 4% rule of thumb for one's retirement
spend rate on the revenue stream for both, with the unspent excess
income on the Annuity being saved to earn +4% in some savings/investment
vehicle. Q: how many years to the crossover point? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you want to have ANY credibility you would state exactly which annuity you are talking about.
Other RSG readers know exactly which one it is; why don't you?
Don't have one, do you?
Still jealous of what others have but you do not?
Need me to look up just how trivially small the amount was for the name that you couldn’t afford?
Or I’ll make a new offer: I’ll sell you the name for just 1% of what I’ve purchased in it this year.
But better hurry to accept; I’m planning on adding an August purchase.
LOL! The bottom line is that you are BLOWING SMOKE! Put up or SHUT UP!!
You’ve tried that gambit before & failed. As still written above, others here know
who the issuer is. And as you’ve been told before, you’ve simply not earned that
information because of how often you’ve not substantiated your own claims far
too many times before.
Plus as I’ve said, I’ve already provided a recused illustration of the front cover:
<https://huntzinger.com/photo/2019b/brochure-pg1.jpg>
Again, Put up or SHUT UP!
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2019b/recused_receipt.jpg>
FYI, its interest rate was a fixed 2.75% APR at this time, at a period where the five year
CD rate average was less than half as much, as per:
<https://www.bankrate.com/banking/cds/historical-cd-interest-rates/>
I'll leave it up to Tommy to document where he was getting short term (<5 year) Bank CD
quality grade yields (e.g., low risk) that were this good anytime within the past decade.
The only exception I'm aware of are I-Bonds (I have these too), but only post-CoVid, plus
without jumping through some hoops, their purchases are limited to just $10K/pp-year.
Looks fake to me -
But I have named the annuity - - just not to you.
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic deposits, and when paying in that
fashion, I can use a credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1% discount as a cherry on top.
Want me to post a similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your original question you will have to NAME said annuity. BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free, Asshole.
SO WHAT?!
Sorry, Sunshine.
Hey Dude, YOU are the one always barking for a cite!HH wants to keep the particulars from you...
...but I am saying that he has told me.
I'm his cite.
:-)
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3:25:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
HH wants to keep the particulars from you...So you're wrong when you claim the annuity doesn't exist.I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is.Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's
Sour Grapes?
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh,But I have named the annuity - - just not to you.
because it IS fictitious.
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic
deposits, and when paying in that fashion, I can use a
credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1%
discount as a cherry on top. Want me to post a
similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt
too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is
effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your
original question you will have to NAME said annuity.
BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free,
Asshole.
SO WHAT?!
Sorry, Sunshine.
Hey Dude, YOU are the one always barking for a cite!
...but I am saying that he has told me.
I'm his cite.
:-)
No, you are his co-conspirator. If the Lyin' Asshole wants an honest comparison he will name this phony annuity. Otherwise, it is just
another one of his lying misdirection escapades. I honestly don't
understand the point of these histrionics - it just underscores how
immature you libtards are.
On 2022-08-09 19:13, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3:25:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's
Sour Grapes?
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh,But I have named the annuity - - just not to you.
because it IS fictitious.
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic
deposits, and when paying in that fashion, I can use a
credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1%
discount as a cherry on top. Want me to post a
similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt
too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is
effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your
original question you will have to NAME said annuity.
BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free,
Asshole.
I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is.
SO WHAT?!
So you're wrong when you claim the annuity doesn't exist.
Sorry, Sunshine.
Hey Dude, YOU are the one always barking for a cite!
HH wants to keep the particulars from you...
...but I am saying that he has told me.
I'm his cite.
:-)
No, you are his co-conspirator. If the Lyin' Asshole wants an honest comparison he will name this phony annuity. Otherwise, it is just
another one of his lying misdirection escapades. I honestly don't understand the point of these histrionics - it just underscores how immature you libtards are.
Nope. I'm just telling it like it is.
The annuity HH has discussed is real.
:-)
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-09 19:13, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3:25:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's
Sour Grapes?
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh,But I have named the annuity - - just not to you.
because it IS fictitious.
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic
deposits, and when paying in that fashion, I can use a
credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1%
discount as a cherry on top. Want me to post a
similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt
too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is
effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your
original question you will have to NAME said annuity.
BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free,
Asshole.
I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is.
SO WHAT?!
So you're wrong when you claim the annuity doesn't exist.
Sorry, Sunshine.
Hey Dude, YOU are the one always barking for a cite!
HH wants to keep the particulars from you...
...but I am saying that he has told me.
I'm his cite.
:-)
No, you are his co-conspirator. If the Lyin' Asshole wants an honest comparison he will name this phony annuity. Otherwise, it is just
another one of his lying misdirection escapades. I honestly don't understand the point of these histrionics - it just underscores how immature you libtards are.
Nope. I'm just telling it like it is.
The annuity HH has discussed is real.
:-)
If Tommy's being honest in claiming that he wants to conduct an honest comparison
of the performance of two products, then the question of why he is insisting on knowing
the name of the product rather than its characteristics to do the math doesn't make too
much sense.
Granted, it could be that he's hoping to find some basis to claim that there's a
fiscal weakness in the provider which makes it an unacceptable risk, but we covered that angle months ago and that well came up dry for Tommy.
In the meantime, there's no doubt that one can perform a 'yield vs yield' comparison and
examine the basic structural differences of an annuity vs DIY with the understanding of
the risk transfers involved, which don't materially change based on *who* the issuer is.
To that end, all I need to state is that the return is 8.4% if opted as a simple annuity, or
10% less (7.56%) if one opts for a 50% survivorship. Similarly, the CC cashback option
is a midstream change, such that its reality isn't as good as the theoretical max
of (8.4/.99) 8.4848%; in round numbers, I'm at around the midpoint; call it 8.83%
Meantime, Tommy can provide the numbers for the performance expectations
for PONAX over the next twenty years.
And we can go run an _honest comparison_ from that.
Tom's a fool if he thinks I'm ever going to post my policy number. Similarly, he's already very loudly claimed that he hates all annuities/etc, such that he has no benefit to know who the issuer happens to be...particularly since we know enough about Tom to know that even if he changed his mind and
now wanted to buy this annuity, he cannot do so because he does not quality.
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 6:17:17 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-09 19:13, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3:25:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's
Sour Grapes?
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh,But I have named the annuity - - just not to you.
because it IS fictitious.
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic
deposits, and when paying in that fashion, I can use a
credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1%
discount as a cherry on top. Want me to post a
similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt
too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is
effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your
original question you will have to NAME said annuity.
BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free,
Asshole.
I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is.
SO WHAT?!
So you're wrong when you claim the annuity doesn't exist.
Sorry, Sunshine.
Hey Dude, YOU are the one always barking for a cite!
HH wants to keep the particulars from you...
...but I am saying that he has told me.
I'm his cite.
:-)
No, you are his co-conspirator. If the Lyin' Asshole wants an honest comparison he will name this phony annuity. Otherwise, it is just another one of his lying misdirection escapades. I honestly don't understand the point of these histrionics - it just underscores how immature you libtards are.
Nope. I'm just telling it like it is.
The annuity HH has discussed is real.
:-)
If Tommy's being honest in claiming that he wants to conduct an honest comparison
of the performance of two products, then the question of why he is insisting on knowing
the name of the product rather than its characteristics to do the math doesn't make too
much sense.
Granted, it could be that he's hoping to find some basis to claim that there's a
fiscal weakness in the provider which makes it an unacceptable risk, but we covered that angle months ago and that well came up dry for Tommy.
In the meantime, there's no doubt that one can perform a 'yield vs yield' comparison and
examine the basic structural differences of an annuity vs DIY with the understanding of
the risk transfers involved, which don't materially change based on *who* the issuer is.
To that end, all I need to state is that the return is 8.4% if opted as a simple annuity, or
10% less (7.56%) if one opts for a 50% survivorship. Similarly, the CC cashback option
is a midstream change, such that its reality isn't as good as the theoretical max
of (8.4/.99) 8.4848%; in round numbers, I'm at around the midpoint; call it [8.43%]
Editorial correction of a typo in the above: its not 8.83%, but 8.43%.
Meantime, Tommy can provide the numbers for the performance expectations for PONAX over the next twenty years.
And we can go run an _honest comparison_ from that.
Tom's a fool if he thinks I'm ever going to post my policy number. Similarly,
he's already very loudly claimed that he hates all annuities/etc, such that he has no benefit to know who the issuer happens to be...particularly since we know enough about Tom to know that even if he changed his mind and
now wanted to buy this annuity, he cannot do so because he does not quality.
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 7:48:59 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 6:17:17 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-09 19:13, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3:25:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's
Sour Grapes?
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh,But I have named the annuity - - just not to you.
because it IS fictitious.
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic
deposits, and when paying in that fashion, I can use a >>>>>>>> credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1%
discount as a cherry on top. Want me to post a
similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt
too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is >>>>>>>> effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your
original question you will have to NAME said annuity.
BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free,
Asshole.
I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is.
SO WHAT?!
So you're wrong when you claim the annuity doesn't exist.
Sorry, Sunshine.
Hey Dude, YOU are the one always barking for a cite!
HH wants to keep the particulars from you...
...but I am saying that he has told me.
I'm his cite.
:-)
No, you are his co-conspirator. If the Lyin' Asshole wants an honest comparison he will name this phony annuity. Otherwise, it is just another one of his lying misdirection escapades. I honestly don't understand the point of these histrionics - it just underscores how immature you libtards are.
Nope. I'm just telling it like it is.
The annuity HH has discussed is real.
:-)
If Tommy's being honest in claiming that he wants to conduct an honest comparison
of the performance of two products, then the question of why he is insisting on knowing
the name of the product rather than its characteristics to do the math doesn't make too
much sense.
Granted, it could be that he's hoping to find some basis to claim that there's a
fiscal weakness in the provider which makes it an unacceptable risk, but we
covered that angle months ago and that well came up dry for Tommy.
In the meantime, there's no doubt that one can perform a 'yield vs yield' comparison and
examine the basic structural differences of an annuity vs DIY with the understanding of
the risk transfers involved, which don't materially change based on *who* the issuer is.
To that end, all I need to state is that the return is 8.4% if opted as a simple annuity, or
10% less (7.56%) if one opts for a 50% survivorship. Similarly, the CC cashback option
is a midstream change, such that its reality isn't as good as the theoretical max
of (8.4/.99) 8.4848%; in round numbers, I'm at around the midpoint; call it [8.43%]
Editorial correction of a typo in the above: its not 8.83%, but 8.43%.
Meantime, Tommy can provide the numbers for the performance expectations for PONAX over the next twenty years.
And we can go run an _honest comparison_ from that.
Tom's a fool if he thinks I'm ever going to post my policy number. Similarly,
he's already very loudly claimed that he hates all annuities/etc, such that
he has no benefit to know who the issuer happens to be...particularly since
we know enough about Tom to know that even if he changed his mind and
now wanted to buy this annuity, he cannot do so because he does not quality.
Not to be a big burr under Tommy's saddle, but in shopping around on the street, one
free & easy source of Annuity quotes can be found at schwab.com I'll let Tommy
cite a vendor whose rates are materially better than Schwab for a simple use case
of $100K immediate fixed single life, male, at ages 55, 57, 60, 62, 65, 67. Here's their
online estimator:
<https://www.schwab.com/annuities/fixed-income-annuity-calculator>
Let's see if Tommy can find anyone who's offering 15% higher returns than Schwab.
-hh
On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 5:40:28 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 7:48:59 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 6:17:17 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-09 19:13, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3:25:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's >>>>>>>> Sour Grapes?
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh,But I have named the annuity - - just not to you.
because it IS fictitious.
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic
deposits, and when paying in that fashion, I can use a >>>>>>>> credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1% >>>>>>>> discount as a cherry on top. Want me to post a
similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt
too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is >>>>>>>> effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your >>>>>>> original question you will have to NAME said annuity. >>>>>>> BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free,
Asshole.
I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is.
SO WHAT?!
So you're wrong when you claim the annuity doesn't exist.
Sorry, Sunshine.
Hey Dude, YOU are the one always barking for a cite!
HH wants to keep the particulars from you...
...but I am saying that he has told me.
I'm his cite.
:-)
No, you are his co-conspirator. If the Lyin' Asshole wants an honest
comparison he will name this phony annuity. Otherwise, it is just another one of his lying misdirection escapades. I honestly don't understand the point of these histrionics - it just underscores how
immature you libtards are.
Nope. I'm just telling it like it is.
The annuity HH has discussed is real.
:-)
If Tommy's being honest in claiming that he wants to conduct an honest comparison
of the performance of two products, then the question of why he is insisting on knowing
the name of the product rather than its characteristics to do the math doesn't make too
much sense.
Granted, it could be that he's hoping to find some basis to claim that there's a
fiscal weakness in the provider which makes it an unacceptable risk, but we
covered that angle months ago and that well came up dry for Tommy.
In the meantime, there's no doubt that one can perform a 'yield vs yield' comparison and
examine the basic structural differences of an annuity vs DIY with the understanding of
the risk transfers involved, which don't materially change based on *who* the issuer is.
To that end, all I need to state is that the return is 8.4% if opted as a simple annuity, or
10% less (7.56%) if one opts for a 50% survivorship. Similarly, the CC cashback option
is a midstream change, such that its reality isn't as good as the theoretical max
of (8.4/.99) 8.4848%; in round numbers, I'm at around the midpoint; call it [8.43%]
Editorial correction of a typo in the above: its not 8.83%, but 8.43%.
Meantime, Tommy can provide the numbers for the performance expectations
for PONAX over the next twenty years.
And we can go run an _honest comparison_ from that.
Tom's a fool if he thinks I'm ever going to post my policy number. Similarly,
he's already very loudly claimed that he hates all annuities/etc, such that
he has no benefit to know who the issuer happens to be...particularly since
we know enough about Tom to know that even if he changed his mind and now wanted to buy this annuity, he cannot do so because he does not quality.
Not to be a big burr under Tommy's saddle, but in shopping around on the street, one
free & easy source of Annuity quotes can be found at schwab.com I'll let Tommy
cite a vendor whose rates are materially better than Schwab for a simple use case
of $100K immediate fixed single life, male, at ages 55, 57, 60, 62, 65, 67. Here's their
online estimator:
<https://www.schwab.com/annuities/fixed-income-annuity-calculator>
Let's see if Tommy can find anyone who's offering 15% higher returns than Schwab.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, you are EARNING YOUR NICKNAME on this one!
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:05:20 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 5:40:28 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 7:48:59 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 6:17:17 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-09 19:13, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3:25:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
SO WHAT?!Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's >>>>>>>> Sour Grapes?
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh, >>>>>>>>> because it IS fictitious.But I have named the annuity - - just not to you. >>>>>>>>
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic >>>>>>>> deposits, and when paying in that fashion, I can use a >>>>>>>> credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1% >>>>>>>> discount as a cherry on top. Want me to post a
similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt >>>>>>>> too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is >>>>>>>> effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your >>>>>>> original question you will have to NAME said annuity. >>>>>>> BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free, >>>>>>> Asshole.
I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is. >>>>>
So you're wrong when you claim the annuity doesn't exist. >>>>
Sorry, Sunshine.
Hey Dude, YOU are the one always barking for a cite!
HH wants to keep the particulars from you...
...but I am saying that he has told me.
I'm his cite.
:-)
No, you are his co-conspirator. If the Lyin' Asshole wants an honest
comparison he will name this phony annuity. Otherwise, it is just
another one of his lying misdirection escapades. I honestly don't
understand the point of these histrionics - it just underscores how
immature you libtards are.
Nope. I'm just telling it like it is.
The annuity HH has discussed is real.
:-)
If Tommy's being honest in claiming that he wants to conduct an honest comparison
of the performance of two products, then the question of why he is insisting on knowing
the name of the product rather than its characteristics to do the math doesn't make too
much sense.
Granted, it could be that he's hoping to find some basis to claim that there's a
fiscal weakness in the provider which makes it an unacceptable risk, but we
covered that angle months ago and that well came up dry for Tommy.
In the meantime, there's no doubt that one can perform a 'yield vs yield' comparison and
examine the basic structural differences of an annuity vs DIY with the understanding of
the risk transfers involved, which don't materially change based on *who* the issuer is.
To that end, all I need to state is that the return is 8.4% if opted as a simple annuity, or
10% less (7.56%) if one opts for a 50% survivorship. Similarly, the CC cashback option
is a midstream change, such that its reality isn't as good as the theoretical max
of (8.4/.99) 8.4848%; in round numbers, I'm at around the midpoint; call it [8.43%]
Editorial correction of a typo in the above: its not 8.83%, but 8.43%.
Meantime, Tommy can provide the numbers for the performance expectations
for PONAX over the next twenty years.
And we can go run an _honest comparison_ from that.
Tom's a fool if he thinks I'm ever going to post my policy number. Similarly,
he's already very loudly claimed that he hates all annuities/etc, such that
he has no benefit to know who the issuer happens to be...particularly since
we know enough about Tom to know that even if he changed his mind and
now wanted to buy this annuity, he cannot do so because he does not quality.
Not to be a big burr under Tommy's saddle, but in shopping around on the street, one
free & easy source of Annuity quotes can be found at schwab.com I'll let Tommy
cite a vendor whose rates are materially better than Schwab for a simple use case
of $100K immediate fixed single life, male, at ages 55, 57, 60, 62, 65, 67. Here's their
online estimator:
<https://www.schwab.com/annuities/fixed-income-annuity-calculator>
Let's see if Tommy can find anyone who's offering 15% higher returns than Schwab.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, you are EARNING YOUR NICKNAME on this one!
Gosh, it’s like Tommy didn’t even try. His loss (again) because he proved that
he read the challenge and then crawled away.
BTW, if you want a stretch goal, +20% higher.
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:31:32 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:05:20 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 5:40:28 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 7:48:59 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 6:17:17 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-09 19:13, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3:25:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
SO WHAT?!Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's >>>>>>>> Sour Grapes?
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh, >>>>>>>>> because it IS fictitious.But I have named the annuity - - just not to you. >>>>>>>>
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic >>>>>>>> deposits, and when paying in that fashion, I can use a >>>>>>>> credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1% >>>>>>>> discount as a cherry on top. Want me to post a
similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt >>>>>>>> too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is >>>>>>>> effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your >>>>>>> original question you will have to NAME said annuity. >>>>>>> BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free, >>>>>>> Asshole.
I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is. >>>>>
So you're wrong when you claim the annuity doesn't exist. >>>>
Sorry, Sunshine.
Hey Dude, YOU are the one always barking for a cite!
HH wants to keep the particulars from you...
...but I am saying that he has told me.
I'm his cite.
:-)
No, you are his co-conspirator. If the Lyin' Asshole wants an honest
comparison he will name this phony annuity. Otherwise, it is just
another one of his lying misdirection escapades. I honestly don't
understand the point of these histrionics - it just underscores how
immature you libtards are.
Nope. I'm just telling it like it is.
The annuity HH has discussed is real.
:-)
If Tommy's being honest in claiming that he wants to conduct an honest comparison
of the performance of two products, then the question of why he is insisting on knowing
the name of the product rather than its characteristics to do the math doesn't make too
much sense.
Granted, it could be that he's hoping to find some basis to claim that there's a
fiscal weakness in the provider which makes it an unacceptable risk, but we
covered that angle months ago and that well came up dry for Tommy.
In the meantime, there's no doubt that one can perform a 'yield vs yield' comparison and
examine the basic structural differences of an annuity vs DIY with the understanding of
the risk transfers involved, which don't materially change based on *who* the issuer is.
To that end, all I need to state is that the return is 8.4% if opted as a simple annuity, or
10% less (7.56%) if one opts for a 50% survivorship. Similarly, the CC cashback option
is a midstream change, such that its reality isn't as good as the theoretical max
of (8.4/.99) 8.4848%; in round numbers, I'm at around the midpoint; call it [8.43%]
Editorial correction of a typo in the above: its not 8.83%, but 8.43%.
Meantime, Tommy can provide the numbers for the performance expectations
for PONAX over the next twenty years.
And we can go run an _honest comparison_ from that.
Tom's a fool if he thinks I'm ever going to post my policy number. Similarly,
he's already very loudly claimed that he hates all annuities/etc, such that
he has no benefit to know who the issuer happens to be...particularly since
we know enough about Tom to know that even if he changed his mind and
now wanted to buy this annuity, he cannot do so because he does not quality.
Not to be a big burr under Tommy's saddle, but in shopping around on the street, one
free & easy source of Annuity quotes can be found at schwab.com I'll let Tommy
cite a vendor whose rates are materially better than Schwab for a simple use case
of $100K immediate fixed single life, male, at ages 55, 57, 60, 62, 65, 67. Here's their
online estimator:
<https://www.schwab.com/annuities/fixed-income-annuity-calculator>
Let's see if Tommy can find anyone who's offering 15% higher returns than Schwab.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, you are EARNING YOUR NICKNAME on this one!
Gosh, it’s like Tommy didn’t even try. His loss (again) because he proved that
he read the challenge and then crawled away.
BTW, if you want a stretch goal, +20% higher.Golly, and yet another day goes past where Tommy's silence must apparently mean that
he's been unsuccessfully searching for someone ... anyone ... with superior returns.
To that end, I'll set aside the +20% stretch goal and the basic +15% challenge by adding a
baby step': let's see if Tommy can even find anyone reputable who's just Schwab +10%.
-hh
On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 3:05:42 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:31:32 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:05:20 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:Golly, and yet another day goes past where Tommy's silence must apparently mean that
On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 5:40:28 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 7:48:59 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 6:17:17 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:Not to be a big burr under Tommy's saddle, but in shopping around on the street, one
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2022-08-09 19:13, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3:25:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Nope. I'm just telling it like it is.
SO WHAT?!Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sour Grapes?
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it IS fictitious.But I have named the annuity - - just not to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deposits, and when paying in that fashion, I can use a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discount as a cherry on top. Want me to post a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original question you will have to NAME said annuity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Asshole.
I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you're wrong when you claim the annuity doesn't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, Sunshine.
Hey Dude, YOU are the one always barking for a cite!
HH wants to keep the particulars from you...
...but I am saying that he has told me.
I'm his cite.
:-)
No, you are his co-conspirator. If the Lyin' Asshole wants an honest >>>>>>>>> comparison he will name this phony annuity. Otherwise, it is just >>>>>>>>> another one of his lying misdirection escapades. I honestly don't >>>>>>>>> understand the point of these histrionics - it just underscores how >>>>>>>>> immature you libtards are.
The annuity HH has discussed is real.
:-)
If Tommy's being honest in claiming that he wants to conduct an honest comparison
of the performance of two products, then the question of why he is insisting on knowing
the name of the product rather than its characteristics to do the math doesn't make too
much sense.
Granted, it could be that he's hoping to find some basis to claim that there's a
fiscal weakness in the provider which makes it an unacceptable risk, but we
covered that angle months ago and that well came up dry for Tommy. >>>>>>>
In the meantime, there's no doubt that one can perform a 'yield vs yield' comparison and
examine the basic structural differences of an annuity vs DIY with the understanding of
the risk transfers involved, which don't materially change based on *who* the issuer is.
To that end, all I need to state is that the return is 8.4% if opted as a simple annuity, or
10% less (7.56%) if one opts for a 50% survivorship. Similarly, the CC cashback option
is a midstream change, such that its reality isn't as good as the theoretical max
of (8.4/.99) 8.4848%; in round numbers, I'm at around the midpoint; call it [8.43%]
Editorial correction of a typo in the above: its not 8.83%, but 8.43%. >>>>>>
Meantime, Tommy can provide the numbers for the performance expectations
for PONAX over the next twenty years.
And we can go run an _honest comparison_ from that.
Tom's a fool if he thinks I'm ever going to post my policy number. Similarly,
he's already very loudly claimed that he hates all annuities/etc, such that
he has no benefit to know who the issuer happens to be...particularly since
we know enough about Tom to know that even if he changed his mind and >>>>>>> now wanted to buy this annuity, he cannot do so because he does not quality.
free & easy source of Annuity quotes can be found at schwab.com I'll let Tommy
cite a vendor whose rates are materially better than Schwab for a simple use case
of $100K immediate fixed single life, male, at ages 55, 57, 60, 62, 65, 67. Here's their
online estimator:
<https://www.schwab.com/annuities/fixed-income-annuity-calculator>
Let's see if Tommy can find anyone who's offering 15% higher returns than Schwab.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, you are EARNING YOUR NICKNAME on this one!
Gosh, it’s like Tommy didn’t even try. His loss (again) because he proved that
he read the challenge and then crawled away.
BTW, if you want a stretch goal, +20% higher.
he's been unsuccessfully searching for someone ... anyone ... with superior returns.
To that end, I'll set aside the +20% stretch goal and the basic +15% challenge by adding a
baby step': let's see if Tommy can even find anyone reputable who's just Schwab +10%.
-hh
Hey Asshole, you won't name said annuity because it DOESN'T EXIST! You are a FRAUD and a LIAR!!
On 2022-08-17 19:36, TomS wrote:
On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 3:05:42 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:31:32 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:05:20 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 5:40:28 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 7:48:59 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 6:17:17 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:Not to be a big burr under Tommy's saddle, but in shopping around on the street, one
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2022-08-09 19:13, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3:25:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>Nope. I'm just telling it like it is.
SO WHAT?!Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sour Grapes?
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it IS fictitious.But I have named the annuity - - just not to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deposits, and when paying in that fashion, I can use a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discount as a cherry on top. Want me to post a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original question you will have to NAME said annuity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Asshole.
I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you're wrong when you claim the annuity doesn't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, Sunshine.
Hey Dude, YOU are the one always barking for a cite!
HH wants to keep the particulars from you...
...but I am saying that he has told me.
I'm his cite.
:-)
No, you are his co-conspirator. If the Lyin' Asshole wants an honest
comparison he will name this phony annuity. Otherwise, it is just >>>>>>>>> another one of his lying misdirection escapades. I honestly don't >>>>>>>>> understand the point of these histrionics - it just underscores how
immature you libtards are.
The annuity HH has discussed is real.
:-)
If Tommy's being honest in claiming that he wants to conduct an honest comparison
of the performance of two products, then the question of why he is insisting on knowing
the name of the product rather than its characteristics to do the math doesn't make too
much sense.
Granted, it could be that he's hoping to find some basis to claim that there's a
fiscal weakness in the provider which makes it an unacceptable risk, but we
covered that angle months ago and that well came up dry for Tommy. >>>>>>>
In the meantime, there's no doubt that one can perform a 'yield vs yield' comparison and
examine the basic structural differences of an annuity vs DIY with the understanding of
the risk transfers involved, which don't materially change based on *who* the issuer is.
To that end, all I need to state is that the return is 8.4% if opted as a simple annuity, or
10% less (7.56%) if one opts for a 50% survivorship. Similarly, the CC cashback option
is a midstream change, such that its reality isn't as good as the theoretical max
of (8.4/.99) 8.4848%; in round numbers, I'm at around the midpoint; call it [8.43%]
Editorial correction of a typo in the above: its not 8.83%, but 8.43%.
Meantime, Tommy can provide the numbers for the performance expectations
for PONAX over the next twenty years.
And we can go run an _honest comparison_ from that.
Tom's a fool if he thinks I'm ever going to post my policy number. Similarly,
he's already very loudly claimed that he hates all annuities/etc, such that
he has no benefit to know who the issuer happens to be...particularly since
we know enough about Tom to know that even if he changed his mind and
now wanted to buy this annuity, he cannot do so because he does not quality.
free & easy source of Annuity quotes can be found at schwab.com I'll let Tommy
cite a vendor whose rates are materially better than Schwab for a simple use case
of $100K immediate fixed single life, male, at ages 55, 57, 60, 62, 65, 67. Here's their
online estimator:
<https://www.schwab.com/annuities/fixed-income-annuity-calculator> >>>>>
Let's see if Tommy can find anyone who's offering 15% higher returns than Schwab.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, you are EARNING YOUR NICKNAME on this one!
Gosh, it’s like Tommy didn’t even try. His loss (again) because he proved that
he read the challenge and then crawled away.
BTW, if you want a stretch goal, +20% higher.
Golly, and yet another day goes past where Tommy's silence must apparently mean that
he's been unsuccessfully searching for someone ... anyone ... with superior returns.
To that end, I'll set aside the +20% stretch goal and the basic +15% challenge by adding a
baby step': let's see if Tommy can even find anyone reputable who's just Schwab +10%.
Hey Asshole, you won't name said annuity because it DOESN'T EXIST! You are a FRAUD and a LIAR!!
It does exist, Sunshine.
On 2022-08-17 19:36, TomS wrote:
On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 3:05:42 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:31:32 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:05:20 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:Golly, and yet another day goes past where Tommy's silence must apparently mean that
On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 5:40:28 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 7:48:59 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 6:17:17 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:Not to be a big burr under Tommy's saddle, but in shopping around on the street, one
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2022-08-09 19:13, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3:25:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>Nope. I'm just telling it like it is.
SO WHAT?!Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sour Grapes?
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it IS fictitious.But I have named the annuity - - just not to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deposits, and when paying in that fashion, I can use a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discount as a cherry on top. Want me to post a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original question you will have to NAME said annuity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Asshole.
I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you're wrong when you claim the annuity doesn't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, Sunshine.
Hey Dude, YOU are the one always barking for a cite!
HH wants to keep the particulars from you...
...but I am saying that he has told me.
I'm his cite.
:-)
No, you are his co-conspirator. If the Lyin' Asshole wants an honest
comparison he will name this phony annuity. Otherwise, it is just >>>>>>>>> another one of his lying misdirection escapades. I honestly don't >>>>>>>>> understand the point of these histrionics - it just underscores how
immature you libtards are.
The annuity HH has discussed is real.
:-)
If Tommy's being honest in claiming that he wants to conduct an honest comparison
of the performance of two products, then the question of why he is insisting on knowing
the name of the product rather than its characteristics to do the math doesn't make too
much sense.
Granted, it could be that he's hoping to find some basis to claim that there's a
fiscal weakness in the provider which makes it an unacceptable risk, but we
covered that angle months ago and that well came up dry for Tommy. >>>>>>>
In the meantime, there's no doubt that one can perform a 'yield vs yield' comparison and
examine the basic structural differences of an annuity vs DIY with the understanding of
the risk transfers involved, which don't materially change based on *who* the issuer is.
To that end, all I need to state is that the return is 8.4% if opted as a simple annuity, or
10% less (7.56%) if one opts for a 50% survivorship. Similarly, the CC cashback option
is a midstream change, such that its reality isn't as good as the theoretical max
of (8.4/.99) 8.4848%; in round numbers, I'm at around the midpoint; call it [8.43%]
Editorial correction of a typo in the above: its not 8.83%, but 8.43%.
Meantime, Tommy can provide the numbers for the performance expectations
for PONAX over the next twenty years.
And we can go run an _honest comparison_ from that.
Tom's a fool if he thinks I'm ever going to post my policy number. Similarly,
he's already very loudly claimed that he hates all annuities/etc, such that
he has no benefit to know who the issuer happens to be...particularly since
we know enough about Tom to know that even if he changed his mind and
now wanted to buy this annuity, he cannot do so because he does not quality.
free & easy source of Annuity quotes can be found at schwab.com I'll let Tommy
cite a vendor whose rates are materially better than Schwab for a simple use case
of $100K immediate fixed single life, male, at ages 55, 57, 60, 62, 65, 67. Here's their
online estimator:
<https://www.schwab.com/annuities/fixed-income-annuity-calculator> >>>>>
Let's see if Tommy can find anyone who's offering 15% higher returns than Schwab.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, you are EARNING YOUR NICKNAME on this one!
Gosh, it’s like Tommy didn’t even try. His loss (again) because he proved that
he read the challenge and then crawled away.
BTW, if you want a stretch goal, +20% higher.
he's been unsuccessfully searching for someone ... anyone ... with superior returns.
To that end, I'll set aside the +20% stretch goal and the basic +15% challenge by adding a
baby step': let's see if Tommy can even find anyone reputable who's just Schwab +10%.
-hh
Hey Asshole, you won't name said annuity because it DOESN'T EXIST! You are a FRAUD and a LIAR!!It does exist, Sunshine.
On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:44:47 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-17 19:36, TomS wrote:
On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 3:05:42 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:It does exist, Sunshine.
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:31:32 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:05:20 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:Golly, and yet another day goes past where Tommy's silence must apparently mean that
On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 5:40:28 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 7:48:59 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 6:17:17 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2022-08-09 19:13, TomS wrote:Not to be a big burr under Tommy's saddle, but in shopping around on the street, one
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3:25:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>Nope. I'm just telling it like it is.
SO WHAT?!Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sour Grapes?
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it IS fictitious.But I have named the annuity - - just not to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deposits, and when paying in that fashion, I can use a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discount as a cherry on top. Want me to post a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original question you will have to NAME said annuity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Asshole.
I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you're wrong when you claim the annuity doesn't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, Sunshine.
Hey Dude, YOU are the one always barking for a cite!
HH wants to keep the particulars from you...
...but I am saying that he has told me.
I'm his cite.
:-)
No, you are his co-conspirator. If the Lyin' Asshole wants an honest
comparison he will name this phony annuity. Otherwise, it is just >>>>>>>>>>> another one of his lying misdirection escapades. I honestly don't >>>>>>>>>>> understand the point of these histrionics - it just underscores how >>>>>>>>>>> immature you libtards are.
The annuity HH has discussed is real.
:-)
If Tommy's being honest in claiming that he wants to conduct an honest comparison
of the performance of two products, then the question of why he is insisting on knowing
the name of the product rather than its characteristics to do the math doesn't make too
much sense.
Granted, it could be that he's hoping to find some basis to claim that there's a
fiscal weakness in the provider which makes it an unacceptable risk, but we
covered that angle months ago and that well came up dry for Tommy. >>>>>>>>>
In the meantime, there's no doubt that one can perform a 'yield vs yield' comparison and
examine the basic structural differences of an annuity vs DIY with the understanding of
the risk transfers involved, which don't materially change based on *who* the issuer is.
To that end, all I need to state is that the return is 8.4% if opted as a simple annuity, or
10% less (7.56%) if one opts for a 50% survivorship. Similarly, the CC cashback option
is a midstream change, such that its reality isn't as good as the theoretical max
of (8.4/.99) 8.4848%; in round numbers, I'm at around the midpoint; call it [8.43%]
Editorial correction of a typo in the above: its not 8.83%, but 8.43%. >>>>>>>>
Meantime, Tommy can provide the numbers for the performance expectations
for PONAX over the next twenty years.
And we can go run an _honest comparison_ from that.
Tom's a fool if he thinks I'm ever going to post my policy number. Similarly,
he's already very loudly claimed that he hates all annuities/etc, such that
he has no benefit to know who the issuer happens to be...particularly since
we know enough about Tom to know that even if he changed his mind and >>>>>>>>> now wanted to buy this annuity, he cannot do so because he does not quality.
free & easy source of Annuity quotes can be found at schwab.com I'll let Tommy
cite a vendor whose rates are materially better than Schwab for a simple use case
of $100K immediate fixed single life, male, at ages 55, 57, 60, 62, 65, 67. Here's their
online estimator:
<https://www.schwab.com/annuities/fixed-income-annuity-calculator> >>>>>>>
Let's see if Tommy can find anyone who's offering 15% higher returns than Schwab.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, you are EARNING YOUR NICKNAME on this one!
Gosh, it’s like Tommy didn’t even try. His loss (again) because he proved that
he read the challenge and then crawled away.
BTW, if you want a stretch goal, +20% higher.
he's been unsuccessfully searching for someone ... anyone ... with superior returns.
To that end, I'll set aside the +20% stretch goal and the basic +15% challenge by adding a
baby step': let's see if Tommy can even find anyone reputable who's just Schwab +10%.
-hh
Hey Asshole, you won't name said annuity because it DOESN'T EXIST! You are a FRAUD and a LIAR!!
Then DISCLOSE IT, FOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On 2022-08-18 16:51, TomS wrote:
On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:44:47 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-17 19:36, TomS wrote:
On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 3:05:42 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:31:32 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:05:20 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 5:40:28 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 7:48:59 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 6:17:17 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2022-08-09 19:13, TomS wrote:
Not to be a big burr under Tommy's saddle, but in shopping around on the street, oneOn Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3:25:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>Nope. I'm just telling it like it is.
HH wants to keep the particulars from you...SO WHAT?!Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sour Grapes?
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it IS fictitious.But I have named the annuity - - just not to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deposits, and when paying in that fashion, I can use a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discount as a cherry on top. Want me to post a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original question you will have to NAME said annuity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Asshole.
I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you're wrong when you claim the annuity doesn't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, Sunshine.
Hey Dude, YOU are the one always barking for a cite! >>>>>>>>>>>>
...but I am saying that he has told me.
I'm his cite.
:-)
No, you are his co-conspirator. If the Lyin' Asshole wants an honest
comparison he will name this phony annuity. Otherwise, it is just
another one of his lying misdirection escapades. I honestly don't
understand the point of these histrionics - it just underscores how
immature you libtards are.
The annuity HH has discussed is real.
:-)
If Tommy's being honest in claiming that he wants to conduct an honest comparison
of the performance of two products, then the question of why he is insisting on knowing
the name of the product rather than its characteristics to do the math doesn't make too
much sense.
Granted, it could be that he's hoping to find some basis to claim that there's a
fiscal weakness in the provider which makes it an unacceptable risk, but we
covered that angle months ago and that well came up dry for Tommy. >>>>>>>>>
In the meantime, there's no doubt that one can perform a 'yield vs yield' comparison and
examine the basic structural differences of an annuity vs DIY with the understanding of
the risk transfers involved, which don't materially change based on *who* the issuer is.
To that end, all I need to state is that the return is 8.4% if opted as a simple annuity, or
10% less (7.56%) if one opts for a 50% survivorship. Similarly, the CC cashback option
is a midstream change, such that its reality isn't as good as the theoretical max
of (8.4/.99) 8.4848%; in round numbers, I'm at around the midpoint; call it [8.43%]
Editorial correction of a typo in the above: its not 8.83%, but 8.43%.
Meantime, Tommy can provide the numbers for the performance expectations
for PONAX over the next twenty years.
And we can go run an _honest comparison_ from that.
Tom's a fool if he thinks I'm ever going to post my policy number. Similarly,
he's already very loudly claimed that he hates all annuities/etc, such that
he has no benefit to know who the issuer happens to be...particularly since
we know enough about Tom to know that even if he changed his mind and
now wanted to buy this annuity, he cannot do so because he does not quality.
free & easy source of Annuity quotes can be found at schwab.com I'll let Tommy
cite a vendor whose rates are materially better than Schwab for a simple use case
of $100K immediate fixed single life, male, at ages 55, 57, 60, 62, 65, 67. Here's their
online estimator:
<https://www.schwab.com/annuities/fixed-income-annuity-calculator> >>>>>>>
Let's see if Tommy can find anyone who's offering 15% higher returns than Schwab.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, you are EARNING YOUR NICKNAME on this one!
Gosh, it’s like Tommy didn’t even try. His loss (again) because he proved that
he read the challenge and then crawled away.
BTW, if you want a stretch goal, +20% higher.
Golly, and yet another day goes past where Tommy's silence must apparently mean that
he's been unsuccessfully searching for someone ... anyone ... with superior returns.
To that end, I'll set aside the +20% stretch goal and the basic +15% challenge by adding a
baby step': let's see if Tommy can even find anyone reputable who's just Schwab +10%.
-hh
Hey Asshole, you won't name said annuity because it DOESN'T EXIST! You are a FRAUD and a LIAR!!
It does exist, Sunshine.
Then DISCLOSE IT, FOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've been asked not to, Sunshine. Sorry.
But I can confirm that it exists
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 8:17:00 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-18 16:51, TomS wrote:
On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:44:47 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-17 19:36, TomS wrote:
On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 3:05:42 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:31:32 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:05:20 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 5:40:28 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 7:48:59 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 6:17:17 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2022-08-09 19:13, TomS wrote:
Not to be a big burr under Tommy's saddle, but in shopping around on the street, oneOn Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3:25:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>Nope. I'm just telling it like it is.
HH wants to keep the particulars from you...SO WHAT?!Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sour Grapes?
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it IS fictitious.But I have named the annuity - - just not to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deposits, and when paying in that fashion, I can use a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discount as a cherry on top. Want me to post a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original question you will have to NAME said annuity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Asshole.
I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you're wrong when you claim the annuity doesn't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, Sunshine.
Hey Dude, YOU are the one always barking for a cite! >>>>>>>>>>>>
...but I am saying that he has told me.
I'm his cite.
:-)
No, you are his co-conspirator. If the Lyin' Asshole wants an honest
comparison he will name this phony annuity. Otherwise, it is just
another one of his lying misdirection escapades. I honestly don't
understand the point of these histrionics - it just underscores how
immature you libtards are.
The annuity HH has discussed is real.
:-)
If Tommy's being honest in claiming that he wants to conduct an honest comparison
of the performance of two products, then the question of why he is insisting on knowing
the name of the product rather than its characteristics to do the math doesn't make too
much sense.
Granted, it could be that he's hoping to find some basis to claim that there's a
fiscal weakness in the provider which makes it an unacceptable risk, but we
covered that angle months ago and that well came up dry for Tommy.
In the meantime, there's no doubt that one can perform a 'yield vs yield' comparison and
examine the basic structural differences of an annuity vs DIY with the understanding of
the risk transfers involved, which don't materially change based on *who* the issuer is.
To that end, all I need to state is that the return is 8.4% if opted as a simple annuity, or
10% less (7.56%) if one opts for a 50% survivorship. Similarly, the CC cashback option
is a midstream change, such that its reality isn't as good as the theoretical max
of (8.4/.99) 8.4848%; in round numbers, I'm at around the midpoint; call it [8.43%]
Editorial correction of a typo in the above: its not 8.83%, but 8.43%.
Meantime, Tommy can provide the numbers for the performance expectations
for PONAX over the next twenty years.
And we can go run an _honest comparison_ from that.
Tom's a fool if he thinks I'm ever going to post my policy number. Similarly,
he's already very loudly claimed that he hates all annuities/etc, such that
he has no benefit to know who the issuer happens to be...particularly since
we know enough about Tom to know that even if he changed his mind and
now wanted to buy this annuity, he cannot do so because he does not quality.
free & easy source of Annuity quotes can be found at schwab.com I'll let Tommy
cite a vendor whose rates are materially better than Schwab for a simple use case
of $100K immediate fixed single life, male, at ages 55, 57, 60, 62, 65, 67. Here's their
online estimator:
<https://www.schwab.com/annuities/fixed-income-annuity-calculator> >>>>>>>
Let's see if Tommy can find anyone who's offering 15% higher returns than Schwab.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, you are EARNING YOUR NICKNAME on this one!
Gosh, it’s like Tommy didn’t even try. His loss (again) because he proved that
he read the challenge and then crawled away.
BTW, if you want a stretch goal, +20% higher.
Golly, and yet another day goes past where Tommy's silence must apparently mean that
he's been unsuccessfully searching for someone ... anyone ... with superior returns.
To that end, I'll set aside the +20% stretch goal and the basic +15% challenge by adding a
baby step': let's see if Tommy can even find anyone reputable who's just Schwab +10%.
-hh
Hey Asshole, you won't name said annuity because it DOESN'T EXIST! You are a FRAUD and a LIAR!!
It does exist, Sunshine.
Then DISCLOSE IT, FOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've been asked not to, Sunshine. Sorry.
But I can confirm that it existsThanks, Alan.
Meantime, Tommy’s teeth gnashing just isn’t new, or valid, as he knows what his
options are to resolve what he’s been so impotently whining about. But he’ll continue
to try to blame anyone but himself for his own free will choices.
Meantime, Tommy’s been also showing everyone how he’s also quite lazy…
-hh
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 7:08:01 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 8:17:00 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-18 16:51, TomS wrote:
On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:44:47 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-17 19:36, TomS wrote:
On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 3:05:42 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:31:32 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:05:20 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 5:40:28 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 7:48:59 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 6:17:17 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
Gosh, it’s like Tommy didn’t even try. His loss (again) because he proved thatNot to be a big burr under Tommy's saddle, but in shopping around on the street, oneOn 2022-08-09 19:13, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3:25:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>Nope. I'm just telling it like it is.
HH wants to keep the particulars from you...SO WHAT?!Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sour Grapes?
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it IS fictitious.But I have named the annuity - - just not to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deposits, and when paying in that fashion, I can use a
credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discount as a cherry on top. Want me to post a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is
effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original question you will have to NAME said annuity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Asshole.
I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you're wrong when you claim the annuity doesn't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, Sunshine.
Hey Dude, YOU are the one always barking for a cite! >>>>>>>>>>>>
...but I am saying that he has told me.
I'm his cite.
:-)
No, you are his co-conspirator. If the Lyin' Asshole wants an honest
comparison he will name this phony annuity. Otherwise, it is just
another one of his lying misdirection escapades. I honestly don't
understand the point of these histrionics - it just underscores how
immature you libtards are.
The annuity HH has discussed is real.
:-)
If Tommy's being honest in claiming that he wants to conduct an honest comparison
of the performance of two products, then the question of why he is insisting on knowing
the name of the product rather than its characteristics to do the math doesn't make too
much sense.
Granted, it could be that he's hoping to find some basis to claim that there's a
fiscal weakness in the provider which makes it an unacceptable risk, but we
covered that angle months ago and that well came up dry for Tommy.
In the meantime, there's no doubt that one can perform a 'yield vs yield' comparison and
examine the basic structural differences of an annuity vs DIY with the understanding of
the risk transfers involved, which don't materially change based on *who* the issuer is.
To that end, all I need to state is that the return is 8.4% if opted as a simple annuity, or
10% less (7.56%) if one opts for a 50% survivorship. Similarly, the CC cashback option
is a midstream change, such that its reality isn't as good as the theoretical max
of (8.4/.99) 8.4848%; in round numbers, I'm at around the midpoint; call it [8.43%]
Editorial correction of a typo in the above: its not 8.83%, but 8.43%.
Meantime, Tommy can provide the numbers for the performance expectations
for PONAX over the next twenty years.
And we can go run an _honest comparison_ from that.
Tom's a fool if he thinks I'm ever going to post my policy number. Similarly,
he's already very loudly claimed that he hates all annuities/etc, such that
he has no benefit to know who the issuer happens to be...particularly since
we know enough about Tom to know that even if he changed his mind and
now wanted to buy this annuity, he cannot do so because he does not quality.
free & easy source of Annuity quotes can be found at schwab.com I'll let Tommy
cite a vendor whose rates are materially better than Schwab for a simple use case
of $100K immediate fixed single life, male, at ages 55, 57, 60, 62, 65, 67. Here's their
online estimator:
<https://www.schwab.com/annuities/fixed-income-annuity-calculator>
Let's see if Tommy can find anyone who's offering 15% higher returns than Schwab.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, you are EARNING YOUR NICKNAME on this one! >>>>>
he read the challenge and then crawled away.
BTW, if you want a stretch goal, +20% higher.
Golly, and yet another day goes past where Tommy's silence must apparently mean that
he's been unsuccessfully searching for someone ... anyone ... with superior returns.
To that end, I'll set aside the +20% stretch goal and the basic +15% challenge by adding a
baby step': let's see if Tommy can even find anyone reputable who's just Schwab +10%.
-hh
Hey Asshole, you won't name said annuity because it DOESN'T EXIST! You are a FRAUD and a LIAR!!
It does exist, Sunshine.
Then DISCLOSE IT, FOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've been asked not to, Sunshine. Sorry.
But I can confirm that it existsThanks, Alan.
Meantime, Tommy’s teeth gnashing just isn’t new, or valid, as he knows what his
options are to resolve what he’s been so impotently whining about. But he’ll continue
to try to blame anyone but himself for his own free will choices.
Meantime, Tommy’s been also showing everyone how he’s also quite lazy…
Hey Lyin' Asshole, I don't give a shit whether your annuity exists or not - it is irrelevant to me.
So this will be my last comment on the subject. PERIOD.
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 7:08:01 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 8:17:00 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-18 16:51, TomS wrote:Thanks, Alan.
On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:44:47 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-17 19:36, TomS wrote:
On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 3:05:42 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:31:32 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:05:20 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 5:40:28 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:Gosh, it’s like Tommy didn’t even try. His loss (again) because he proved that
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 7:48:59 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 6:17:17 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-08-09 19:13, TomS wrote:
Not to be a big burr under Tommy's saddle, but in shopping around on the street, oneOn Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3:25:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope. I'm just telling it like it is.
HH wants to keep the particulars from you...SO WHAT?!Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sour Grapes?
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it IS fictitious.But I have named the annuity - - just not to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deposits, and when paying in that fashion, I can use a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discount as a cherry on top. Want me to post a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original question you will have to NAME said annuity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Asshole.
I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you're wrong when you claim the annuity doesn't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, Sunshine.
Hey Dude, YOU are the one always barking for a cite! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...but I am saying that he has told me.
I'm his cite.
:-)
No, you are his co-conspirator. If the Lyin' Asshole wants an honest
comparison he will name this phony annuity. Otherwise, it is just
another one of his lying misdirection escapades. I honestly don't
understand the point of these histrionics - it just underscores how
immature you libtards are.
The annuity HH has discussed is real.
:-)
If Tommy's being honest in claiming that he wants to conduct an honest comparison
of the performance of two products, then the question of why he is insisting on knowing
the name of the product rather than its characteristics to do the math doesn't make too
much sense.
Granted, it could be that he's hoping to find some basis to claim that there's a
fiscal weakness in the provider which makes it an unacceptable risk, but we
covered that angle months ago and that well came up dry for Tommy. >>>>>>>>>>>>
In the meantime, there's no doubt that one can perform a 'yield vs yield' comparison and
examine the basic structural differences of an annuity vs DIY with the understanding of
the risk transfers involved, which don't materially change based on *who* the issuer is.
To that end, all I need to state is that the return is 8.4% if opted as a simple annuity, or
10% less (7.56%) if one opts for a 50% survivorship. Similarly, the CC cashback option
is a midstream change, such that its reality isn't as good as the theoretical max
of (8.4/.99) 8.4848%; in round numbers, I'm at around the midpoint; call it [8.43%]
Editorial correction of a typo in the above: its not 8.83%, but 8.43%.
Meantime, Tommy can provide the numbers for the performance expectations
for PONAX over the next twenty years.
And we can go run an _honest comparison_ from that.
Tom's a fool if he thinks I'm ever going to post my policy number. Similarly,
he's already very loudly claimed that he hates all annuities/etc, such that
he has no benefit to know who the issuer happens to be...particularly since
we know enough about Tom to know that even if he changed his mind and
now wanted to buy this annuity, he cannot do so because he does not quality.
free & easy source of Annuity quotes can be found at schwab.com I'll let Tommy
cite a vendor whose rates are materially better than Schwab for a simple use case
of $100K immediate fixed single life, male, at ages 55, 57, 60, 62, 65, 67. Here's their
online estimator:
<https://www.schwab.com/annuities/fixed-income-annuity-calculator> >>>>>>>>>>
Let's see if Tommy can find anyone who's offering 15% higher returns than Schwab.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, you are EARNING YOUR NICKNAME on this one! >>>>>>>>
he read the challenge and then crawled away.
BTW, if you want a stretch goal, +20% higher.
Golly, and yet another day goes past where Tommy's silence must apparently mean that
he's been unsuccessfully searching for someone ... anyone ... with superior returns.
To that end, I'll set aside the +20% stretch goal and the basic +15% challenge by adding a
baby step': let's see if Tommy can even find anyone reputable who's just Schwab +10%.
-hh
Hey Asshole, you won't name said annuity because it DOESN'T EXIST! You are a FRAUD and a LIAR!!
It does exist, Sunshine.
Then DISCLOSE IT, FOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've been asked not to, Sunshine. Sorry.
But I can confirm that it exists
Meantime, Tommy’s teeth gnashing just isn’t new, or valid, as he knows what his
options are to resolve what he’s been so impotently whining about. But he’ll continue
to try to blame anyone but himself for his own free will choices.
Meantime, Tommy’s been also showing everyone how he’s also quite lazy… >>
-hh
Hey Lyin' Asshole, I don't give a shit whether your annuity exists or not - it is irrelevant to me. So this will be my last comment on the subject. PERIOD.
On 2022-08-19 17:14, TomS wrote:
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 7:08:01 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 8:17:00 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-18 16:51, TomS wrote:
On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:44:47 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-17 19:36, TomS wrote:
On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 3:05:42 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:31:32 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:05:20 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 5:40:28 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 7:48:59 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 6:17:17 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-08-09 19:13, TomS wrote:
Gosh, it’s like Tommy didn’t even try. His loss (again) because he proved thatNot to be a big burr under Tommy's saddle, but in shopping around on the street, oneOn Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3:25:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope. I'm just telling it like it is.
HH wants to keep the particulars from you...SO WHAT?!Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sour Grapes?
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it IS fictitious.But I have named the annuity - - just not to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deposits, and when paying in that fashion, I can use a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discount as a cherry on top. Want me to post a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original question you will have to NAME said annuity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Asshole.
I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you're wrong when you claim the annuity doesn't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, Sunshine.
Hey Dude, YOU are the one always barking for a cite! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...but I am saying that he has told me.
I'm his cite.
:-)
No, you are his co-conspirator. If the Lyin' Asshole wants an honest
comparison he will name this phony annuity. Otherwise, it is just
another one of his lying misdirection escapades. I honestly don't
understand the point of these histrionics - it just underscores how
immature you libtards are.
The annuity HH has discussed is real.
:-)
If Tommy's being honest in claiming that he wants to conduct an honest comparison
of the performance of two products, then the question of why he is insisting on knowing
the name of the product rather than its characteristics to do the math doesn't make too
much sense.
Granted, it could be that he's hoping to find some basis to claim that there's a
fiscal weakness in the provider which makes it an unacceptable risk, but we
covered that angle months ago and that well came up dry for Tommy.
In the meantime, there's no doubt that one can perform a 'yield vs yield' comparison and
examine the basic structural differences of an annuity vs DIY with the understanding of
the risk transfers involved, which don't materially change based on *who* the issuer is.
To that end, all I need to state is that the return is 8.4% if opted as a simple annuity, or
10% less (7.56%) if one opts for a 50% survivorship. Similarly, the CC cashback option
is a midstream change, such that its reality isn't as good as the theoretical max
of (8.4/.99) 8.4848%; in round numbers, I'm at around the midpoint; call it [8.43%]
Editorial correction of a typo in the above: its not 8.83%, but 8.43%.
Meantime, Tommy can provide the numbers for the performance expectations
for PONAX over the next twenty years.
And we can go run an _honest comparison_ from that. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Tom's a fool if he thinks I'm ever going to post my policy number. Similarly,
he's already very loudly claimed that he hates all annuities/etc, such that
he has no benefit to know who the issuer happens to be...particularly since
we know enough about Tom to know that even if he changed his mind and
now wanted to buy this annuity, he cannot do so because he does not quality.
free & easy source of Annuity quotes can be found at schwab.com I'll let Tommy
cite a vendor whose rates are materially better than Schwab for a simple use case
of $100K immediate fixed single life, male, at ages 55, 57, 60, 62, 65, 67. Here's their
online estimator:
<https://www.schwab.com/annuities/fixed-income-annuity-calculator>
Let's see if Tommy can find anyone who's offering 15% higher returns than Schwab.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, you are EARNING YOUR NICKNAME on this one! >>>>>>>>
he read the challenge and then crawled away.
BTW, if you want a stretch goal, +20% higher.
Golly, and yet another day goes past where Tommy's silence must apparently mean that
he's been unsuccessfully searching for someone ... anyone ... with superior returns.
To that end, I'll set aside the +20% stretch goal and the basic +15% challenge by adding a
baby step': let's see if Tommy can even find anyone reputable who's just Schwab +10%.
-hh
Hey Asshole, you won't name said annuity because it DOESN'T EXIST! You are a FRAUD and a LIAR!!
It does exist, Sunshine.
Then DISCLOSE IT, FOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've been asked not to, Sunshine. Sorry.
But I can confirm that it exists
Thanks, Alan.
Meantime, Tommy’s teeth gnashing just isn’t new, or valid, as he knows what his
options are to resolve what he’s been so impotently whining about. But he’ll continue
to try to blame anyone but himself for his own free will choices.
Meantime, Tommy’s been also showing everyone how he’s also quite lazy…
-hh
Hey Lyin' Asshole, I don't give a shit whether your annuity exists or not - it is irrelevant
to me. So this will be my last comment on the subject. PERIOD.
Sunshine, you are SO out of your league.
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 11:41:54 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-19 17:14, TomS wrote:
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 7:08:01 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 8:17:00 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-18 16:51, TomS wrote:
On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:44:47 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-17 19:36, TomS wrote:
On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 3:05:42 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:31:32 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>> On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:05:20 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 5:40:28 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 7:48:59 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 6:17:17 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
Gosh, it’s like Tommy didn’t even try. His loss (again) because he proved thatNot to be a big burr under Tommy's saddle, but in shopping around on the street, oneOn 2022-08-09 19:13, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3:25:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope. I'm just telling it like it is.
HH wants to keep the particulars from you... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SO WHAT?!Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sour Grapes?
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it IS fictitious.But I have named the annuity - - just not to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deposits, and when paying in that fashion, I can use a
credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discount as a cherry on top. Want me to post a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is
effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original question you will have to NAME said annuity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Asshole.
I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you're wrong when you claim the annuity doesn't exist.
Sorry, Sunshine.
Hey Dude, YOU are the one always barking for a cite! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...but I am saying that he has told me.
I'm his cite.
:-)
No, you are his co-conspirator. If the Lyin' Asshole wants an honest
comparison he will name this phony annuity. Otherwise, it is just
another one of his lying misdirection escapades. I honestly don't
understand the point of these histrionics - it just underscores how
immature you libtards are.
The annuity HH has discussed is real.
:-)
If Tommy's being honest in claiming that he wants to conduct an honest comparison
of the performance of two products, then the question of why he is insisting on knowing
the name of the product rather than its characteristics to do the math doesn't make too
much sense.
Granted, it could be that he's hoping to find some basis to claim that there's a
fiscal weakness in the provider which makes it an unacceptable risk, but we
covered that angle months ago and that well came up dry for Tommy.
In the meantime, there's no doubt that one can perform a 'yield vs yield' comparison and
examine the basic structural differences of an annuity vs DIY with the understanding of
the risk transfers involved, which don't materially change based on *who* the issuer is.
To that end, all I need to state is that the return is 8.4% if opted as a simple annuity, or
10% less (7.56%) if one opts for a 50% survivorship. Similarly, the CC cashback option
is a midstream change, such that its reality isn't as good as the theoretical max
of (8.4/.99) 8.4848%; in round numbers, I'm at around the midpoint; call it [8.43%]
Editorial correction of a typo in the above: its not 8.83%, but 8.43%.
Meantime, Tommy can provide the numbers for the performance expectations
for PONAX over the next twenty years.
And we can go run an _honest comparison_ from that. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Tom's a fool if he thinks I'm ever going to post my policy number. Similarly,
he's already very loudly claimed that he hates all annuities/etc, such that
he has no benefit to know who the issuer happens to be...particularly since
we know enough about Tom to know that even if he changed his mind and
now wanted to buy this annuity, he cannot do so because he does not quality.
free & easy source of Annuity quotes can be found at schwab.com I'll let Tommy
cite a vendor whose rates are materially better than Schwab for a simple use case
of $100K immediate fixed single life, male, at ages 55, 57, 60, 62, 65, 67. Here's their
online estimator:
<https://www.schwab.com/annuities/fixed-income-annuity-calculator>
Let's see if Tommy can find anyone who's offering 15% higher returns than Schwab.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, you are EARNING YOUR NICKNAME on this one! >>>>>>>>
he read the challenge and then crawled away.
BTW, if you want a stretch goal, +20% higher.
Golly, and yet another day goes past where Tommy's silence must apparently mean that
he's been unsuccessfully searching for someone ... anyone ... with superior returns.
To that end, I'll set aside the +20% stretch goal and the basic +15% challenge by adding a
baby step': let's see if Tommy can even find anyone reputable who's just Schwab +10%.
-hh
Hey Asshole, you won't name said annuity because it DOESN'T EXIST! You are a FRAUD and a LIAR!!
It does exist, Sunshine.
Then DISCLOSE IT, FOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've been asked not to, Sunshine. Sorry.
But I can confirm that it exists
Thanks, Alan.
Meantime, Tommy’s teeth gnashing just isn’t new, or valid, as he knows what his
options are to resolve what he’s been so impotently whining about. But he’ll continue
to try to blame anyone but himself for his own free will choices.
Meantime, Tommy’s been also showing everyone how he’s also quite lazy…
-hh
Hey Lyin' Asshole, I don't give a shit whether your annuity exists or not - it is irrelevant
to me. So this will be my last comment on the subject. PERIOD.
Sunshine, you are SO out of your league.
Guess I'd better think about maybe refraining from telling Tommy where those ARNA profits went...
...or that TQQQ's YTD has been -59%.
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 11:41:54 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-19 17:14, TomS wrote:
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 7:08:01 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 8:17:00 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-18 16:51, TomS wrote:
On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:44:47 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2022-08-17 19:36, TomS wrote:
On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 3:05:42 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:31:32 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>> On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:05:20 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 5:40:28 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 7:48:59 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 6:17:17 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
Gosh, it’s like Tommy didn’t even try. His loss (again) because he proved thatNot to be a big burr under Tommy's saddle, but in shopping around on the street, oneOn 2022-08-09 19:13, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3:25:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> …Nope. I'm just telling it like it is.
HH wants to keep the particulars from you... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SO WHAT?!Just how, specifically? Anything other than Tommy's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sour Grapes?
WHY can't you name your fictitious annuity? Oh, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it IS fictitious.
But I have named the annuity - - just not to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BTW, did I mention that they now offer electronic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deposits, and when paying in that fashion, I can use a
credit card without any fees?
Yes, that means free points or cash back, for a ~1% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discount as a cherry on top. Want me to post a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly recused electronic deposit based receipt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too?
Doing the math, 8.4% APR on $100 that only cost $99 is
effectively (8.4/.99) = 8.485%
-hh
No, what you have is a BIG FAKE! If you want you your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original question you will have to NAME said annuity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, if I want annuity advice I can get it for free, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Asshole.
I can confirm that HH has told me what the annuity is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you're wrong when you claim the annuity doesn't exist.
Sorry, Sunshine.
Hey Dude, YOU are the one always barking for a cite! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...but I am saying that he has told me.
I'm his cite.
:-)
No, you are his co-conspirator. If the Lyin' Asshole wants an honest
comparison he will name this phony annuity. Otherwise, it is just
another one of his lying misdirection escapades. I honestly don't
understand the point of these histrionics - it just underscores how
immature you libtards are.
The annuity HH has discussed is real.
:-)
If Tommy's being honest in claiming that he wants to conduct an honest comparison
of the performance of two products, then the question of why he is insisting on knowing
the name of the product rather than its characteristics to do the math doesn't make too
much sense.
Granted, it could be that he's hoping to find some basis to claim that there's a
fiscal weakness in the provider which makes it an unacceptable risk, but we
covered that angle months ago and that well came up dry for Tommy.
In the meantime, there's no doubt that one can perform a 'yield vs yield' comparison and
examine the basic structural differences of an annuity vs DIY with the understanding of
the risk transfers involved, which don't materially change based on *who* the issuer is.
To that end, all I need to state is that the return is 8.4% if opted as a simple annuity, or
10% less (7.56%) if one opts for a 50% survivorship. Similarly, the CC cashback option
is a midstream change, such that its reality isn't as good as the theoretical max
of (8.4/.99) 8.4848%; in round numbers, I'm at around the midpoint; call it [8.43%]
Editorial correction of a typo in the above: its not 8.83%, but 8.43%.
Meantime, Tommy can provide the numbers for the performance expectations
for PONAX over the next twenty years.
And we can go run an _honest comparison_ from that. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Tom's a fool if he thinks I'm ever going to post my policy number. Similarly,
he's already very loudly claimed that he hates all annuities/etc, such that
he has no benefit to know who the issuer happens to be...particularly since
we know enough about Tom to know that even if he changed his mind and
now wanted to buy this annuity, he cannot do so because he does not quality.
free & easy source of Annuity quotes can be found at schwab.com I'll let Tommy
cite a vendor whose rates are materially better than Schwab for a simple use case
of $100K immediate fixed single life, male, at ages 55, 57, 60, 62, 65, 67. Here's their
online estimator:
<https://www.schwab.com/annuities/fixed-income-annuity-calculator>
Let's see if Tommy can find anyone who's offering 15% higher returns than Schwab.
Hey Lyin' Asshole, you are EARNING YOUR NICKNAME on this one! >>>>>>>>
he read the challenge and then crawled away.
BTW, if you want a stretch goal, +20% higher.
Golly, and yet another day goes past where Tommy's silence must apparently mean that
he's been unsuccessfully searching for someone ... anyone ... with superior returns.
To that end, I'll set aside the +20% stretch goal and the basic +15% challenge by adding a
baby step': let's see if Tommy can even find anyone reputable who's just Schwab +10%.
-hh
Hey Asshole, you won't name said annuity because it DOESN'T EXIST! You are a FRAUD and a LIAR!!
It does exist, Sunshine.
Then DISCLOSE IT, FOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've been asked not to, Sunshine. Sorry.
But I can confirm that it exists
Thanks, Alan.
Meantime, Tommy’s teeth gnashing just isn’t new, or valid, as he knows what his
options are to resolve what he’s been so impotently whining about. But he’ll continue
to try to blame anyone but himself for his own free will choices.
Meantime, Tommy’s been also showing everyone how he’s also quite lazy…
-hh
Hey Lyin' Asshole, I don't give a shit whether your annuity exists or not - it is irrelevant
to me…
Sunshine, you are SO out of your league.
Guess I'd better think about maybe refraining from telling Tommy where those ARNA
profits went...
...or that TQQQ's YTD has been -59%.
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:04:51 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:some savings/investment vehicle. Q: how many years to the crossover point?
Well, current yields on PONAX are 4.14% ..
Anyone to contemplate the trade space between that vs an Annuity at twice that rate? Assume the 4% rule of thumb for one's retirement spend rate on the revenue stream for both, with the unspent excess income on the Annuity being saved to earn +4% in
-hhIf you want to have ANY credibility ...
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 4:00:02 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 10:04:51 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
Well, current yields on PONAX are 4.14% ..
Anyone to contemplate the trade space between that vs an Annuity at twice that rate?
Assume the 4% rule of thumb for one's retirement spend rate on the revenue stream
for both, with the unspent excess income on the Annuity being saved to earn +4% in
some savings/investment vehicle. Q: how many years to the crossover point?
If you want to have ANY credibility ...
Then, it helps if Irving TomS finally shuts-up.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 158:40:54 |
| Calls: | 12,094 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,757 |
