Response to Money Magazine article from Jan/Feb 2011 by Lisa Gibbs

By rbarry2

Barry Advisory Group, LLC

I want to comment on the article in the Jan/Feb Money Magazine issue titled "The Safety Trap" stating consumers can do much better ... commissions too high ... too many sales ploys that leave everyone (laymen) with a bad taste in their mouth regarding FIA's.

Only one company so far has refuted this article (North American) and I am very surprised that more haven't — I'm hoping they have and would be happy to be told I am wrong.

The issue:
Jack Marrion stated that the bonus portion could be a detriment to the growth of the asset. True. But sometimes a bonus is required for the need of the client. Only about 10 percent of my business deals with bonuses. What surprises me is the omission of Jack Marrions's belief that FIA's are a viable program from the article.

It makes me wonder whether all the analysts who contributed to this article were paid by the magazine for their analysis. And if money was a contributing factor, then how can the article be objective?

In defense of the industry
I feel our industry is one of the best examples of American initiative and I become disheartened when I see the efforts of our industry become a whipping boy for all that is wrong in the investment world.

What about the "grease pole" investment strategies that Wall Street offers? When you are "up," then you are the hero, but when you slide down on that greased pole strategy it becomes much greater of an effort to recoup that slide.

FIA's help us avoid that problem and should have been acknowledged in that article, especially from Jack Marrion.

I would like comments please!