http://rpseawright.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... cceptable/
The topic of male vs female investing styles have been discussed previously. But I found this article to be interesting as it concludes with the idea that the women who, against their better judgment, acquiesce to their male partners overly aggressive portfolio plans, will end up, as widows, suffering the consequences. The reason this interests me is that I have several female friends who are not comfortable with their husband's portfolio choices, but yet do not force the issue. It baffles me, as they are generally strong and competent women, who do not hesitate to speak their mind, and who know very well (but for this instance) how to take care of themselves. The article concludes with:
A long-time financial advisor I know recounts meeting with a couple about retirement planning and encountering (typical) resistance to obtaining guaranteed income and long-term care insurance from the husband. The advisor looked him straight in the eyes and asked a question he often asks in such situations: “Why do you hate your wife?” That may seem like a shocking and perhaps offensive question, but it ought to be asked with regularity. Husbands who love their wives should take much greater care to consider their wives’ feelings and likely future circumstances and, as a consequence, take on far less risk in retirement planning. Doing so is the socially and personally responsible thing to do
There are two questions I have right off the bat. Do the financial professionals see this sort of couple dynamic often?
Women are far more likely to protect themselves with the purchase of long-term care insurance and income annuities (which provide guaranteed income for life). Yet despite their obvious value, these products are by no means hot commodities and it isn’t hard to comprehend why. Nearly every experienced financial advisor can recount multiple instances of nervous and worried wives going along with their husbands’ aggressive and often overly aggressive investment plans despite serious misgivings (one such story is offered by Wharton Prof. David Babbel here).
The second question involves the whether there is an agenda behind this article. I get a whiff of the hard sell of costly insurance products here, even though for the most part I agree with the article.
Caveat: I know that there are decent SPIA's out there, so we don't need to go into the annuity discussion.
I also know that the aggressive/less aggressive dynamic is not necessarily gender specific in female/male marriages and obviously not gender specific in same sex marriages.