I want to congratulate Senior Market Advisor on a great and balanced piece of reporting in their April issue—the comparison of the two very different practices of Jerry Tokunaga and Richard G. Dragotta in “The Great Divide.”
I was securities licensed for the first 13 years of my 21-year career and can appreciate both sides. It is obvious that Dragotta works with younger “pre-retired” clients for whom “planning” and long-term, risk-based investments are appropriate. Tokunaga, meanwhile, works with seniors aged 70 and over.
For them, FIAs should be a core holding.
I don’t believe the argument is an either/or, black/white debate. It’s about which plan is appropriate for which demographic. Each client must be evaluated on his or her individual needs and priorities.
Having said that, I routinely meet with retired prospects in their early 70s who present with more than 80 percent of the monies it’s taken them 40 years to save in risk-intensive equities and mutual funds–
because their advisor has so allocated them. I believe that this constitutes malpractice, and my staff and I have made it our mission to rescue such folk—using primarily Tokunaga’s FIAs to do so.
I’ve also found that securities-licensed advisors are stunningly ignorant of what happens when a 70-plus investor–who once loved the complexity/excitement of active trading/management–has a stroke and can’t remember his name, never mind trade his or her account a week later. Typically, the less-involved spouse becomes the de facto successor “portfolio manager” of the couple’s investments. This comes at precisely the same time when he or she is suddenly overwhelmed by his or her new duties as a caregiver.