Do you have Whole Life?

I'm not a fan of Whole Life insurance products.  I worked for a major life insurance company early in my career and spent nearly a year trying to hustle whole life, universal life, and variable life on my friends, family, and acquaintances.  Boy, was I popular!  I was thinking about doing an analysis of Whole Life vs. Buy Term and invest the difference.  I'm currently studying for the CFP (Certified Financial Planner designation), and was surprised at how pro-whole life the books are written.  Seriously, they are unmistakably biased.

But everyone I talk to says, "whole life is a rip off, buy term."  I agree, but started thinking.  I wonder if anyone in the personal finance blogging world actually does own whole life, or any other cash value life insurance, and is happy with it.  So, if you do, I would love to hear from you.  Briefly, here is my analysis.

Reasons for Whole Life:

• Tax deferred build up of cash value
• Forced savings (this is according to the book.  I don't need somebody to charge me any money to force me to save)
• Level premiums for life
• Insurance for life
• Ability to take loans against the cash value
• At the end of Term, you have nothing to show for it

Reasons against Whole Life:

• Expensive, Expensive, Expensive!
• Very little build up of cash value in the early years
• You may not need insurance for life

Let me specifically address each of the reasons FOR whole life and explain why I don't feel it is appropriate for most people.

Tax deferred build up of cash value.  Tax deferral is nice, but given the high cost of insurance and other expenses within the plan, it comes at a price.  Before anyone should consider the use of insurance for tax deferral, they should have already maxed out 401k and IRA or Roth IRA contributions.  They should also have ample taxable savings for emergency as well as short/medium term goals.  If the insurance is not necessarily desired, consider an annuity before an insurance plan if tax deferred savings is so desperately desired.  Finally, if tax minimization is critical and all retirement plans have been maxed, you are doubtlessly at a high income tax bracket.  Municipal Bonds may provide comparable or better returns with better liquidity, and tax free rather than tax deferred earnings.

Forced Savings.  Seriously, I don't need anyone to force me to save, let alone charge me for it.

Level Premiums for life.  It's nice to know that your premiums will never go up.  It's not nice to know that they are exorbitant to begin with.  I ran rate quotes and illustrations from State Farm's site.  I am currently 32, non-smoker, preferred.  For $250,000 of insurance, my annual whole life premium would be $2,988.  For 30 year term (in other words, insurance until I am 52), my annual premium would be $462.50.  I then changed my birthday on the web site to see how much it would cost if I were 62 years old.  For the same amount of insurance, it would cost $1835!  So, let me get this straight.  My premiums never go up, but I'm already paying for than a 62 year old would pay for 10 year term?  Not much of a benefit to me.

Insurance for life.  This is the only case where it works.  If you need insurance for life, such as small business owners facing huge estate taxes.  Without the insurance, the heirs may be forced to liquidate the business, which may be the exact opposite of what the insured wants.  For most people, however, insurance is to cover you for potential losses.  You get car insurance in case of an accident or theft.  You get homeowners insurance in case of fire, rain, or major damage that leaves you in financial straits.  Most people get life insurance in case their death leaves a spouse, children, and any others who may depend on their income (such as aging parent), in financial straits.

Ability to take loans against the cash value.  Gee, I get to pay you interest to borrow my own money?  No thanks.

At the end of Term, you have nothing to show for it.  At the end of the year, are you upset that you wasted all that auto insurance money, and didn't even get in ONE accident!?  No, me neither.

And lastly, the cash value in the whole life illustration provided to me by State Farm.  After paying $2,988 per year, my cash value at age 65 (33 years later), is illustrated to be $204,397.  This is the non-guaranteed illustrated value.  The guaranteed value is $117,040.  At illustrated values, this is a 3.97% return.  At Guaranteed values, it is 0.987%.  To be fair, the guaranteed values are rarely the actual earnings.  However, I'm not sure how often the illustrated values are met or surpassed.

Again, I am basing all of this on illustrated values and projections.  If anyone has a success story with whole life, I would love to hear about it.  Conversely, if you have had bad experiences with any type of life insurance, do tell!

Comments

[Hazzard]

I have a 20 year level term life insurance policy. My perspective is that I need the insurance now, while our net worth is fairly low, but in 20 years we should be able to insure ourselves. Years and years ago I got involved in a company called Primerica (used to be called A.L. Williams). Their whole sales pitch was to only buy cheap term insurance and then invest the difference. I've never forgotten that and would never consider buying anything else.
Hazzard

[lamoneyguy]

How was Primerica? I haven't heard a lot of good about them. I have heard that they are set up like a multi level marketing type of deal, and ask you to go out and recruit from day one. Any of this true?

[me]

Several years ago, when I was not so informed on this stuff, I got some whole life from Farm Bureau. Now that I know more, I'm mad at myself for getting it, but what's done is done.

I was able to get term coverage through TIAA-CREF from my last job. I pay $68/quarter for $150,000 in coverage.

[L.P. Hermes]

Sorry, don't understand meaning of check box that advises "Remember personal info?"

Woman age 78, husband with Alzheimer's, assets of approximately $500,000, including home. Only income from SS and conservative return on approximately 3/5 of assets.
Enters New York Life salesman from another city.
Referred on pretext of "Financial and Estate Planner"
He sells $1,000,000 universal life policy, with premium of approximately $45.000 per year and convinces client to pay 2 years premiums.
Obviously an oversell.
Agent (on application stated client had $1,000,000 in assets
Purchaser said no-way, as she had no real idea of the value of her assets.
Unable to indefinitely continue premiums.
Question was sale ethical, legal, moral.
New York Life stands pat.
What can be done.
Sure hope you can help
Thanks
L.P. Hermes

[Anthony Bearden]

Don't forget another bad thing about cash value life insurance is when you die your spouse or family doesn't get both money saved and insurance. All they get is the insurance. So the insurance company uses your savings towards your death benefit. If you had a mutual fund and term insurance. Your spouse or family would get both money from mutual fund and from term insurance. I also have insurance through primerica. It is a great company. That gets alot of bad rep. The bad stuff comes mostly from whole or cash value insurance salespeople.

[Help]

I don't fight hard for either term or perm, I fight uninformed people speaking dogmatically!

Here is where your anti-permanent policy arguments are WRONG.

1) You have the option in many permanent policies to choose death benefit or death benefit + cash value to be paid when you die. Of course, you also save money buy only requiring death benefit and receiving none of the cash value because the insurer does not expose themselves to as much risk.

2) Permanent insurance is money you WILL GET, so why complain about it costing more, think about it! Face it, not everybody buys insurance in case they suddenly die. True, that is a benefit of all types of policies, but permanent insurance also guarantees that you will be leaving something behind one day. Everyone will die, why not be SURE you are leaving something behind. I'd rather pay a $2,000/month mortgage than $1,000/month apartment rent. See the difference?

3) Policy loans, from the products I've seen, all refund your interest. The only reason they charge interest is so the IRS will actually look at it as a loan and not a withdrawawl which is taxable. I will gladly pay .25% interest to avoid 33% tax, THANK YOU!

How about reading a prospectus and not taking one word and making up the rest of the story. Thanks

[Steve]

Anthony,

You are only looking at half the equation. Term insurance is effective when you buy term and invest the difference. When you choose the death benefit plus the cash, like you said, the rate goes up so the "difference" gets even bigger. If you have been saving the difference, then aren't you leaving something behind? If you do the math, it will be a lot more than the death benefit of the policy (unless you are an investing idiot) and along the way you get to KEEP the savings not give it up if you die. If that difference is invested in a Roth IRA, then the earnings are tax free which is even better than tax deferred.

I have never seen a policy loan where the difference between what is credited to you and what is charged to you is only 1/4% It is normally more like 2 - 3% higher. Still, if you are saving on the outside, it's your money for free and if its in a Roth than you can tax your principal out tax free.

[John Sarrett]

Dear Sir:
Yes I own the "rip off" whole life life insurance. My agent made a huge commission at the time of sale. Now, 14 years later, I still have insurance. I have cash values greater than premiums paid. I have a face amount of insurance that has increased. I have dividends (that while I am currently accumulating in cash values COULD be used to offset the premiums). When you suggest by term and invest the difference, have you really analyzed this from the perspective of BUY WHOLE LIFE AND INVEST THE TERM.... In other words, where would the investor be IF they had purchased expensive whole life premiums in insurance, AND invested the ever increaing annual renewable, or 20 year level premium equivalents in an investment vehicle of their choice.

In my world, in spite of the fact that my agent received a commission, I have recovered the cost of my insurance (and then some), I have invested in a systematic way the cost of term insurance in mutual funds increasing my wealth, and I STILL own an ever increasing insurance policy.

Too often the argument you and others like you make is a dismissive one where without full disclosure or actual mathmatical annalysis, you dispense a failed ecconomic theory as fact.

In your scenario the "investor" at the end of the day would have no insurance coverage because he would "no longer need it, or could no longer afford it." Therefore the true cost of owning the Term Insurance, that did not pay a death benefit would not only be the premium cost, but the investment interest that those dollars COULD HAVE earned, had they been invested. In a true ecconomic analysis, this MUST be done and accounted for.

Roughly 98% of ALL term policies sold do not ever pay a death claim. The actuaries of insurance companies must be doing something right. Also I might add that commissions and fees are also paid to Stock Brokers and money managers on investment accounts. Another erroding factor to investments that does not receive equal play in your article. It is not just the insurance agent that receives compensation.

Your strategy works better if the investor plans to die before an actuary claims that he should. In that scenario the investor would no doubt be better off buying term and investing the difference. Who has the crystal ball that says when we will depart? I would think most people would be better off understanding and implementing a plan that statistically works in more scenarios than those that you propose.

[Patrick]

Trash Value Insurance sold as Whole Life, Universal Life etc. is a complete rip off for the following reasons: 1. The rate of return is pathetic (ie 3-4%). The rule of 72 (an old banking rule)determines how long it will take your investment to double one time. 3% divided by 72 = 24 years, 4% divided by 72 = 18 years,if you had your money invested in a mutual fund that has a 70 year track record of 12% interest, then 12% divided by 72 is 6, meaning every 6 years your money would double. 2. Whole Life Insurance companies overcharge you to make a profit on your money and any surplus that they make they give back to you in the form of a dividend. A dividend in a whole life policy and a dividend in a mutual fund are two different animals. dividends from a whole life policy is not taxable because it is a refund of being overcharged. Dividends from a mutual fund that is not invested through a tax deffered Roth IRA are taxable @ 15% because it is a profit from a company that you own and invested in. 3. You grow no cash value in a whole life policy until the 3rd year into the policy, meaning that you had a guaranteed loss on your money for 3 years. 4. Whole life is an "either or" insurance meaning that the whole life company keeps your cash(trash)value and your family gets the death benefit, but your family does not get both. The only way your family will get your cash(trash)value and your death benefit is if you die at age 100 and up. This is why whole life insurance means you pay your whole life, giving the whole life company time to invest your money in a mutual fund/loans. You could be self insured with $1 million dollars if you invested in a mutual fund via a Roth IRA for retirement that will come to you tax free with out borrowing your own money @ 6-8% interest. If you like being a Victim, go with a whole life policy. If you want to be a Victor, own a 20-30 year term policy and invest the difference. :-)

[Anthony Bearden]

One thing I left out is if you invest wisely and after your 20 year term runs out your need for insurance should be gone.
For example a young family with a new mortgage and a high debt to income ratio would have a high need for insurance if something were to happen. But after 20 years your mortgage is paid down your kids are usually gone and your nest egg should be built up enough to where your need for insurance should be gone. If not my life insurance company does renew term policy instead of trying to railroad me into a Cash value after my term expires. But anyway the need for insurance should be gone after the term.

[Paige]

After reading the posts, I have a question that I'm hoping you or those posting could help with. I was talked into a whole life insurance policy a few months ago and, with the additions of riders, etc., have forked over quite a bit of cash towards it this year. Now, 3 months later, having done more reading about it, I am having serious regrets. I was told by a "financial advisor" that the policy works just like a Roth IRA. If this is true, is it best to continue contributing a yearly premium to this until I break even with the policy (~year 8), where the net cash value of the policy is roughly equivalent or slightly greater than the sum I've contributed? OR is it best to just get out now and cut my losses, which are significant?

[Lamont Shipley]

I have a client that purchased a 1.5 million dollar policy on his 3 year old daughter. He paid $1000 per month for 16 years and never paid another dime for the rest of her life (Total contribution $192,000). Here are the benefits he and his family received:

1) At age 18 they took out 25K for 4 years tax free to pay for college.

2) At age 30 they took out $100K taz free for a down payment on a house.

(Ownership was changed to daughter after the father's death)

3) At age 65 the daughter can take 125K for 16 years straight to fund her retirement. All tax free so you do the math.

4)Here is the real benefit. When she dies her children ( his grandchildren) will get over 5 Million Dollars.

ALL GUANRANTEED!!!!

Show me any term policy, any single investment that can produce that GUANRANTEED power. You will spend the rest of your life looking because there is only one that is GUANRANTEED.

( Note: A VUL will blow those numbers away but it's not guanranteed)

1)

[C.G.]

I read about your 1 million, policy. If the $1000 is being invested monthly at 10% returns. In 10 years, it would have accumulated $204,844.98. At 12% returns, it would have been $230,038.69. In 30 years, the 10% returns would have accumulated $2,260,487.92. At 12% returns, it would have been $3,494,964.13.

Assuming that the policy was paid at $1000/monthly for 15 years.
If you put in the money into an investment which would generate a 12% return, it would have been $499,580.20 after 15 years. If you invest it for another 15 years without any monthly payments, it would have accumulated to $3,494,964.15. Now, tell me who is actually keeping the money difference you or the life insurance company??? If you still can't figure out why you should buy term and invest the difference, then I am sorry. You really need a lot of help.

[P. T. Esetroc]

A lot of your arguements against Whole life would be correct if not for the fact that my Northwestern Whole policy's 20 year average beats the S&P500 on an after tax basis. The cash value continues to grow bettor than my 401K investments. Also, since my wife and I are over the AGI limits to contribute to the Roth or receive the tax break on a Traditional IRA we need a safe non-market risked vehicle that allowed me to contribute after tax money beyond the IRS limits, let it grow taxed deferred and withdraw tax free in the future. You can keep your term insurance, all it will do is put money in the compnay and leave you with nothing once the term expires!

[lamoneyguy]

P.T., is it a variable life product or a straight whole life? If it is straight whole life, when did you begin the policy. Basically, since the whole life products are tied to interest rates, there is zero chance that the cash value, after expenses, has outperformed the S&P 500.

If it is a variable product, it is possible if you have been invested in international or emerging market subaccounts, or other markets that have beaten the S&P over that period of time. Then again, you would have done even better with low cost funds invested in these markets.

[Dean Manning]

I have cash value life insurance policy. I was too sold on the benefit that it is a Roth IRA on steroids.

I work as a research scientist and in an FDA inspected company, so I've learned to keep detailed records.

This is how it was explained to me:

I'm single and my salary is $76,000 before taxes, after tax it's about $60000. I do own a house and my living expenses per year is 42000, so obviously I have 18000 liquid money. Yes I have spent on video games, computers, and fun times. After that I can save between 10k-12k/years. I can only put a max of 5000 (now in 2008) to my Roth IRA. My company's retirement plan is: they contribute company money 15% of my salary. I do not contribute, I do have to stay with the company for seven years, so I have a vesting period. I've been with the company for 5 years, my retirement plan is now at 50743 (company money only ) after the gains (59752) last time I checked. Whoo, I gained 8982 over 5 years = 1796 /year. That's a taxable gain of 3.1%

The agent told me to start my own plan and put away 15% of my after taxed dollars, that's 9000, okay I says, "show me the money"

He designed a New York Life Policy in which I'm able to put in $9000 for 15 years, 135k total investment. I'm planning to supplement that with my retirement @ 67. 30k/year will come from my life insurance policy (income tax free), my taxable income: from my retirement plan will be (hopefully)18369/year, from social security (hopefully) 20400/year. Tax bracket still 28% according to 2007 tax tables, will this change, I know it's going to change.

You see folks, I have a great agent who is looking out for me.

I told him, 401k and other stocks. But he helped me see the light about taxation. Could I have put it into the Roth, yeah I could, but I couldn't put $9000. I don't care if he made money of selling me that contract, he helped me in the long run.

My .02, well worth spending. I will gladly endorse this agent, his name Dan Ang, New York Life.

Peace out

[You guys are jokers]

Anybody who thinks they don't need to die with life insurance is low class. "Leave something behind" - John D. Rockafeller

[lamoneyguy]

Anybody who thinks the only way to "leave something behind" is by owning life insurance is low class.

[Hickory6]

Hey, Primerica guys! How are those 10% to 12% mutual funds doing?

Morons.

[mutual funds earnings in the RED]

The market today is an indication of why 12% mutual funds are unicorns, and when you are talking about retirement you should be talking about something guaranteed.

So many of these comments, are idiotic, its unbelievable.

[Cal Ripken]

Haha, i love reading all this. What you term pushers forget is that the money you are getting of investments is TAXED. Have fun with that. Figure gains taxes in there, then shoot off some numbers. Whole life isn't the "sexy" way to go, but it is the safest. Right now it is March 2009, don't know how old these comments are, but last time I checked my whole life policy is still guaranteed. How are those mutual funds working out for you? Oh what is that, you lost half? Weird, buy more term I guess. Plus when you leave life insurance death benefits behind you can put it into a trust to keep it out of your estate, so your family doesn't have to liquidate your estate to pay the taxes on it. Hope your family doesn't get too screwed when you die. Even if whole life isn't your only investment, at least have enough to help your estate with tax purposes. My dad's whole life policy he started at 25, has life paid up at 65. He has cash values of 1.6 mil on a 2 mil policy. He has it paying him 60k per year tax deferred until he taps out the 400k he paid in premiums. Plus he has pension and SS. My dad set himself up with whole life to have a fully funded retirement. Next time I go to Wal-Mart I will ask the greeter if they have whole or term, and I bet my bottom dollar it isn't whole.

[Frank C]

This is great! This string of comments started when he Dow was @ 13500....hows that "investing the difference wprking out for all you morons now??? I do think a person should have a component of whole life as an OVERALL plan, not as a sole retirement vehicle....and if your a broker, stop giving your million+ a year clients the same advice you give a guy that makes 60k a year...pleae your hurting your clients by putting them in taxable investments (and most likley c shares to boot) great job...

[Kendal]

If I had a nickel for every time I heard the 12% return claim on the stock market, I would be retired.

TRUE, the stock market has averaged 12% return since its inception.

FALSE, this number means anything to the investor. Averaging and yielding are two different animals. Averaging is simpley adding the returns and averaging them where the yield is the actual cash profit. Yeild and average are different because the backslide is faster than the forward gain a 50% backslide requires a 100% gain to put you back at par. the yield is 0% but the return is 25%. you have made no money, but averaged 25% returns. Many people now are finding themselves with a long-term positive return, but have actually lost money in their retirement accounts.

A more realistic example. Take $1,000 and invest it. Year 1 you have a 10% gain. you now have $1,100. year two you have another 10% gain now you have $1,210. In year 3 you have a -20% retuen for a loss of $240 giving you a balance of $970. You averaged 0% return, but you are actually left with less money than you started with (not to mention 3 years). to be back on track of 10% average yearly gain (yield) you will need to realize a 50% return in the 4th year. I am doing this in my head so I apologize if I messed up the math.

In the current market many "investors" retirement plans are down 35-50% setting them back to 2001 or earlier. They now get to postpone retirement by a decade or retire with half. But lets be optimistic, maybe they will get a 110% return on their investment this year and all will be well.

The actual yield on the stock market is actually in the 3-5% range. Hummm that's about the same as whole life, but without the guarantees or death benifit.

EVERY strategy has pros and cons.

The market pro is a greater potential for return. The con, the risk and likelihood of loss is far greater. It all depends on which year you cash out. You may have more, you may have less. This strategy is "sold" by unscrupulous salesmen by using average rate of return versus the average yield. If you feel jaded by an insurance salesman's pitch about whole life, you should be irate about the falsehoods and outright lies you were sold in your last 401k presentation. (learn to read and understand footnotes)

Insurance investments are far less liquid. Grow slower in theory (as compared to the fictitious 12% return in the market), but they are guaranteed to never loose money once credited. The true value to the cash value life insurance is in having other assets in addition to the LI. One would ideally spend down the other assets and not touch the insurance investment until one's seventies when the estate has been exhausted. And then spend down the insurance in the form of tax-free policy loans (growth will outstrip the cost of the loans so they never need be repaid). This strategy allows one to spend principle and interest of non insurance assets for greater cashflow and flexibility and reduced taxes in retirement. The insurance is collateral should one run out and remain living past the distribution phase of the other assets.

For those that want guarantees but like the potential double digit return of the market, I would recommend an Equity Indexed Universal Life. Most have guaranteed minimum growth of 2-4% (won't loose money in market declines) and track upwards with an stock index such as the S&P500 with a cap, usually around 12%. since they never loose money, the yield and average are the same. They have less potential than a market investment because of the cap on gains, but in practice they beat the market because they never loose money. Last I checked my favorite, it has averaged/yielded 8.9% since inception in 2000. Yield on the stock market for the same period is what?....ouch! The only way the EIUL is a bad choice is if the market exceeds the cap every year—which as much as we all want it to do so, it just is not probable or even likely.

Here is the trick to maximize LI as a retirement vehicle (can't legally call it an investment). Set the policy to have a minimal death benefit, and stuff in extra cash up to the IRS MEC limits (hint, anytime the IRS sets limits on what you can do, it might be a good thing), Then take policy loans in retirement at or just below the yield for a retirement income that never depletes and a guaranteed estate to pass to your loved ones or favorite charity.

As a financial planner I recommend my clients have Life insurance period. The type is up to them. One is an pure expense, the other an asset, but it is what you do with them that makes then beneficial or not. The value is knowing how to use each in their right place. Term is great when need is great and funds are low. Great for young families just starting off, but as funds become available a transition to permanent life makes more sense for most. Even old whole life compares favorably to the market when you talk in terms of long term yields (AKA reality).

Permanent life is often called a rich man's product—that should be a clue as to its value. Banks (the solid ones at least) hold around 30% of their portfolio in life insurance—you will see it on their balance sheet as BOLI or bank owned life insurance. Warren Buffet has and buys permanent LI, Walmart buys it on their employees. Why? because they understand something that most Americans do not, and that is how to leverage it and make money with it. If the banks ans sophisticated and successful investment gurus buy it, it probably has some benefit beyond passing money to the children. If you can figure that out, it is probably a good product for you. If you don't understand it, then find something you do understand, but don't humiliate yourself by digging in and fighting it. If there was no value, it would have gone away a long time ago, but as it stands, whole life is one the oldest financial products in existence predating stock market investments by 150 years.

The real problem is not the product, but the ignorance of the consumer and poor ethics of the salesmen (both insurance and market products). If your portfolio is down, you are doing something wrong and likely in the wrong retirement vehicle for your aptitude or knowledge. If your investments are up and you can keep them up, you are doing something right and should stick with it. I honestly think that most people will do best in an indexed product than on their own and indexed life has more benefits (tax, liability, and premature death) than indexed annuities or funds. One should talk to their personal and trusted adviser to understand how they work to determine if they meet ones goals.

Everybody is getting paid, even the 401k and mutual fund salesman. You need to understand the product and the strategies before you decide. If the salesperson can't or won't tell you the reasons not to buy, you should not buy from them at all. I personally play out multiple strategies to meet the same goal and discuss the pros and cons of all with my clients. Most often they choose a life insurance strategy (after meeting the employer matched contribution to a qualified plan). With the goal of rolling the qualified plan into an indexed product after they leave their current job. My experience is that when people see the full disclosure of the costs and risks of multiple strategies, the pie in the sky of the stock market is not as appealing—2008-2009 have been a painful wake-up call for many that they don't have the stomach or resources to be investing in the market. The funny thing is how quickly the lessons of 2002-2003 were forgotten. The cycle will continue as it always has and those selling mutual funds as well as those being paid indirectly by the companies that do through advertising (Kramer, Suzi Orman, CNBC, etc.) will continue to promote their product and the insurance companies will continue to promote theirs. In the bear market one looks better in a bull it is the other. When you look at the long-term average whole life and buy term invest the difference are pretty equal in the yield, you just need to decide if you are the tortoise or the hare. The decision should be based on your needs and aptitude not the potential rate of return in the sales presentation.

If there really was a way to bust one argument, there would not be an argument. BTID relies on hypothetical arguments, Perm Ins relies on complex financial understanding of lost opportunity cost and tax advantages.

If both strategies have features you like, an EIUL might interest you. Most of the benefits and guarantees of Whole Life, but the potential larger market gains of a market investment. There are cons, so you should talk to a personal adviser about your situation and goals.

[Dwaine]

People tend to forget that the money taken from a whole life policy ( cash value) is borrowed @ 6% on up... so lets not pay tax... lets pay interest...

.... retards

[Dwaine]

Equity funds are long term investments.. so sure the economy is down... guess what, history tells us it will be right back up again.. how many times have the economy gone sour, but for the last 50yrs we've had an average growth of ova 12%.

save (invest) your money... don't give it to trash value pushers.