Letters to the Editor
sunspot
Published Letters: 355 Editor's Choice: 43
-
Another Investment Industry Tool Who Can't Freaking READ
[Read the article: The next subprime: Reverse mortgages]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Finally, can you explain how ANY annuity requires anyone to reach age 100, the actuarially determined age of probable certain death, to get a cent of their money after age 62?? As a formerly licensed life, health and DI licensed agent with a Series 63 license to sell annuity instruments, I can state as an expert that is not the case whatsoever. Annuities pay out a monthly income and can be invested in municipal bonds; but whereas before she was only receiving dividends, she would now be receiving both dividends and principal, which at age 80 she should be getting!
If you want to call your column "How the World Works", please do a little research as to how it works before posting such inflammatory non-truths.
-----------
You know, cdunlea, before you accuse Andrew of not knowing "How The World Works", maybe you ought to try boning up on your reading comprehension.
Here's what the woman cited in her actual Congressional testimony:
To compound the financial damages, the salesman then converted $125,000 from one of mom's municipal bond funds into a 20-year annuity. The municipal bonds had been paying mom a nice monthly income. Now, she would have to wait until her 100th birthday to see a cent of her money.
This is not rocket science - even an apologist for the fraud-infested financial services industry like you ought to be able to figure this one out. The crook from the reverse mortgage outfit converted mom's $125,000 municipal bond fund into a 20-year annuity. What that means is that the annuity won't start paying out for 20 years. Mom's 80. She'll have to live to be 100 before she sees a dime of that $125,000 (plus whatever interest the annuity earns, if any depending on what it's invested in / what the terms are).
Why did this joker from the mortgage outfit do such a thing? Maybe there was a sales bonus involved for pushing this crappy annuity. Maybe he just doesn't know what it's doing. Most likely, it's probably being done intentionally to help guarantee mom's estate will have more than enough money to pay off the reverse mortgage in 10 or 15 years when mom kicks the bucket, even if the value of the property doesn't go up or declines (which is actually likely in much of the country, thanks to the bursting of the real estate bubble). The lender will just step in and scoop up that big fat juicy annuity to help (eventually) pay off the reverse mortgage.
Tough luck if mom spends her last 10 years living on cat food because she can't get to her money.
-
Are Pretentious Poseurs Terrified of Winehouse Because She's The Real Deal?
[Read the article: Flirting with disaster]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why don't you all just admit that you like her because she sounds different than what is on the radio now, and you like to be different?
Um, because that's not why I love Amy's music. There's lots of crap out there that sounds "different" from what's on the radio now, but it's equally unlistenable, uninvolving or uninspired. Winehouse sings like a cross between Billie Holiday, Shirley Bassey, Ronnie Spector and Dusty Springfield. Can't get much better than that. She writes like a foul-mouthed Carole King in her Brill Building heyday. Can't get any better than that either in pop. With her producer and band she's revisiting and revising the sound and stylings of the greatest era in pop and soul - roughly the late '50s thru the early '70s - putting just enough of a twist on things to make the moments surprising and delightful and new (it doesn't hurt that her songwriting is rock solid to begin with).
I think she's the exact opposite of contrived (which you asserted), as she's doing exactly what she obviously loves, working with a pop vocabulary the industry abandoned decades ago. Foolishly, as her recent commercial success proves - turns out people like listening to actual music, with actual lyrics and an actual tune and clever, musical production after all. Whoda thunk it?
I don't think she's "visionary" - she's not Bjork - but from an emotional and entertainment standpoint she makes more of a connection with her listeners than anything I've experienced in a decade. I think her personal problems are sad, but hardly unique. Many great talents have been thru as bad or worse - it seems to come with the territory. The ability of an artist like Winehouse or Holiday or Springfield to see further into the music than the rest of us also seems to allow them to see further into themselves (and others). They don't seem to much care for what they find there, and drug use is unfortunately one of the most common results.
I'm not sure why Winehouse should be vilified for it, anymore than Billie Holiday, Janis Joplin or Jimi Hendrix. Drug abuse isn't a moral failing, it's a mental health issue. I do find it interesting that Winehouse is coming under attack from folks who apparently aren't Reaganite Puritans for her drug use. I suspect these folks are just pissed off that Winehouse is getting all the attention their tedious pet acts aren't, and are using whatever bricks are at their disposal to attack her. They can't really attack the songs, because the melodies are flawless and the lyrics are strong. They can't attack her singing, because she can sing her ass off (at least, when she's not completely wasted). So they go after her image (always a convenient way to target women performers) and her drug problem.
You clowns are more pathetic than a half-naked Winehouse stumbling thru freezing London.