• Go to page :
  • 1 2 3
  • Text Only
My brother (insurance agent) has some large annuity clients, he couldn't get them better than 3% guaranteed on 4 million invested. I would also question the 6% rate is "guaranteed".

TLDR: you can probably do better

This may not be directly comparable, but I recently got a quote for a Single Payment Immediate Annuity (SPIA) that would pay me $1200/month for 12 years, to cover the difference between my pension and other income until I start collecting SS in 12 years. It would cost me approx $160K. At the end of 12 years total payout would be approx $172K ($1200 x 12 x 12, or 7.5% growth). I calculate I could put that same $160K in a Barclays 1% APY savings account and withdraw $14400 per year ($1200/month) and at the end of 12 years I would have approx $13K left over vs. zero for the SPIA. So the SPIA payout is somewhat less than 1% APY. I should be able to do even better with a CD ladder using 5-year CDs (Barclays 1.75% today). And I can get my CD principle back at any time if willing to pay a 3-6 month interest penalty, while the SPIA money is locked up for the duration. The CDs or savings account would be FDIC insured, while the annuity would vanish if the insurance company went bankrupt. If interest rates go up during the next 12 years, my CD ladder will do better, while the SPIA rate is frozen. If interest rates go down, well, they can't really go much lower can they?

Advantages of the SPIA: you get a steady paycheck every month without having to actively manage your money, and the payout is guaranteed even if interest rates drop even lower than they are now (not much of an advantage at today's low rates). I would prefer to do a little active management so I don't necessarily have to lock up so much money at the start, and gain more interest over the term.

Another great place to ask this type of question is early-retirement.org

Have you checked with Berkshire?

http://brkdirect.com/

The 6% the annuity promises is probably not what you are thinking it is... I doubt it is a 6% return on your money. Rather, it is likely a guaranty that you'll get 6% of your money out per year or after a period of time or??? These are very different things. If you dig in or take some of the other posters up on their offers, you'll likely find that the annuity is laced with fees that are not fully disclosed by the agent.

meggacat said:   Our credit union offers a SunAmerica product that guarantees 6% for 12 yrs. They give a 6% signing bonus. The principal is guaranteed to be returned after 12 yrs, with possible gains.The credit union rents out office space to somebody who sells products from SunAmerica.

Guarantees 6% for 12 years but you can withdraw no more than 5.5% a year?

"Maximum Annual Withdrawal Amount (MAWA): The maximum income you can take each year.

The MAWA percentage is:

• 5.5% of the Income Base for the Single Life option (one covered individual)
• 5.0% of the Income Base for the Joint Life option (two covered individuals)"

EndlessKnight said:   Have you checked with Berkshire?

http://brkdirect.com/


Single Premium Immediate Annuity: 60 years old, single annuitant, guaranteed min. payment, non-IRA = 4.9% PRE-TAX for life. Tax advantaged (front-weighted return of principal). But you can't touch the principal.

If the interest rate is accurate, 500K = $24,984/year, pre-tax.

With a SPIA, i would just get them to tell you the amount per month or year. With a SPIA part of the return is also return of principal. One of the reason they are "liked" is that amount you get is amount you get and its harder to put smoke and mirrors in front of that.

Looks like a 5-5.25% joint life SPIA, or a 10-10.5% Income Annuity with a 12 year deferral period. Look for the industry leader first, and use that as your basis for comparison.
Just google: market share of immediate annuities
Current market rates at the at your age may be 6-7% on the SPIA and 12-15% with the deferral at the top provider of immediate annuities in the industry.

No, what you're looking at is not technically a SPIA, you're just using it as one. Yes, there's some market upside on the one you're looking at, but I don't see any interest rate upside.

Which do you think is likelier, that markets will scream upward from their current all-time high, or that interest rates will slowly rise over the next 12 years from their 50-year-low?

Brody's right that the guarantee you're looking at is probably what you'll get. Look for a higher guarantee.

There are better products and worse products, and better companies and worse companies. You need to get more opinions before pulling a big trigger.

Does your wife have her own career? If so then you both should not be taking your full SS at 66. One of you can take yours, and the other claim the spousal benefits on that persons plan. Then wait until 70 and switch to their own full SS at the increased payout.

Lurker please list these products the OP should consider and explain why this is better than deferring social security including increased spousal benefit.

Pics of wife.

My advice on annuities is always "don't."

They're complicated, and you pretty much never get what you think. They're just a way for the agent to make a commission.

Frankly, you should be suspicious of anything that guarantees better returns than treasury bonds or FDIC/NCUA insured accounts.

meggacat said:   Greetings. I am looking to the Fatwallet community to weigh-in on annuities as part of my retirement plan.

I am now working, just turned 60. I want to retire next May (1 year out). I will have a small pension $17K annually. I have $1.2 million saved in 401K. Both my wife and I plan to take SSI at full retirement age (66). We seek at least $120K annually in retirement.

Our credit union offers a SunAmerica product that guarantees 6% for 12 yrs. They give a 6% signing bonus. The principal is guaranteed to be returned after 12 yrs, with possible gains.

I’m considering a 500K purchase.

I could take this annuity as immediate, or let it roll to double my initial payment in 12 years. I could live with either scenario, but the deferred scenario seems best.

Your thoughts on this are welcome…..please warn me of risks or something better. Humble thanks.


I hope you are really not referring to the SSI, but rather to the SSA-retirement. Just based on the numbers you have listed, there is no chance you will qualify for SSI - this is the "needs" based program and has a federal limit of $710.00/mo for 2013. Basically it is available for individuals, who have no other income over about that amount, and $2,000.00 for single and in your case $3,000.00 for family in other resources. Now if you are referring to your RIB at FRA (retitement at full retirement age) that is totally different. If you expect $62k/y, and you said your pension is about $17k that leaves you and your wife with about $1,875.00/ month each in retirement benefits (which at FRA will be = to your PIA (primary insurance amount)). Let me tell you - that is a pretty good one.
One factor here is longitivity. That is something you cannot really predict, but here is the deal: use your break even calculator. My math shows that retiring at 65, vs 62 and getting hit with the reduction factors will take you till 72 just to break even. You get the math for 66, etc.

dunnrobert said:   this tool will let you lay it all out.

Are folks comfortable putting all their info into sites like these? I suppose it can be non-specific, dummy info and will yield the same result.

What other good, free retirement tools are out there?

The SunAmerica product guarantees you can withdraw a certain amount for the rest of your life, even if your money actually runs out. If you invest $500K, that becomes your "income base". Your money is invested in your choice of separate accounts, similar to mutual funds. It will go up and down like any other fund. For the first 12 years, if you do not take any income, they will lock in the investment gains for the year or 6%, whichever is higher. That becomes your new income base. This means that if you leave it alone, your income base will at least double after 12 years.

Worst case example, your $500K is set on fire the next day. You will still be able to take withdrawals of 5.5% of that income base for the rest of your life. If you wait until after year 12, in that example, your income base will have grown to $1M, even though the actual value is zero. You would be able to withdraw $55K for the rest of your life. More positive example, your investments do well and grow to $1.1M in 10 years (8.2% annual). Then the market crashes and your account falls to $600K. Your income base is still $1.1M. It's now year 11 and you need income. You can begin withdrawing $60,500 a year ($1.1M x 5.5%) for the rest of your life. These withdrawals now represent about 10% of your actual account value. You will almost certainly run out of money withdrawing so much, but your contract guarantees that you will keep getting $60,500 every year even if that happens.

Key thing to know is that all the guarantees of the annuity are about future income. You are not "earning" 6% a year on your money. That is only a guarantee of how much your future income will be based on. If you want to walk away, you would only get your actual account value, less any surrender charge. There are costs involved for this annuity (figure 2-3% a year), but for someone looking to guarantee future growth and lifetime income, those costs may be money well spent. Just know what you are buying.

Probably a non-issue here, but inherited annuities are taxable income to the inheritor, less the cost basis of the annuity.

RBirns said:   The SunAmerica product guarantees you can withdraw a certain amount for the rest of your life, even if your money actually runs out. If you invest $500K, that becomes your "income base". Your money is invested in your choice of separate accounts, similar to mutual funds. It will go up and down like any other fund. For the first 12 years, if you do not take any income, they will lock in the investment gains for the year or 6%, whichever is higher. That becomes your new income base. This means that if you leave it alone, your income base will at least double after 12 years.

Worst case example, your $500K is set on fire the next day. You will still be able to take withdrawals of 5.5% of that income base for the rest of your life. If you wait until after year 12, in that example, your income base will have grown to $1M, even though the actual value is zero. You would be able to withdraw $55K for the rest of your life. More positive example, your investments do well and grow to $1.1M in 10 years (8.2% annual). Then the market crashes and your account falls to $600K. Your income base is still $1.1M. It's now year 11 and you need income. You can begin withdrawing $60,500 a year ($1.1M x 5.5%) for the rest of your life. These withdrawals now represent about 10% of your actual account value. You will almost certainly run out of money withdrawing so much, but your contract guarantees that you will keep getting $60,500 every year even if that happens.

Key thing to know is that all the guarantees of the annuity are about future income. You are not "earning" 6% a year on your money. That is only a guarantee of how much your future income will be based on. If you want to walk away, you would only get your actual account value, less any surrender charge. There are costs involved for this annuity (figure 2-3% a year), but for someone looking to guarantee future growth and lifetime income, those costs may be money well spent. Just know what you are buying.


So, if there are fees of 2% - 3%/year, does this mean you are really getting a return of 3% - 4%/year?

Am I missing something?

You want to retire next year at 61, but not collect SS until 66.

You have a large gap of income until 66 and then a smaller gap to fill after SS kicks in.

I don't see how you have enough saved to generate 120k/yr, especially since you'll be eating away more at the beginning.

meggacat said:   My SSI, combined with my wife and my small pension will be 62K per year. I need to use my 1.2M in some combination of investment(annuity?) and other mechanisms to get another 60K each year for 25 yrs.....the guaranteed 6% from the annuity is attractive for say, 500K investment, and then use the balance of the 1.2m as required to meet the goal. I have no desire to spend hours per day trying to invest funds in the market...most probably screwing that up.

khw1 said:   RBirns said:   The SunAmerica product guarantees you can withdraw a certain amount for the rest of your life, even if your money actually runs out. If you invest $500K, that becomes your "income base". Your money is invested in your choice of separate accounts, similar to mutual funds. It will go up and down like any other fund. For the first 12 years, if you do not take any income, they will lock in the investment gains for the year or 6%, whichever is higher. That becomes your new income base. This means that if you leave it alone, your income base will at least double after 12 years.

Worst case example, your $500K is set on fire the next day. You will still be able to take withdrawals of 5.5% of that income base for the rest of your life. If you wait until after year 12, in that example, your income base will have grown to $1M, even though the actual value is zero. You would be able to withdraw $55K for the rest of your life. More positive example, your investments do well and grow to $1.1M in 10 years (8.2% annual). Then the market crashes and your account falls to $600K. Your income base is still $1.1M. It's now year 11 and you need income. You can begin withdrawing $60,500 a year ($1.1M x 5.5%) for the rest of your life. These withdrawals now represent about 10% of your actual account value. You will almost certainly run out of money withdrawing so much, but your contract guarantees that you will keep getting $60,500 every year even if that happens.

Key thing to know is that all the guarantees of the annuity are about future income. You are not "earning" 6% a year on your money. That is only a guarantee of how much your future income will be based on. If you want to walk away, you would only get your actual account value, less any surrender charge. There are costs involved for this annuity (figure 2-3% a year), but for someone looking to guarantee future growth and lifetime income, those costs may be money well spent. Just know what you are buying.


So, if there are fees of 2% - 3%/year, does this mean you are really getting a return of 3% - 4%/year?



Again, you are not getting a "return". Your income base is guaranteed to grow 6% a year (if no withdrawals are taken) regardless of fees. The fees come out of the actual investment account, so they affect your actual account value.

lokimoki said:   Probably a non-issue here, but inherited annuities are taxable income to the inheritor, less the cost basis of the annuity.

This will be an IRA so it is taxed the same as any other IRA.

Sadly I run into this situation all the time. Luckily OP didn't just sign on the dotted line like most others do when either a broker says guaranteed 6%, or more likely, they understand it as guaranteed 6%.

some have already explained it properly, but for my explanation read on:

This annuity is only paying you back your own money until you receive $500,000.01. It is a tool to reduce your reliance on your portfolio by giving you a pension like income stream that can never go down, never go away, but can sometimes (rarely) go up. It suits the conservative investor who wants to insure that his retirement income will always show up, at the expense of some high fees. It should be used for a portion of savings. Imagine OP gets sold on 6% and puts his entire 401k balance in there and has an emergency a year later and needs a large chunk of money. Hello surrender fees.

The sunamerica annuity has stages. The growth stage and the income stage.

In the growth stage the OP is not taking a check from the annuity. In return, the annuity statement will show two different big numbers. One is called the account value (lets call that your walkaway money) which is invested in non guaranteed mutual funds, the other is your guaranteed income base (you can not walk away with this money). Sunamerica is saying thhey will grow your income base by at least 6% for the purpose of future income. In fact they say that your $500k income base will be worth 1mm for future income in 12 years at the worst case. But guess what... You are also 12 years older aka 12 years closer to death aka 12 years less that they have to pay income to you. They would love if your 500k grew to 5mm on the income base, you die and never touch it, and they pay your account value to your wife all whilex collecting 3% annually in fees.

Lets skip to the income stage which is what the annuity SHOULD be all about. This annuity is saying OP can take 5.5% of his income base as income annually. His OWN money. O P wants to enter this stage right away from what I understand. Doing so the 6% guarantee goes away. He will take $27500 a year worst case scenario. Assuming a flat market he will finally be in the insurance companies pockets in year 19. In a negative market he will be in the insurance companies pockets sooner. In a positive market, the most likely scenario, he would have been better off saving the fees and investing normally.

Hope that helps. I sell these from time to time for the right reasons. If you have more questions feel free to PM.

dhodson said:   Lurker please list these products the OP should consider and explain why this is better than deferring social security including increased spousal benefit.

I didn't comment on SS deferral, only on comparing the OP's mentioned product with the most utilized one in the country. And I'm not making any type of recommendation, just advocating googling.


Sechs said: My advice on annuities is always "don't."
When anyone says "always," they're always wrong.
See what I did there?

In any case, OP, you should read some researched articles that may help you discount what I, or any other anonymous Internet-person might "feel."



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954004576089761...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324162304578304491...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704681904576317351...

oh you cant list even one product that the OP or someone in his situation should be considering....how interesting....

You advocate googling for other insurance products even though deferral of SS is highly likely a superior alternative...how interesting.

i agree that always shouldnt be used...its more like almost always.

I have been reading the posts here and have learned much from everyone. Special thanks to Brody, RBirns and Alexe82 for bringing the clarity I sorely needed.

alexe82 said:   In a positive market, the most likely scenario, he would have been better off saving the fees and investing normally.
[/thread]

Since its an IRA Annuity does carry the benefit of passing on to beneficiaries upon death like an IRA?

CheapFish said:   Since its an IRA Annuity does carry the benefit of passing on to beneficiaries upon death like an IRA?
Only if it hasn't been annuitized.

Psycho41 said:   alexe82 said:   In a positive market, the most likely scenario, he would have been better off saving the fees and investing normally.
[/thread]
The whole point of an annuity is to prevent a situation where you outlive your money, which is significantly more likely to happen if you encounter market downturns. So, a statement that in a positive market you'd be better off without an annuity does not come even close to ending the thread.

Having said that, I do certainly agree that the OP appears to have a profound misunderstanding of the terms of this annuity. This does not necessarily mean that an annuity would be inappropriate for him/her, although with or without an annuity I do not see a way for them to achieve the level of income that they are seeking.

CheapFish said:   Since its an IRA Annuity does carry the benefit of passing on to beneficiaries upon death like an IRA?

It isn't "like an IRA". It is an IRA. It has the exact same tax rules as any other IRA. The taxation of a non-qualified annuity has nothing to do with the taxation of a qualified annuity.

Psycho41 said:   alexe82 said:   In a positive market, the most likely scenario, he would have been better off saving the fees and investing normally.
[/thread]


It's not quite so simple. I used to sell quite a few variable annuities. They used to be better than they are now. Anyway, we often forget that it's about investor performance and not investment performance.

Here's an example of how I used to use them:

"Jim" wants his $100,000 to grow to $200,000 over the next 10 years. His risk tolerance is fairly low. If he invests in inexpensive index funds, he can't stomach the ups and downs. If he invests conservatively, his goal can't be reached. Instead, he invests in a VA with a 10 year 0% GMAB.

If the total fees are 2%, he will under perform a comparable index fund by close to 2% a year. However, that could never be a legitimate option for him because of his risk tolerance. The VA gives him a chance to reach his goal and he can handle the risk because he is guaranteed to have $100,000 in 10 years regardless of what happens in the market.

geo123 said:   Psycho41 said:   alexe82 said:   In a positive market, the most likely scenario, he would have been better off saving the fees and investing normally.
[/thread]
The whole point of an annuity is to prevent a situation where you outlive your money, which is significantly more likely to happen if you encounter market downturns. So, a statement that in a positive market you'd be better off without an annuity does not come even close to ending the thread.

Having said that, I do certainly agree that the OP appears to have a profound misunderstanding of the terms of this annuity. This does not necessarily mean that an annuity would be inappropriate for him/her, although with or without an annuity I do not see a way for them to achieve the level of income that they are seeking.


That's the whole point of both lifetime annuitization and of guaranteed withdrawal benefits. However, that isn't necessarily the whole point of buying an annuity.

Price out a joint survivor inflation adjusted SPIA with $1M bought at age 66. How much income can you get? Add that to your SS and pension. Does that add up to $120,000 per year? My guess is not quite. What that tells me is even under the best case scenario, you can't afford your plan until you are at least 66, certainly not at age 61, and only then if you are willing to annuitize your life savings. In other words keep working or reduce expenses or both.

Psycho41 said:   alexe82 said:   In a positive market, the most likely scenario, he would have been better off saving the fees and investing normally.
[/thread]


Annuities such as these are not about positive markets. They're about volatile or negative markets. They are designed to provide a safety net for retirement funds. That safety comes with a cost. For the investor that needs that safety, the cost is justified. There is no other financial product that provides such guarantees. For the investor who does not care about guaranteed safety, it is not the right product.

I ran $1,000,000 for a 66 year old man married to a 66 year old woman with 100% survivor benefits through the quotation machine and got an annual payment of $54,864. The pension is $17,000 so that is $72,000. You're looking for $48,000 of SS income. In addition, this annuity quote is not inflation adjusted; it'll be a smaller benefit if it is. I don't know if your pension is inflation adjusted, either.

In order to get $1,000,000 you somehow have to get $1,200,000 out of your 401k in the next five years; depending on your deductions it'll be tough to pay only $200,000 of taxes on that.

You also are a victim-in-waiting of long term care costs. What is your plan for that?

RBirns said:   Psycho41 said:   alexe82 said:   In a positive market, the most likely scenario, he would have been better off saving the fees and investing normally.
[/thread]


Annuities such as these are not about positive markets. They're about volatile or negative markets. They are designed to provide a safety net for retirement funds. That safety comes with a cost. For the investor that needs that safety, the cost is justified. There is no other financial product that provides such guarantees. For the investor who does not care about guaranteed safety, it is not the right product.


Tell me more about the "cost is justified". I am not arguing with you and I haven't looked at these for awhile. I used to find lots of cases with the cost being justified. That simply isn't the case as far as I can tell any longer, but I can be wrong.

I am looking at this from a couple different angles.
1)The investment mix is limited which means that the growth possibility is limited. (These used to be able to be purchased with 100% equities.)
2)A big part of the expenses is based upon a mythical value and not the accumulation value.

So, let's imagine that someone is buying this product wanting money 10 years into the future. The income base increases 6% a year (or more) and therefore, the cost of the rider is going to increase 6% or more a year. If the income base is increasing greater than the accumulation value, the product gets more expensive (as a %) every year.

Ex. "Jim" buys this product and the total costs are 3%. Let's assume that this is 2% of the accumulation value + 1% of the income value.

For ease, let's pretend that Jim invests $100,000 and his portfolio grows at 6%, but after expenses it works out to 3%. At the 10 year mark, his accumulation value will be $134,000 and his income value will be $179,000. If the product allows 5.5% withdrawals, this will equal $9845. His expenses for the year will be approximately 2% of $134,000 +1% of $179,000 = $4470. This means that the expense ratio is now 3.3% instead of 3%. Let's assume that the market has a bad year and drops about 10%. This combined with his withdrawal takes his accumulation value down to about $110,000. His total expenses would then be $2,200 + $1790 = $3990 which increases the expense ratio to 3.6%.

In short, the more that the product needs to rely on the guarantees, the more expensive the product becomes, which, in turn, makes it more likely that all that the person will get is exactly what is guaranteed.

If someone needs money now, they are usually better off in a SPIA. If someone needs future income, they are usually better off investing based upon their risk tolerance and then purchasing a SPIA in the future.

I wrote all of this because I could be wrong and there are some situations in which this can make sense, but I think that it would take an unusual fact pattern.

The guarantee that your initial investment will double appears to apply only when you have not taken any withdrawals from the account for 12 years. You will not be able to do this inside your IRA if you are required to take minimum distributions, which start the year you turn 70.5. So, at least keep another IRA funded so that you can use that for RMD if you are going to wait the full 12 years to get your initial investment doubled.

I don't see how you can get the current income that you desire by deferring a large chunk of it for 12 years. With 1.2 million, and the need to get 1.5 million from that over a 25 year time frame, you have no need to buy an insurance product to get you this income stream.

As an alternative (or complement) to annuities - bond laddering. Also I might consider the idea that money is better spent at age 60 than at 70 1/2 or later. Not sure why 120K/year is the target but it would seem to require more risk, or active investing (e.g. buying rental property).

Is it me... Or does $120k per year in retirement seem a bit extravagant with only 1.2mil save at age 60?
It seems like you maybe didn't save enough for the lifestyle you wanted to continue to live in retirement. Were both of you working and contributing to 401k's the last 30-40 years? I am assuming you have had a household income the last 20 years that has generated more than $120k and maybe could have save a bit more. I know many people with 1 income of less than $100k that have accumulated more than $1.2 mil through diligent investements and will also live on much less than $100k a year in retirement. At age 60 you could easily live another 20-25 years and I don't see $1.2 mill growing and stretching past 15-20 years. Maybe scale back the spending and delay retirement by a few years like someone else had mentioned may make the last few years of life a bit more comfortable... Then again... If you have children you can move in with when you have exhausted your savings.... Go for it....

letsspendlotsofmoney said:   Is it me... Or does $120k per year in retirement seem a bit extravagant with only 1.2mil save at age 60?
It seems like you maybe didn't save enough for the lifestyle you wanted to continue to live in retirement. Were both of you working and contributing to 401k's the last 30-40 years? I am assuming you have had a household income the last 20 years that has generated more than $120k and maybe could have save a bit more. I know many people with 1 income of less than $100k that have accumulated more than $1.2 mil through diligent investements and will also live on much less than $100k a year in retirement. At age 60 you could easily live another 20-25 years and I don't see $1.2 mill growing and stretching past 15-20 years. Maybe scale back the spending and delay retirement by a few years like someone else had mentioned may make the last few years of life a bit more comfortable... Then again... If you have children you can move in with when you have exhausted your savings.... Go for it....

It's way too much even using a safe withdraw rate of 4% -- that's $48,000 + pension + Social Security.

stanolshefski said:   letsspendlotsofmoney said:   Is it me... Or does $120k per year in retirement seem a bit extravagant with only 1.2mil save at age 60?
It seems like you maybe didn't save enough for the lifestyle you wanted to continue to live in retirement. Were both of you working and contributing to 401k's the last 30-40 years? I am assuming you have had a household income the last 20 years that has generated more than $120k and maybe could have save a bit more. I know many people with 1 income of less than $100k that have accumulated more than $1.2 mil through diligent investements and will also live on much less than $100k a year in retirement. At age 60 you could easily live another 20-25 years and I don't see $1.2 mill growing and stretching past 15-20 years. Maybe scale back the spending and delay retirement by a few years like someone else had mentioned may make the last few years of life a bit more comfortable... Then again... If you have children you can move in with when you have exhausted your savings.... Go for it....

It's way too much even using a safe withdraw rate of 4% -- that's $48,000 + pension + Social Security.


I heard Bernie might have a few annuities that are returning around 15%.... Very solid investments...



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014