Hi graywings, I started reading this thread without noting the dates the posts were written. Dave, I don't want to put you on the spot, but I am wondering how the accounts you spoke of in 2007, the 72c Guaranteed Savings accounts (equity-indexed fixed life contract, or annuity contract) have weathered over the last three years. Heh... you can "put me on the spot" in this regard *ANY* time ;~) Both the equity indexed life & annuity products have *VERY* strongly outperformed the unprotected stock index markets over the same periods of time (since 2007. In fact, going back from today to almost as far as you'd like.) Their design is that they capture & credit any annual upside (to a maximum gain,) and lock that amount permanently to your credit. On any years with a downside, your account sits tight with no losses at all (guaranteed by the insured backings of the company reserves and the state's guarantee association (each state's equivalent of a regional "FDIC" in essence.) If you put $100,000 in the S&P 500 for the last decade, you'd actually be holding a bit LESS than $100,000 today (not deducting the tax or management fees that may also be applied.) The same $100,000 in an insured indexing account would be approximately $211,768, net of everything (taxes & fees,) *OR* about an average annual tax-free rate of return of 7.06% Alternatively, those folks who decided to take their working capital OUT of growth, and put it into their real estate equity, have been double-stung; Not only have they gained nothing toward retirement, their equity values have decayed from 10-30% (depending on the area.) The clients who've been with us the last 3-5 years have been rather relieved, ecstatic, and pleasantly bored, all at the same time. Its a very nice financial reality to provide. Cheers, Dave Donhoff Leverage Planner (PS. to re-paraphrase celticmoon; When everyone else's retirement nest-egg is drowning deep underwater... its kinda nice to be riding on the back of a "duck" ;~)

Mine & DH's are in that range, but we didn't get any special offers last year. When we were mortgage shopping, I asked several banks about better rates because of our scores. I was told that it's different for mortgages than, for example, car loans. They told me that you can get a better rate on things like car loans or credit cards with higher credit scores. But with mortgages, once your score passes a certain threshold (I can't remember the number, but I think it has something to do with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) you don't get better rates because of having a higher score. Your rate is higher if your score is below that threshold, because it's considered a riskier loan. I was given this same info both by some smaller local banks & some much larger banks.

Hi FF, To assume or pretend that people disagree with your "theory" because we're incapable of understanding how you arrived at it is a pretty unwise conclusion to reach, IMHO, but if you really think that's true, fine by me. I have no idea of your (or anyone's) "capability"... I actually suspect that you are quite brilliant (if a bit blinded by cynicism sometimes... but perhaps that can just be an occupational hazard (friendly smile. ;~) Whenever I explain something, and someone doubts it in general (especially indirectly... what was that all about???) without referring to anything they specifically disagree with, it *APPEARS* that they don't comprehend what they are doubting. There's nothing at all WRONG with doubting something because a reader doesn't UNDERSTAND it... and for that reader to not understand it doesn't mean they are INCAPABLE of understanding it. THAT is what the exchange of Q&A is all about... bringing forth knowledge that may be new or unusual (or even uncomfortable) for others, and then fielding the ensuing dialogue to help bring understanding & clarity. FF, I respect you (if you didn't already know that.) If you bring forth legal issues in your realm of expertise (OK, I am assuming now,) I would virtually certainly sit at your knee (electronically speaking.) I make no claim of financial genius whatsoever... but I know that which I know, and I am aware that some of what I know very well is quite contrary to what so many common fallacies support. I'll continue to offer, and answer, in the attempt to contribute to the community's desire to learn. Please join me in that ;~) Cheers, Dave Donhoff Strategic Equity & Leverage Planner

Fannie and Freddie are apparently not blameless "victims" of their own supposed ignorance of what they were doing after all..as some prefer to believe... IF this pans out as true....(time will tell what under the table deals may come about nonetheless)... Of course. These two guys probably have three times that if not more squirreled away in some tax favorable or exempt off shore accounts ..... HALLELUJAH!!!!! Regulator Plans to Bar Big Severance By JAMES R. HAGERTY September 15, 2008; Page A18 The regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac said Sunday that it won't allow the companies to make "golden parachute" severance payments to the mortgage companies' ousted chief executive officers. In a statement, the Federal Housing Finance Agency said such payments wouldn't be made to Daniel Mudd and Richard Syron, despite provisions in their contracts. Mr. Mudd served as chief executive of Fannie and Mr. Syron was chairman and CEO of Freddie until last weekend, when the regulator seized control of the companies, saying they were in danger of running out of capital. News reports that the two executives stood to receive millions of dollars in severance payments under their contracts triggered public protests from numerous politicians and inspired political cartoons in newspapers. The FHFA cited "applicable statute and regulation" for its decision. The regulator has taken management control of the two companies under a legal process known as "conservatorship," which could last for years while Fannie and Freddie are restored to financial health. The U.S. Treasury has pledged to provide as much capital as the companies need to continue in their role as the main suppliers of funding for home mortgages. The FHFA last week named Herb Allison as CEO at Fannie and David Moffett as CEO at Freddie. Spokesmen for Fannie and Freddie declined to comment on the pay decision. Messrs. Syron and Mudd couldn't be reached immediately for comment. David Schmidt, a senior consultant at James F. Reda & Associates LLC, a compensation consulting concern in New York, estimated that, without the regulator's intervention, Mr. Mudd's exit package could total as much as $6 million to $8 million and Mr. Syron's $15 million. Those totals include pensions, continuing benefits and other payments the companies' boards might grant. It isn't clear what pension and other payments may still be made to Messrs. Syron and Mudd, given the regulator's ruling. The collapse in the share prices of Fannie and Freddie already has wiped out much of the two executives' wealth. Since March, for instance, the value of Mr. Mudd's shares in Fannie has dropped to about $683,000 from $23.7 million.