This deserves a non-facetious answer, and the answer is that ETFs are better.
You’re saving for retirement, and for most of us that’s going to be a horizon of twenty or thirty years, or even more. Over that time, it’s easy to ride out the swings and roundabouts of equity markets; and the tradeoff for the higher volatility of equities is that they have higher returns than you could get from a boring insurance policy.
Really they should cut the lot size to 1. It’s no more complicated for the exchange’s computers to process a 1-share trade than it is to process a 10-share trade.
Hmm - don’t forget the FX spread on the Stanchart trades. You’ve got the fees right, but the Stanchart side is going to have some extra hidden costs from FX that won’t be reflected in the fees.
Not a prob at all! These longer questions are always the interesting ones.
I agree the lower expense ratio on SWRD makes it more appealing, your math is right on the money there. The fund size is a little smaller than I’d like, though, and it is quite new. If it had a bit more history I’d feel a lot better about it.
Ugh, yeah. It’s a shame that MBKE have trashed their product offering like this.
… I’d even say that if you’re considering a term-to-99 plan you’re missing the point of insurance.
Term-to-65 makes sense if you have, for example, kids’ college expenses or mortgage expenses that you’d need to fund if you got hit by a bus. The point of term life there is that if you get hit by the proverbial bus, the term life policy will cover your kids’ and your family’s costs until the kids are old enough to support themselves.
But once you turn 65, your kids have moved out and everyone should be able to support themselves. You don’t need life insurance after that point, because you can fund yourself by selling down the stocks and bonds that you’ve bought over the previous 40 years.
Whole-life is a waste; term-to-99 is basically the same as whole-life, and it’s a waste as well.