Feedback: Letters to the editor

In the chart that I’m showing them, I show that the S&P 500 is still around 39 percent lower than it was pre 2007. They stutter, but the market experts say it’s gone up 12 percent -12 percent from what? It’s still 39 percent lower than it was 6 years ago. How are you going to make up for your lost savings the year you’re ready to retire? Then I show the picture of the 75 year old working in McDonald’s and some still don’t get it. Unfortunately, many people in their 50’s+ still think the government is going to be there to bail them out in retirement. The government is broke, dude – move on.
Brad Blosser

Online letter

What are you talking about? While I agree with you that FIAs and IULs are good tools for savings to supplement retirement income with, you’re delusional if you believe that the stock market is 39 percent lower than it was 6 years ago. It’s actually higher than it was 6 years ago, albeit only slightly. Having said that, an indexed product would have  produced the greatest returns if it were purchased between July 2007 and September 2008. If purchased later than that, it has probably underperformed relative to the stock market because of caps or participation rates. It would be far less volatile, though, which would make it very attractive to someone tired of the roller coaster ride.

FIAs and IULs are great products, and if presented PROPERLY will sell themselves TO THE RIGHT PEOPLE. Don’t misrepresent the product or its capabilities because it makes not only you look bad, but it casts a negative image over all reputable insurance agents. Be honest, be fair, be accurate,..and move on!
A. Z.

Risk retention group industry hails ERISA ruling

Online letter

Why does this article say that employers have to follow the common fund and made-whole doctrines “even when the plan specifically exempted itself from the operation of these doctrines.” The rest of the article clearly says that the Supreme Court said that the document governs, but this sentence implies that the Court said that in the case of these two equitable doctrines, the document does not govern, even when it is crystal clear. Is this a poorly-worded sentence, or was the decision itself ambiguous?
Blake Woodard

Supremes back enrollee in 5-4 ERISA attorney’s fee case

Online letter

I am curious as to why the insurer in this case, did not initiate recovery for claims it paid? I had a self-funded client some years back, whose plan recovered against a third party’s auto insurance policy when a covered employee was injured. The case was complicated by the fact the third party was the father-in-law of the covered employee. The employee had refused to provide needed details, but eventually, the truth came out and the plan was able to subrogate its paid expenses. The employer had a hard time pressing this but was required to under the plan’s terms. I don’t think the employee ever quite understood this, thinking it was totally their call to pursue a claim or not.
Citizen Jones