OK, first thank you all. I was not convinced about the annuity which is why I came here in the first place. I fully understand the "no free lunch". But it is being suggested here that the word guaranteed with the income rider is not really the case, and I am trying to understand why. Won't it end up being a contract, a legal document?
A few more comments and questions after absorbing everything said:
1) First, we are talking about the F&G Safe Income Advantage FIA with an income rider providing a guaranteed minimum withdraw payment of $84K annually starting in 7 years ($750K investment paid right now). The $84K is a combination of an annuity for my wife ($500K) and me ($250K), joint survivorship on both. See the attached images of the illustrations I got.
2) F&G appears to be a solid company with an A- rating. Nationwide does offer a similar product called New Heights.
3) For my planning purposes, I only care about the guaranteed min withdraw payment. I know this is an index annuity and tied to the performance of some index (S&P), and there are caps and other numbers they can screw with, so I am in no way banking on getting more than the $84K, just not less.
4) I know this is not inflation adjusted, and I know that early withdraw penalties, surrender values, and the depletion of the account/contract value will not leave much of anything when both my wife and I pass. Sure, if we pass in our early 80's or sooner, we did not get our money's worth from this. But I am also trying to make sure my wife has this guaranteed income if I pass before her, hence the joint survivorship.
5) The general feedback from everyone seems to be: I cannot believe that $84K guaranteed number and what I have now is just an illustration, and my FA is not being straightforward with me. Again, before I turn over the $750K won't there be a contract that specifies that amount and I can have a lawyer review it?
I know quotes are not guaranteed, but it should be at least close to what is put in the final contract, right?
6) Final comment takes me back to the original post, and I have not heard anyone respond to this directly. I ran two scenarios for my 30 yr retirement plan (also attached). The annuity scenario "beats" the non-annuity scenario with projected return rates < 8%. It is only when I reach >=8% on my investments in the non-annuity scenario that it starts to "win" out. Most would agree that 8% is pretty high to bank on, right?
Again, thank you all. I will certainly ensure I understand this fully before making a decision.
A few more comments and questions after absorbing everything said:
1) First, we are talking about the F&G Safe Income Advantage FIA with an income rider providing a guaranteed minimum withdraw payment of $84K annually starting in 7 years ($750K investment paid right now). The $84K is a combination of an annuity for my wife ($500K) and me ($250K), joint survivorship on both. See the attached images of the illustrations I got.
2) F&G appears to be a solid company with an A- rating. Nationwide does offer a similar product called New Heights.
3) For my planning purposes, I only care about the guaranteed min withdraw payment. I know this is an index annuity and tied to the performance of some index (S&P), and there are caps and other numbers they can screw with, so I am in no way banking on getting more than the $84K, just not less.
4) I know this is not inflation adjusted, and I know that early withdraw penalties, surrender values, and the depletion of the account/contract value will not leave much of anything when both my wife and I pass. Sure, if we pass in our early 80's or sooner, we did not get our money's worth from this. But I am also trying to make sure my wife has this guaranteed income if I pass before her, hence the joint survivorship.
5) The general feedback from everyone seems to be: I cannot believe that $84K guaranteed number and what I have now is just an illustration, and my FA is not being straightforward with me. Again, before I turn over the $750K won't there be a contract that specifies that amount and I can have a lawyer review it?
I know quotes are not guaranteed, but it should be at least close to what is put in the final contract, right?
6) Final comment takes me back to the original post, and I have not heard anyone respond to this directly. I ran two scenarios for my 30 yr retirement plan (also attached). The annuity scenario "beats" the non-annuity scenario with projected return rates < 8%. It is only when I reach >=8% on my investments in the non-annuity scenario that it starts to "win" out. Most would agree that 8% is pretty high to bank on, right?
Again, thank you all. I will certainly ensure I understand this fully before making a decision.