Whole Life Insurance
“It’s only money…” has no place in decisions about family finances
How many times have you heard someone say, “Let’s buy it! It’s only fifty bucks. We’ll save twenty-five dollars!”
Good Grief! There is no “only” when you are dealing with your personal finances. The automobile salesperson might want you to believe that the car you are considering is only $15,000 and, since the sticker price is $20,000, you are saving $5,000.
Savings are only savings when you put them into an account that you control.
If, instead of spending it, you put your $15,000 in your family bank–regardless of the form that bank takes–it would compound to nearly $65,000.00 in 30 years at 5%. If you add the $5,000 you saved, you’d have improved your family finances by almost $90,000 from a single decision to not save-by-buying.
Americans make those kinds of savings decisions frequently but on a smaller scale – say $50 twelve times a year. Compound those dollars over 30 years and your family finances will be a lot closer to fifty grand than fifty bucks.
Every penny counts.
“Only” fifty bucks? It’s self-deception. The old adage “every penny counts” is still in common use because it’s true.
We all tend to convince ourselves that our buying decisions are wise regardless of the reality those decisions impose on us when it comes to our family finances. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the world to tell ourselves “It’s only…”.
The next time you think you are saving money by buying a product on sale, ask yourself if the product you are buying and the amount you are “saving” is really worth it. (Often it will be. Americans have the most enviable lifestyle in the world and EUREKONOMICS™ does not espouse a life of deprivation.)
EUREKONOMICS™
EUREKONOMICS™ espouses the economic principles and financial practices that the Founders and Builders of America paid forward to us. These principles and practices have been twisted and manipulated by the Behemoths–big government, unions, banks, investment firms, etc.–to serve their aims and not those of the American people.
Remember – only money is money. For everything else–your 401(k), IRA, mutual funds, investments, and so on–you have to spend your money, and worse, relinquish control of your family finances to strangers.
When you’re closer to pushing up daises than doing fifty push-ups, having cash and income instead of the stuff you bought will be a blessing. Tennessee Williams expressed it best over half a century ago:
“You can be young without money but you can’t be old without it.”
PS – There is one purchase that Americans can make to assure…
- the safety of their family finances
- tax-free growth every year
- they never incur a loss
- their cash is accessible at all times without penalties or restriction:
participating whole life insurance from a mutual company.
Inaccurate Is Not OK…
A client recently sent me a copy of an email received from an insurance agent promoting whole life insurance policies from a specific life insurance company. The primary goal of the original email seemed to be to demonstrate that one form of dividend calculation on whole life insurance policies is better than another.
The email from the agent was inaccurate and therefore misleading. I have no doubt the agent was convinced that the information in the email was correct or that s/he was operating in good faith. However, my client asked me to confirm or deny the claims in the email and I felt compelled to clarify the inaccuracies as much as possible.
The exercise of clarifying the issues raised in the email are meaningful so I am repeating my response here and expanding on it as needed.
The original email content is in standard type. My responses are indented, bold, in italics, and preceded by my initials in brackets thus [JR].
Two Types of Mutual Insurance Companies…
There are two types of Mutual Insurance companies . They are called direct recognition and non-direct recognition. I have policies in both these types of companies.
[JR] Actually there are direct recognition mutual companies and mutual holding companies and non-direct recognition mutual companies and mutual holding companies.
If a company is structured as a mutual company or a mutual holding company is as significant as whether it pays dividends on a direct recognition or non-direct recognition basis.
Direct Recognition VS Indirect Recognition
Non-Direct Recognition…
Non-Direct means the policy owner receives the same dividend rate no matter how many dollars he has borrowed from the insurance company using his death benefit as collateral.
[JR] Well, that’s not exactly correct. Actually, the policy’s cash value is the primary collateral used when a policy loan option is exercised by a policy owner. One cannot borrow more than a whole life policy’s currently unencumbered cash value.
Death benefit only comes into play in the event of death.
So you may have borrowed $10,000 whereas another policy owner borrowed $100,000 but you both earn the same dividend rate.
[JR] The statement is true as far as it goes. However, it ignores the fact that the policy owner that borrowed $100,000 would pay a lot more interest to the insurer than the policy owner that borrowed only $10,000.
In both cases, the interest paid by the policy owners–one to a greater extent than the other–would add to the surplus of the insurer; and the company pays dividends from its’ surplus is where dividends come from
Or you may not have borrowed anything but you would still earn the same dividend as someone else who has borrowed and is using that borrowed money to earn even more profit somewhere else.
[JR] The unasked question is, “Why is that a bad deal for anyone?” Some indirect recognition companies have followed this pattern for over a century.
(As an aside, what the devil difference does it make what the policy owner is doing with the money s/he borrowed from the policy that s/he owns? Sorta sounding like a Robin Hood argument.)
Direct Recognition…
Direct means the company determines the dividend rate according to policy holders fair share
[JR] This statement is irresponsible. It assumes the indirect companies dividend paying practices are unfair to their policy owners.
Should indirect recognition companies like Mass Mutual be ashamed after over 100 uninterrupted years paying top dividends? How unfair!
according to how many dollars he has borrowed from the insurance company’s general fund using his death benefit as collateral.
[JR] There you go again Mr/Ms Agent…it’s cash value not death benefit that is the primary collateral used to back a policy loan.
The higher the amount of dollars on loan to you does mean you will receive a lower dividend rate.
[JR] Ah! A moment of clarity. It’s true. Direct recognition companies apply a lower dividend rate to those policies that have loans outstanding.
The obvious conclusion according to this agent is that a policy owner that plans to exercise the right to take policy loans granted by his or her policy–a binding contract–an indirect recognition company may not be the best option.
Now, why does this matter? Well, it doesn’t really matter a whole lot
[JR] Another brief moment of clarity. Often the difference between the performance of non-direct recognition policies and direct recognition policies is not significant enough to make it a deciding factor on a buying decision.
But…if it doesn’t matter, why the epistle?
but some insurance agents use the fact that a company is a non-direct company as a selling point when trying to sell someone a policy.
[JR] OK…now i know why. Mr/MS Agent in this epistle uses the direct recognition dividend practices to promote the sale of policies for their direct recognition companies.
The Banking Concept
But it is good to understand that an insurance company makes money using the velocity of cash flow,
[JR] If a policy owner-borrower is being what R. Nelson Nash, formulator of the Infinite Banking Concept™, calls “an honest banker,” the insurer has very good cash flow.
If the policy owner fails to repay the loan and the interest, the insurer uses the policy’s cash value, which was used as collateral, to repay the interest and protect the other policy owners/borrowers. If the policy cash value is all used to pay premiums and/or interest, the policy lapses.
just like a bank does.
[JR] Insurance companies, like banks, use the money that policy owners pay in premiums and interest to make loans and enter safe and conservative joint ventures. That much is accurate.
However, insurance companies do not act “just like banks.” Banks work for shareholders not depositors. Mutual insurance companies and a holding company’s mutual insurance company work exclusively for the benefit of policy owners.
If you have your money sitting in a 5 or 10 year CD at the bank, the bank knows that it has a set amount of money that it can lend over and over and over again during that set period of time. An insurance company does the same thing
[JR] Banks operate on a completely different set of principles and rules than insurance companies. Insurers do not do “exactly” the same thing.
Banks operate on money that they derive from depositors . In addition, they have access to a form of ”matching funds” from the Federal Reserve Bank. Therefore, the banks can actually lend up to ten time the amount of money they have received from depositors!
Insurance companies limit themselves to using only the money they have on hand.
The Velocity of Money – Sorta…
You pay your premium and it can lend an amount of money over and over and over again for a lifetime. However, if YOU borrow money from your life insurance company, now they can no longer velocitize that money.
[JR] An insurance company can only lend up to the limit of its cash available excluding reserves. Insurance companies cannot leverage FED funds to increase the amount they can lend. That’s not at all the same as a bank.
In fact, if the insurer lends money to Home Depot they cannot “velocitize” (not a recognized word in any dictionary) the money either, nor can they leverage through fractional banking like a commercial bank.
Instead, you are now in control to velocitize your own money.
[JR] The insurance company is in fact “velocitizing” the money by charging the policy owner a competitive interest rate and—again—by contract, the policy owner is always in control of the cash value in a whole life insurance policy.
Moreover, because a whole life policy is a contract with borrowing provisions decided by the insurer, the burden is contractually on the insurer to make sure it makes money for all of its policy owners and not one more than others—and that’s true for both direct and indirect recognition companies.
The Attempted Deception Falls apart
However, one must consider this fact. How long will an insurance company be able to stay in business if a large portion of their policy owners are receiving an unfair share of the profits?
[JR] Hmmm – how is it possible for a policy owner to receive an “unfair share of the profits” by being charged a fair interest rate under contract terms determined by the insurer. Robin Hood again?
Again, does that put Mass Mutual—100+ years old—and never missing a dividend at more risk than a direct recognition company like Northwestern Mutual—also over a century old with a great dividend record?
Who actually owns the insurance company again? The policy owners. That would be YOU.
[JR] This is accurate when description of mutual companies. Although mutual holding companies “operate” as mutuals, the holding company–not just policy owners–holds significant interests in the mutual insurance company.
That is not an indictment of the mutual holding companies. It’s merely an attempt to bring clarity where none exists.
Some of the non-direct recognition companies restrict the number of loans, or the amount one can take as a loan or the number of policies one can own etc.
[JR] I’ve not experienced that in 40 years of dealing with a wide variety of insurance companies of both types except when the insurance company was in receivership–and that happened only twice that I know of.
(Tell me who you are talking about so I can avoid them.)
Do you want to have a policy that restricts your capital availability?
[JR] This is a cheap shot and poor salesmanship. I know of no direct or non-direct company that issues a contract that says the owner of a whole life policy cannot access to all of their cash value on demand.
Some non-direct recognition companies fire the agents that tell their clients about banking
[JR] This too is uncalled for. If an insurance company were to take this action, it would be grounds for a significant law suit by both the agents and the insureds. The insurer cannot deny rights granted by the insurer in a recognized contract.
and also some have been bought by stock companies and are in the process of converting from mutual to stock because too many of their customers were borrowing from their policies.
[JR] I’d like to know the names of those companies so I can confirm the claim, avoid doing business with them, and make sure the agents and advisors I deal with all across the US know about it.
The company I recommend is a direct recognition company.
[JR] Well – who woulda guessed! This agent is surely operating in good faith, but is in dire need of information, knowledge, and wisdom.
by Jeffrey Reeves MA, EUREKONOMIST™
Web Site of Extreme Value…
I have frequently quoted or referred to Mises.org
The Ludwig von Mises Institute was founded in 1982 as the research and educational center of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and the Austrian School of economics
I am especially interested in the economics aspects of the institute. The following article by Robert P. Murphy is one of the clearest explanations of the insurance function that I have personally ever read…and I’ve read many.
The Social Function of Insurance
Legal requirements and prudence require most adults to carry various insurance policies. Although we may often take insurance for granted, it serves a valuable social function.
Read the article here…
The Social Function of Life and Disability Insurance Products
You and I daily face the risks of our own death and disability. That creates great risk for our families, our co-workers, our social, civic, and religious networks.
You and I are not indispensable, but we are contributors and we are often unaware of the significance of the contributions we make. Our families in particular rely on us in ways that death benefits or disability income checks can never replace.
Not owning adequate life and disability insurance ignores the reality that we support our families spiritually, emotionally, physically, and financially. It also ignores the painful reality that our families would face in every aspect of their lives if we left them with inadequate financial support when we die or–perhaps worse–burdened them with care-giving responsibilities and not enough money to either give care to a disabled family member or take care of the basic needs of the household.
In addition, we often are completely unaware of the value we bring to our social, civic, and religious communities. Have you never found an unexpected vacuum created by the untimely death of one of your colleagues at work or a member of your social circle? Sometimes we don’t recognize contributions until they are no longer made.
Insurance provides us with a simple and inexpensive way to assure that the work we do every day can continue after our death or in the event of our disability. Businesses have realized this for over a century through the use of key person insurance policies that assure the business will continue to thrive if the contributions of its most important contributors is cut short.
I encourage you to make sure you provide the same assurance to your family and the communities that depend on you.
by Jeffrey Reeves MA, EUREKONOMIST™
EUREKONOMICSTM is based on investment principles that are as old as money and as current as the 21st century.
Benjamin Graham, the Dean of Wall Street was Warren Buffett’s mentor. Graham stated this principle in one concise sentence in his classic works, Security Analysis (1934) and The Intelligent Investor (1949)…
“An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative.”
When look at the meaning of this sentence within the framework of EUREKONOMICSTM you discover that…
- EUREKONOMICSTM relies on the promise of safety of principal as the primary consideration when it comes to investing the money that enters your life
- The EUREKONOMICSTM‘ corollaries to the promise of safety of principal are…
- whatever you think of as a satisfactory return has support that basic premise
- an investment that doesn’t is not really an investment; it’s a speculation-in simpler terms it’s a gamble
Graham’s Promise of Safety of Principal…
The the professionals in the insurance and financial services industry that act on your behalf tend to seek out the wealthiest Americans as clients. That has an unintended consequence. It creates a view of personal economics that applies mostly to the small percentage of the population that have already created family wealth.
That perception pervades the part of the industry that creates products as well, especially among financial businesses that create investment products and insurance products that have an investment component. As a result, many products that are called investments actually fall into the group that Benjamin Graham describes as speculative. They offer neither safety of principal nor a satisfactory return.
There’s another issue. You can project a satisfactory return on an insurance or investment product by using higher than realistic interest or growth assumptions. However, for many of the financial products available in the market today the facts surrounding the real returns of actual investments held by everyday Americans do not support a claim to safety of principal and satisfactory returns.
Take mutual funds as an example. No registered representative would dare promise-as Benjamin Graham’s definition suggests-that an individual mutual fund could promise safety of principal and a satisfactory return. If they did, the regulators at FINRA would likely bring the advisor making such a claim before a disciplinary board to be tarred and feathered-figuratively of course.
However, financial advisors often suggest that hypothetically and “over the long term” this fund or that or some combination of funds assure safety and returns. Based on guidelines from the SEC and FINRA, as long as you complete a suitability form and a risk tolerance questionnaire, which protects the advisor and his or her firm from the overreaching arm of regulators in the event an investment fails, the safety of principal and satisfactory return promise requirement has been met.
Take a look at the performance of these types of investments and the losses Americans have suffered over the past decade. The tremendous American families have experienced have led to only a few disciplinary actions-and those mostly for thieves running ponzi schemes.
The Promise Fulfilled…
Insurance and financial advisors are not in any way irresponsible or engaging in deceptive practices. The problem is that most of the insurance and investment products that are available in the marketplace are designed to serve the needs of investors and speculators that can afford to take risks-and losses. These financial products are not designed to help the vast majority of Americans seeking to attain wealth regardless of what the manufacturers of these products would have us think.
It’s easy to recognize the truth of this assertion. Look at your own financial progress. I’ve been practicing for almost forty years and have met only a handful of people that started out with wealth. Most Americans have gained wealth by struggling for years to…
- educate ourselves about saving, investing, risk management, etc.
- build equity in
- our homes
- our businesses
- our insurance policies and savings accounts
Almost every person and every insurance and financial advisor I have met can relate to this idea. Why then would anyone suggest that everyday Americans follow any other path to wealth? I’ll leave that answer up to each individual to discuss with their insurance and investment advisor.
However, I caution you…conventional wisdom-which is not wisdom at all-will rear its ugly head and suggest that advisors are fools if they rely for wealth creation for themselves and their clients on…
- financial education
- building equity in prosaic things like…
- homes
- savings accounts
- whole life insurance policies-especially whole life insurance policies
- a strongly rooted recognition that their clients deserve nothing less
The Final Word
There is no financial product that will make you wealthy.
There is, however, one financial product that guarantees that you will have more money in it at the end of each year than you had at the beginning of the year and that should be the foundation for your successful personal economy.
That product is participating whole life insurance from a mutual insurance company.
It’s only money…
How many times have you heard someone say, “Let’s buy it! It’s only fifty bucks. We’ll save twenty-five dollars!” Good Grief! There is no “only” when you are dealing with your money. Moreover, savings are only savings when you put them into an account that you control.
If, instead of spending it, you put your fifty bucks in your family bank–regardless of the form that bank takes–it would compound to nearly $300.00 in 30 years at 6%. If you add the 25 bucks you saved, you’d have over $450.00 from a single decision to not save by buying something.
Americans make those kinds of savings decisions frequently – say 12 times a year. Compound those dollars over a few decades and the total is over $5,000.00. Do it every year for 30 years… you’ll be a lot closer to fifty grand than fifty bucks.
“Only” fifty bucks? It’s self-deception. The old adage “every penny counts” is still in common use because it’s true. We all tend to convince ourselves that our buying decisions are wise regardless of the reality those decisions impose on us when it comes to our money. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the world to tell ourselves “It’s only…”.
“Human felicity is produced not so much by great pieces of fortune that seldom happen as by little advantages that occur every day.” Benjamin Franklin
The next time you think you are saving money buying any product–on sale or not–ask yourself if the product you are buying and the money you are “saving” is really worth it. Often it will be. EUREKONOMICS™ does not espouse a life of deprivation. Americans have the most enviable lifestyle in the world and it’s not a sin to maintain and improve that lifestyle.
EUREKONOMICS™ does espouse the economic principles and financial practices that the Founders and Builders of America and its economy paid forward to us. These principles and practices have been twisted and manipulated by the Behemoths–big government, unions, banks, investment firms, etc.–to serve their aims and not those of the American people.
Remember – only money is money. For everything else–your 401(k), IRA, mutual funds, investments, and so on–you have to spend your money, and worse, relinquish control of that money to strangers. When you’re closer to pushing up daises than doing fifty push-ups, having money instead of the stuff you bought will be a blessing.
This isn’t a new idea. Tennessee Williams expressed it over half a century ago:
“You can be young without money but you can’t be old without it.”
PS – There is one purchase that Americans can make to assure their money is safe, grows tax-free every year, never incurs a loss, and is accessible at all times without penalties or restriction: participating whole life insurance from a mutual company.
America and the world have received a legacy of wisdom and wealth but have squandered it as pointed out in this post from HubPages.com…
Shakespeare, Franklin, and Stanley Johnson
Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
William Shakespeare, “Hamlet”, Act 1 scene 3 – Greatest English dramatist & poet (1564 – 1616)
“But, ah! think what you do when, I you run I in debt you give to another power over your Liberty.”
Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanac, c. 1758
“…How do I do it? I’m in debt up to my eyeballs. I can barely pay the finance charges. Somebody help me.”
Stanly Johnson, Lending Tree commercial, c.2005
Amazing…
It seems Stanley Johnson–and the rest of America, including the Dolts in DC–paid little attention to the wisdom that Shakespeare and Franklin bequeathed to us centuries ago as a legacy.
Instead, Stanley was seduced by the Siren Song composed in the late 20th Century by the Wonks of Wall Street and the Wannabes in Washington. The lyrics go something like this:
Get stuff you don’t own.
Borrow to buy it.
That proves your true worth.
Debt’s a good diet.
“Invest” - do not save.
Give us all your money.
Become our good slave.
Your life will be sunny.
Having stuff you don’t own and “owning” investments you don’t control is a sure road to servitude, poverty, and the loss of liberty. It is devoid of common sense and lacks an economic foundation.
This is conventional wisdom and I call it The Debt Paradigm.
The problem here is that true intelligence–common sense–sees all sides in a debate. On the other hand, pseudo-smarts embrace a theory, elevate it on an ideological altar, and protect it by demonizing anyone that interjects a competing or alternate view.
History abounds with examples…
- The Romans of Caligula’s reign
- Crusaders that ravaged both the Jews of Europe and the Muslims of Arabia
- Nazi Germans
- Modern day Islamic fanatics that demonize Jews and Americans equally
- Crazed religious fanatics of Iran
- Corrupt unions like the SEIU
- Misguided ACORN workers
- The list could be endless and include every religion and government
There is only one way to deal with ideologies that demand absolute adherence–and the Debt Paradigm is such an ideology–and that is to get real , challenge the assumptions, prove the alternatives, wake up the ideologues to the untruths that are leading them where the LEADERS want them to go.
There are strategies that allow you to personally escape The Debt Paradigm and gain control of the money that flows through your life. One source of information about a unique approach to this dilemma of the 21st Century is found in the life-changing book Money for Life. I encourage you to read it.
It’s 2010. You can find information about every conceivable topic by doing a simple search using any one of a dozen or so search engines: Google, Yahoo, Bing, MSN, etc..
Unfortunately, much of the information you find on any given topic is biased in favor of products you can buy on the listed web sites. Other information is only tangentially relevant and some is just plain silly.
Fortunately, there are sites that provide clear and unbiased information and descriptions of the products they promote. Finding them is not all that easy.
I recently discovered a site that has, in at least one category, done a superlative job of discussing the features and benefits of both whole life insurance and universal life insurance. I heartily recommend this enlightening discussion to you. You can find it at http://www.insurancespecialists.com/life-insurance/whole-universal/
I can’t vouch for the rest of the content on this site, but you may also want to look around to see if it addresses as clearly other topics that interest you . The site deals with a broad spectrum of insurance products and provides links to recognizable providers such as MET, GEICO, and Liberty Mutual. It also links to notable brokerage operations like eHealthInsurance, which represents leading companies such as Anthem BCBS, Aetna, Kaiser, Humana, CIGNA, Celtic, UHC and others.
The Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards stated mission is “to benefit the public by granting the CFP® certification and upholding it as the recognized standard of excellence for personal financial planning.” The CFP Board’s web site discusses and defines financial planning as “the process of meeting your life goals through the proper management of your finances.”
Here’s the contradiction. Planning is one thing. Management is another thing altogether. Planning may be a prerequisite to managing personal finances but it is not the process itself.
Planning is a map-making process. Map-making is done from an aloof and uninvolved position using esoteric engineering tools to describe real terrain in abstract terms. Managing is what you have to do when you come to the river on the map and discover that there is no way to cross the turbulent waters at that particular point because last week’s flood washed away the bridge on last month’s map.
Financial planning, as described and defined by the CFP® training program, is akin to map-making. The planner is not actively involved in the “the process of meeting [a clients] life goals through the proper management of [their] finances.” The planner’s role is to recommend and sell financial products and advisory services that may or may not actually support the goals of the client during the management phase.
There are, of course, ethical standards to which each CFP® must adhere. There are also practice standards that the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc. and other regulatory powers impose and enforce. Add to that the burden of the standards and rules of conduct imposed by bureaucratic regulatory agencies such as FINRA and these collectively impose a set of “established norms of practice” on the planner that often restrict the options the planner may present to the client.
The restrictions may not overtly deny a client the best option, but often direct the options along the “established norms of practice” and thereby deny the possibility of any other better-suited alternatives.
None of what I wrote above intends to demean either the designation or practices of those who legitimately profess themselves to be financial planners. It does intend to clarify that the entire process of planning and managing personal finances is shrouded by an imposing oversight structure and that this structure does not always provide Americans with the most appropriate personal financial advice or products.
Case on Point…
Over the past decade, I have met with and trained hundreds of insurance and financial advisors in life insurance and Series 6 pre-licensing, and a wide variety of continuing education topics including ethics.
- Almost every one of these professionals assumed that investing is an appropriate – perhaps essential – part of every American’s personal financial program – an idea that Behemoths in government and on Wall Street slowly injected into the American psyche over the past 30 years.
- One-hundred percent of them assumed that contributing to a 401(k) or its equivalent was the starting point for every personal financial management program – another idea that slithered into our collective psyche in just the past 20 odd years.
- Fewer than one in ten of these – ahem – professionals (not referring specifically to CFPs®) understood the most basic concepts relating to participating whole life insurance, mutual insurance companies, or even the life insurance products they sold most – universal life insurance.
- Only a handful understood the most elemental economic principles that clearly indicate that participating whole life insurance is the best and safest foundation for virtually every personal financial management plan.
One can more easily grasp the reasons for this strange set of facts when one reviews the history of personal financial management in America since 1974, a history that illustrates the slow erosion of control of personal wealth from the pond of individuals to the oceans of government and Wall Street.
Conclusion…
I am often accused of being “down on” financial planners. Not true. I am down on lemming-like robotic adherence to “established norms of practice” that have misled Americans into a financial swamp that consumes both their money and their liberty while denying the validity of more conservative and viable financial management strategies.
Financial planning is an oxymoron when it denies the use of planning tools and strategies at the expense of individual wealth and liberty.
by Jeffrey Reeves youBEthebank.com
I recently received this question from Christine:
Hi Jeffrey,
I hear those whole life policys have huge fees, what are all the fees?
Here’s my initial answer…
Great question, Christine!
Unfortunately your question implies a common misunderstanding so lets clarify that issue first. Clarifying things may be enough, but if it isn’t feel free to question or comment further.
Whole life insurance policies have no fees associated with them other than a small (usually less than $60) “policy fee” that some insurance companies still charge when an application is submitted. Whole life policies do, however, have three variables that affect their financial performance…
- mortality, which is the guaranteed cost of the insurance, which guarantees the death benefit. If the insurer incurs extraordinary claims activity the non-guaranteed dividends are affected but the guaranteed elements are not
- administration, which are variable costs incurred managing the everyday business of the company
- actuarial, rate making, underwriting, general management
- policy issue, policyholder services, and ongoing accounting
- agency management, marketing, commissions, etc.
- investment returns, which pay for administration and create…
- the guaranteed cash values
- the non-guaranteed dividends
Whole life insurance policies have been manufactured and sold in America for over 150 years. These three variables are well understood and very closely managed. That allows mutual companies like Mass Mutual, New York Life, Ohio National Life and several others to perform consistently and predictably decade after decade, pay consistent dividends even during market crashes like the ones we have experienced this decade, and maintain the highest financial ratings possible for decades on end regardles of the performance of the general economy or the financial sector.
On the other hand, Universal life policies (first introduced into the market by stock brokers in the early ’80s), especially variable UL policies (introduced in the mid to late 90′s), and indexed UL policies (first introduced about 2002), have what you refer to as “huge fees.” While whole life policies guarantee the three major elements of life insurance contracts – premium, death benefit and cash value – UL products do not.
The fees in UL policies consist of…
- annually increasing cost of insurance (guaranteed to be level in whole life policies)
- variable administrative costs, which can increase (whole life policies control these costs so they only affect non-guaranteed dividends)
- cash accounts, in which the insurance company shares none of the risk, that decrease as well as increase (whole life policies guarantee these will increase every year)
Because of these factors, these policies are not recommended by the Eurekonomics’ Money for Life Model. That’s not to say they don’t have a place in the financial lives of some Americans. They may. However, they are not apporpriate as the foundation of one’s personal wealth and finances. Whole life insurance is.
Someone recently asked about FDIC insurance for the money in the “banks” suggested by the EUREKONOMICS’ Money for Life Modelfor creating wealth and managing personal finances, which recommends that each American should act as his/her own banker. (Some advisors refer to these as “family banks,” “infinite banks,” or “personal banks.” The use of the term “banks,” “banking,” and “being your own banker” is analogous to how one creates wealth and manages personal finances rather than a direct reference to commercial or chartered banks.)
The answer is…
You can use any savings product – or you can also use your mattress – as your “bank.” So, if you choose an FDIC insured product that’s where the insurance comes from.
However, over the past 100 years participating whole life insurance has proven to best serve those who follow the Eurekonomics’ Money for Life Model for creating wealth and managing personal finances. When your money is in participating whole life insurance, it is in the most secure place possible. All state insurance departments require that insurers maintain reserves adequate to cover the death benefits of the policies they have in force and those death benefits are significantly higher than the cash values. In addition, each state maintains a guarantee fund similar to the FDIC, which guarantees some or all of the cash values in existing policies in the event the insurer fails.
By the way, no American ever lost any of the guaranteed cash value of a participating whole life insurance policy, while many Americans have lost money that was held by commercial banks and especially money that was held in speculativeproducts like mutual funds, ETFs, managed accounts, etc. – aka casinos.
PS – I actually know a man that uses a cigar box hidden under a floor board as his bank. His pit-bull’s bed is over that spot. However, we don’t recommend using your mattress, a tin can in the back yard, or a cigar box and pit-bull as your “Bank.”
In 1974 the US Congress passed ERISA and began convincing Americans that saving money was a bad idea. The law they passed convinced us that investing [aka gambling] in an IRA or 401(k) was better than putting our money into guaranteed return savings vehicles. Americans listened. Wall Street and the IRS rejoiced.
In 1977 a high school coach convinced thousands of naive amateurs that they were financial advisors and taught them to strip every penny possible from secure whole life insurance policies and – you guessed it – buy term insurance and invest [aka gamble] everything else in mutual funds. Americans listened. Wall Street and the IRS rejoiced.
A few years later one of the Wall Streeters invented a new kind of life insurance that took the money that whole life insurance saved in guaranteed accounts and moved it into accounts that were not guaranteed but that the Wall Streeter could profit from even if the policy owner didn’t. These kinds of policies destroyed dozens of successful insurance companies and cost billions in lost savings to American families. Americans listened. Wall Street and the IRS rejoiced.
In the ensuing decades Americans listened to advice to invest [aka gamble] in dotcoms, invest [aka gamble] our home equity in all sorts of schemes. Americans were convinced that carrying debt equal to their investments [aka gambles] made some sort of sense. Americans listened. Wall Street, the IRS, and money lenders rejoiced.
BUNK – A THOUSAND TIMES OVER – BUNK!
“THE FACT THAT AN OPINION HAS BEEN WIDELY HELD DOESN’T MEAN THAT IT’S NOT UTTERLY ABSURD.” Bertrand Russell.
America has been listening to the wrong people for almost 40 years. The results are apparent. American families and the American government are bankrupt.
You and I can’t stop the Dolts in DC and the IRS from trying to convince us that they can handle our money better than we can, or the wonks on Wall Street from trying to sell us products that make them wealthy and us poor.
We can stop listening to them. Please, stop listening to the wrong people. Find old ways of creating wealth, preserving assets, and taking care of your families.
By Jeffrey Reeves MA – youBEthebank.com
ING To Review “Strategic Options” For U.S. Ops; May Shift Annuity Book
By ALLISON BELL
Published 4/9/2009, National Underwriter“ING Groep N.V. wants to reduce the scope of its U.S. operations ‘over time and as market conditions permit’…”
This post recounts an email exchange with a credentialed financial advisor. The content has not been modified but the name has been changed and the credentials eliminated to avoid implying that there is any relation between one advisors opinion and the position that might be taken by the credentialing body.
Stephen,
Thanks for your comments.
Although they do not open a discussion but rather, close the door on dialogue, I am responding in detail. [As you will likely recognize, Stephen's mind was made up before there was a chance to respond.]
Stephen The Stepford Advisor wrote:
“YouBeTheBank site recommends that individual purchase life insurance policies to accumulate funds which are then used to fund future activities.”
Specifically we recommend that clients purchase permanent cash value life insurance. We recommend further that they choose dividend paying policies from mutual companies. Please, take the time to read further in the blog and you’ll discover that we justify this approach in some detail. Better yet, order copies of Money for Life! How to Thrive in Good Times and Bad by Jeffrey Reeves [that's me] and Becoming Your Own Banker by R. Nelson Nash. You’ll discover the amazing power of this approach, as many other credentialed advisors have done.
Stephen The Stepford Advisor wrote:
“It fails to mention that the costs of owning the policies will be substantail,(sic)”
There are – of course – costs. Substantial? You might want to define that for yourself first and for your practice second. Many advisors find the approach not only helpful but essential to their practice and do not see the costs as either substantial or burdensome.
There is another aspect of this that you may want to consider. There are many different forms of permanent cash value life insurance available in the marketplace. Some carry a heavy cost burden while others do not. If you don’t know which policy is being used you do not know whether or not the cost is “substantial”. Whole life policies from mutual companies tend to be less costly. Universal lifepolicies tend to be more costly – especially when they are improperly funded. Term insurance policies tend to be the most expensive.
Stephen The Stepford Advisor wrote:
“as will the restrictions on the availablity(sic) of cash.”
Again, Stephen, you may not have all of the information you need. My clients can access all of the cash in their policies whenever they want it. There is a bit of a lag – a day or two for processing and mail time – since the request must be made through the insurer. Immediate needs are satisfied with overnight delivery. This is not uncommon for mutual companies that are responsible only to their policy owners and not to shareholders or other outsiders.
Stephen The Stepford Advisor wrote:
“The accumulation of funds should never be done with life insurance as the primary choice.”
My Grandpa told me to “never say never and always avoid always.” Your statement is a shibboleth – an oft repeated mantra that contains no truth but that has been repeated so many times that people assume it must be true. In 1492 the world was thought to be flat.
To a thinking person who truly explores this approach to creating and managing a personal economy, the opposite is true. Whole ife insurance belongs in the foundation of every personal economy. That was the opinion of most financial planners prior to the advent of EF Hutton creating UL, A. L. Williams brainwashing amateurs, and Wall Street’s merchants of misinformation misleading America into the mutual fund swamp beginning in the 1980’s.
For over 150 years, and still today, dividend paying whole life insurance has been and is the single best place to put the money you use as a foundation for your personal economy and wealth building system.
Stephen The Stepford Advisor wrote:
“Individuals who truly fear banks should buy treasury securities instead. There are no costs as a practical matter.”
Nowhere in our blog or our book do we state or imply that you should fear banks. In fact, the practices of Money for Life are based on the banking model. Treasuries, like all investments, are for the limited few who have already established a foundation. In addition, there are always (sorry Grandpa) costs. Most commonly ignored by Stepford Advisors is lost opportunity cost.
Stephen The Stepford Advisor wrote:
“Yet the fact is, if the bank is insured via FDIC, then for all practical purposes, the initial $100,00 is not at risk.”
True. FDIC insures up to $100,000.00 per account. But, again, we never suggested that money in banks is at risk. Also, are you aware that the 50 state insurance guarantee funds typically insure about $250,000.00 per policy? Are you aware that no whole life policy holder in the history of the insurance industry in the US has ever lost even one dollar of their guaranteed values? Banks can make no such claim. Mutual funds fail this test. Stepford Advisors run and hide.
Stephen The Stepford Advisor wrote:
“Almost no one needs that amount of money to fund future plans.”
Of all your comments, Stephen, this is the one that challenges me the least. I’ve been serving clients for over 35 years. During that time every one of those clients encountered a financial need so great that they had to invade their retirement accounts…every one of them. Here are a few situations that demand even larger amounts of secure money.
-
Fidelity Funds reports annually on the unfunded medical expense needs of a couple that will retire in that year. In 2007 that was $207,000.00. That’s the out-of-pocket after insurance payments have been made.
-
Another fund company (Vanguard, I believe) projects the long term care needs of retiring couples – for 2007 it was $350,000.00.
-
One of my best friends has two Down Syndrome children. I expect they’ll continue to need that $100,000.00 almost every year.
-
Kyle was injured in a skiing accident and after months in a body cast, two years of physical therapy, and $125,000.00 in debt he is back to work. Seems each of these adds up to more than the $100,000.00 that “no one needs”.
Stephen The Stepford Advisor wrote:
“You should reconsider your recommendation as it fails every reasonable test of jusgement.(sic)
Stephen, the recommendation and my judgment are just fine.
Moreover, the processes and practices that we talk about on YouBeTheBank.com and TheMoneyforLifeBook and blog are tried, tested and proven to produce results that are guaranteed – a word that Stepford Advisors are not allowed utter. ”Guaranteed” is entirely legitimate in the context of dividend paying whole life insurance from mutual companies. I can assure you that “every reasonable test” of judgment supports what we teach and practice.
I can further assure you that the advisors who apply these practices in their planning help more people than those who don’t. One of our understudies (a former Sr. VP with a major, well known international brokerage with a large ad budget) proposed his first case last week to a very sophisticated investment client and it passed “every reasonable test” of judgment for all parties – advisor, client, attorney, accountant and family. Imagine that.
Stephen, I want to end with a word of thanks, again. My mission is to educate and inform. Your comments give me that opportunity. I urge you to learn more than you know, earn more than you imagine possible, and begin to question the shibboleths.
Where do mutual insurance companies keep their money? Bonds are a staple of mutual insurance company investments. Opponents of whole life insurance from mutual companies say returns on bonds simply don’t compete with the equity [aka stock] market.
BUNK – AGAIN!
Below is an amazing chart extracted from John Maulden’s Weekly Letter that should make every “buy term and invest the difference” snake oil sales rep rethink his or her position. The commentary on these raw numbers is extraordinary and I encourage you to read the entire letter.
The commentary does not claim that you should not invest in equities or that your entire portfolio should be in bonds. It does caution - the Prudent Man Rule trumps the Prudent Investor Rule again in this instance – that you should eschew advice from anyone suggesting that equity investments or mutual funds [stock or bond funds] are the only acceptable alternatives for “the long term.”

What does this demonstrate relative to whole life insurance?
During the past ten years, a high early cash value whole life insurance policy from one mutual company outperformed the DJIA by as much as 130% – and even outperformed the DJIA based on guaranteed values. That’s a whole lot [pun intended] better than investment returns from mutual funds.
Whole life insurance policies are reliable financial instruments. Whole life insurance has proven for over 150 years that it belongs in the foundation of every personal economy.
If your financial advisor suggests otherwise, you might want to find a new advisor.
Financial advisors that have studied the capabilities and performance of the insurance and investment companies they represent have known for a long time that developing the foundation for a successful personal economy demands the use of the most powerful, flexible, versatile and secure financial tool in the advisors tool belt…participating whole life insurance from a mutual life insurance company. This class of product has been call the “Swiss Army knife of Financial Products.”
It appears the rest of the financial community is awakening to this fact also. see the Forbes Article below…
![]()
OutFront
Mutual Respect
12.22.08, 12:00 AM ET
Mutual Life insurers are stuck in the mud. If you’ve pizzazz, you work for a stockholder-owned insurer. That was the refrain from stock insurers a few decades ago.
Without the shareholders’ lash to whip them into shape and stock with which to buy rivals, policyholder-owned insurers were sure to get crushed by publicly traded rivals. So went the argument, and so began a flight from mutual ownership that included such stalwarts as Equitable, Prudential and Metropolitan.
Read the whole article here – Who’s sneering now?
Policy Differences
Economic tumult aside, top mutually owned insurers have increased book values this year. Not so their public rivals.
| COMPANY | BOOK VALUE ($BIL)* | %CHANGE THIS YEAR | A.M. BEST RATING |
| MUTUALS | |||
| MASS MUTUAL | $8.4 | 5% | A++ |
| NEW YORK LIFE | 12.0 | 0 | A++ |
| NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL | 12.4 | 2 | A++ |
| PUBLICS** | |||
| HARTFORD LIFE | 4.7 | -19 | A+ |
| METROPOLITAN LIFE | 12.0 | -9 | A+ |
| PRUDENTIAL LIFE | 3.8 | -46 | A+ |
*Statutory surplus and capital as of Sept. 30. **Surplus and capital at each insurer’s biggest operating subsidiar Source: SNL Financial.
Bad advice like that which appears below in the excerpt from the article 15 Insurance Policies You Don’t Need by Lisa Smith on Investopedia is painful for those who truly understand the value, power, flexibility and versatility of cash value life insurance. The article claims that life insurance on children is not desirable.
BUNK!
Read R. Nelson Nash’s article Jeanette’s Banking System or The Education of Emily Elizabeth and you will understand that cash value life insurance purchased on children and grandchildren can be more powerful and a lot safer than the typical 529 Plan or Coverdale IRA, which are foolish gambles at best.
___________________________
8. Life Insurance for Children
Life insurance is designed to provide a safety net for your heirs/dependents. Because children don’t have heirs to worry about and, statistically speaking, most kids will grow up safe and healthy, most parents should not purchase life insurance for their kids. Instead, use the money that you would have spent on life insurance to fund an education plan or an individual retirement account (IRA). (To read more on saving money for your kids, see Investing In Your Child’s Education, Teaching Your Child To Be Financially Savvy and Don’t Forget The Kids: Save For Their Education And Retirement.)
Other items in this article make some sense. Discussions of cash value life insurance by pundits and feature article writers, however, generally lack in both accuracy and depth of understanding. Read the entire article here…
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/07/cutpolicies.asp?partner=forbes-am&viewed=1
| The following comment was submitted by an advisor in response to a recent article by Dr Agon Fly that appeared on ProducersWeb, a financial industry forum. I believe it could be useful for anyone interested in understanding life insurance policies and – more importantly - in securing their future.
ProducersWeb wrote: |
| What about U.S. Treasury decision 1743 that states that a dividend from a life insurance policy is nothing more than a return of a deliberate overcharge of premium imposed by mutual company? |
I’ve been unable to track down the reference made in your comment. It is true, however, that dividends from a mutual company are considered a return of unneeded premium. Your use of inflamitory terms like “nothing more” and “deliberate overcharge,” and “imposed” are, however, off base [at best].
Let’s add some perspective. If a mutual company and a stock company both offer whole life contracts, have the same or similar mortality charges, administrative costs, reserve requirements and guaranteed cash value commitments, the cost of the policies would be about the same for both insurers.
The stock company with the non-par policy would, however, still charge more than their base costs to make sure they made a profit to propell the business. It would also have to charge some excess premium to pay taxable stock dividends to their shareholders. You, as the policy owner would, therfore be paying “nothing more than a deliberate overcharge imposed by the insurer” and receiving nothing in return for having paid the excess.
The mutual company would also charge extra premium to propell its business for the benefit of its policy owners [as opposed to outside investors] and, unlike the stock company, would return that extra premium to the policy owners as a tax-free dividend.
Which would I prefer? I’d rather the return of the “overcharge” be reinvested in my policy than paid to an outside shareholder.
I hope this adds a bit of perspective. Many advisors across America recognize participating cash value whole life insurance as the most versatile, flexible and powerful financial tool available to Americans who want to…
- gain control of the money that flows through their lives,
become free from debt-to-others,
secure an income protected from inflation and that they cannot outlive,
assure ready cash for life’s surprisingly unsurprising surprises, and
create a legacy of both wisdom and wealth to pay forward to those they care most about.
These advisors study and understand every form of life insurance available in the market today. They do not disparage any of them since each may have a place in an individual client’s personal economy.
These advisors believe that it is every professional advisor’s duty and responsibility to know and fully understand all of the financial products that may be available to their clients. How else could they make honest recommendations?
The Prudent Man Rule is based on common law stemming from the 1830 Massachusetts court decision – Harvard College v. Armory. (26 Mass.) 446, 461 (1830). The Prudent Man Rule directs trustees “to observe how men of prudence, discretion, and intelligence manage their own affairs, not in regard to speculation, but in regard to the permanent disposition of their funds, considering the probable income, as well as the probable safety of the capital to be invested.”
Benjamin Graham, the “Dean of Wall Street” and Warren Buffet’s mentor, held that an investment has two essential characteristics: “An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative.”
If we put these two principles together it becomes clear that – regardless of how “diversified” one’s “portfolio” – almost every “investment” that was presented to American consumers during the past thirty years is no investment at all; it is mostly “speculation.” Calling them “investments” is a ploy to justify having uninformed registered reps sell them to uninformed consumers.
Mutual insurance companies and your local credit union are among the most respected financial businesses in America – and with just cause. While the rest of America’s and the world’s financial infrastructure is imploding, mutual insurance companies and credit unions are doing quite well. The reason that is so? They follow the Prudent Man Rule in its purest form.
Insurance policies issued by mutual companies continue to increase in value tax-free, every year at a guarnateed rate and continue to pay tax-free dividends as well. Credit Unions are less at risk than other depositor funded institutions because they continue to serve a small community as non-profits. In both cases, the companies are owned by policy owners or depositors, not by outside investors greedy for profits at any cost.
Mutual fund companies and other investment vehicles do not guarantee or even hint at promising “safety of principal and a satisfactory return.” They claim that “diversification” makes up for that failure. It doesn’t. That is apparent during these days of bank failures, investment company executives being indicted for foisting false financial products and promises on “we the people,” and tumultuous market fluctuations.
The stock markets, mutual funds, and virtually every financial product promoted to Americans represent unwarranted gambles – speculation – dressed up as “investments.” Even the money you pour into your Las Vegas style 401(k) plan is unprotected from the speculative nature of the underlying investments.
Secure savings in credit unions and financial growth in cash value life insurance are today – as they have always been – the surest and safest places for your money; the most solid foundation for your personal economy; the most likely source for secure retirement income, ready cash for life’s surprises and a meaningful legacy for those you care most about…not to mention freedom from debt.
________________________
I regularly receive questions that reference The Infinite Banking ConceptTM of R. Nelson Nash. The Money for Life Model of Financial Management guides its adherents on a path similar to the one Mr. Nash suggests.
A visitor to our web site recently submitted a series of clear and precise questions about three of the core concepts found in both programs; the Paid Up Additions Rider, guaranteed cash values and policy loan interest. The complexity of each of these makes sense to well-informed agent/advisors, but may befuddle a consumer – or as the questioner puts it a “normal guy.” [Hmmm! Does that mean those of us who call ourselves advisors are "abnormal guys?"?]
The questions and comments of the visitor who wrote to me are indented and in quotes.
“The first thing I am interested in is a “normal guy’s” explanation of a Paid Up Additions [PUA] rider. I cannot believe all the stuff that has been written about Infinite Banking that is lacking a clear explanation of just how it works.”
A reading of Money for Life…How to thrive in good times and bad would help clear up some of the ‘normal guy’s” questions you have.
“There are certain questions I have:
What is a PUA?”
A PUA has a variety of names. Basically, a paid up additions rider is a single premium insurance policy that is purchased with separate premium contributions in excess of the premium required by the base policy to which the PUA rider is attached. A PUA generally has minimal cost associated with it [commissions, policy issue fees, etc.], which makes it a most efficient way to increase both the death benefit and the cash value available for use as your ‘bank.’
There are wide varieties of restrictions and limitations on this rider form by different companies. Some of these riders lapse if they are not exercised, which means that you have to contribute each year or you forfeit the option to contribute in any subsequent year. Others allow partial contributions or include ‘catch-up’ provisions in case you miss a portion or even all of one year’s deposit.
Purchasing paid up additions using the PUA rider may put a policy in jeopardy of becoming a modified endowment contract [MEC]. This would result in the policy losing the benefits that make cash value life insurance so powerful and flexible as a cash accumulation and cash management tool.
“What does it mean that the policy is ‘engineered to increase in value every year.’?”
Whole life contracts are designed to guarantee an increase in the basic cash value each year. In the early years of most policies, the cash value increase is minimal due to the structure of the policy issue process, the long-term cash accumulation strategy, and the commission program.
The policy that I most frequently recommend is specifically designed – or engineered – to create cash value in the first year. This policy guarantees that about 90% of the base premium is credited to the guaranteed cash value in the first year and nearly 100% or more of the base premium in every year thereafter. The annual contribution of the PUA contributes 93% of the annual premium to guaranteed cash value every year it is paid.
“When I take a policy loan, do I or do I not have to pay the insurance company interest? If yes, then does this interest go into my cash value or go somewhere else?”
It depends on the company, but generally it works something like this; interest on policy loans is always assessed. If you fail to pay it, the outstanding interest and the policy loan itself are liabilities against both the cash value and the death benefit. Most policies, however, continue to pay the guaranteed internal interest rate when a loan is outstanding.
In effect this means that the interest you pay the insurer is a refund of the interest the insurer credited your account while the money in your account was on loan to you. The rate the insurance company charges you is generally a bit higher than the internal rate. This is to make sure each policy owner covers the cost of managing the loan and other policy owners are not subsidizing loans in which they have no interest.
Loans and interest are often described using reference to the ‘banking’ process for simplicity. It’s important that each advisor explain how it works with individual policies and loans. It makes a great deal more sense when the policy owner can see the actual results.
Conclusion…
Whole life insurance, used as a fundamental component of your clients’ personal economic structures, is an extraordinarily powerful and flexible tool. It is the Swiss Army Knife of financial products.
Over the past three decades or so the financial community’s understanding of whole life insurance has diminished dramatically. Whole life insurance has been misrepresented by those who can’t or won’t sell it.
The financial mess in America today is the direct result of the failure of the financial community to support the traditional financial values, practices, and products that made America the greatest economy and country in history. The greed on Wall Street jeopardizes our wealth and well-being as a nation and the wealth and well-being of “we the people.”
It’s time to again reclaim those values, reinstitute those practices, and recognize those financial products as essential to every successful personal economy.
If we fail at this we will fail completely.
The Measure of Wealth
A recent ad by the national Association of Realtors states that home equity accounts for about 65% of the average American’s wealth.
WOW!
There’s something wrong with that equation. That means that a family with a $500,000 house and a $300,000 mortgage – $200,000.00 in equity - plus a car loan and a few thousand dollars on a credit card has more debt than they have assets when you exclude the home’s equity.
Do the math. If $200,000.00 is 65% of what the family puts on the balance sheet, the total on the bottom line is about $305,000. Add up the mortgage, a $25,000.00 car loan and $5,000.00 in credit card debt and you get $330,000.00.
The Bottom Line on the Family Balance Sheet
Failure to recognize that the bottom line is not really the bottom line leads to the misconception that a positive “net worth” justifies all kinds of unsound economic behavior – like borrowing the equity to support a lifestyle that the family can’t afford in the first place.
A Solution
Here’s a solution that can help almost everyone, but especially those in their 30′s, 40′s and 50′s with children still at home. Begin building your financial foundation today. Buy a properly funded whole life insurance policy [you can make sure a policy is properly funded when the guaranteed cash value equals the initial death benefit at age 95 or 100] that will accumulate enough cash value to allow you to pay of the mortgage in half the original term; e.g., 15 years for a 30 year mortgage, 10 years for a 20 year mortgage, etc.
During the accumulation period [before you pay off the mortgage] you can use the cash values in the policy to finance things like cars and the kids education. As long as you repay the loans you make to yourself to pay for these items [you'd be foolish not to], you’ll still have the money to pay off the mortgage.
Managing your personal economy isn’t all that difficult once you recognize that there are solutions to every financial challenge and every money need and that the Behemoths want not to solve your problem but to pad their pocketbooks.
BY Jeffrey Reeves MA, EUREKONOMIST
________________________
“Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.” CASABLANCA, 1942
This is going to be a brief but replete post.
Investment Real Estate
This post outlines a strategy that protects you against unforseen loss and guarantees a profit to your estate if you die owning investment real estate.
Every time you buy an investment property you have to establish a fund to assure that the taxes and insurance get paid, the maintenance gets done and that contingencies don’t derail the investment’s potential.
Whole Life Insurance
These expenses get taken care of If you put that money into a savings vehicle and draw it out as needed. If, however, you use a whole life insurance policy as your repository, there are other advantages that accrue. Here are just few:
- You can borrow the money from your policy to pay for these expenses and the policy will continue to earn interst and be credited with dividends as if you had not borrowed a penny.
- A single policy can support multiple properties’ money needs at once.
- With proper ownership and borrowing arrangements the money that flows through the policy will be entirely tax free.
- You can repay the money you borrow and perpetuate the usefullness of the policy for decades.
- At death your named benficiary will receive the face amount of the policy – less any outstanding loans – as a tax free death benefit.
There are, of course, many other benefits that a real estate investor can derive from the proper use of whole life insurance (not universal life insurance at this time) in support of an investment program. Consult a properly informed financial guide before launching such a program.
“They call me Mister Tibbs.” In the Heat of the Night, 1967
Jack and Theresa relied on the same financial advisor for over ten years. When Jack got a new job in a new city on the other side of the country that relationship became untenable so the couple went looking for a new advisor. After several interviews Jack and Teresa concluded that the advisors they met in their new city did not recognize or understand what their friend and advisor “back home” had taught them. In fact, every one of the advisors they interviewed told them that building their financial foundation using cash value whole life insurance was not just wrong but went against everything the advisor had been taught.
One advisor suggested that Jack and Theresa should replace their cash value policies with term insurance and invest the money they had accumulated in the stocks he recommended; ENRON, Qwest and MCI.
Another advisor wanted Jack and Theresa to exchange their whole life insurance policies for variable universal life insurance policies because she could illustrate greater future value with that type of insurance plan. She did not, of course, make it entirely clear that these policies had no guarantees and that they could lose all of their money with this approach.
A third advisor encouraged Jack and Theresa to refinance their home at 95% and “harvest” the equity from their home and the cash from their whole life insurance policies and put all of that money into a new kind of product called equity indexed life insurance. The premise was that the new product would earn more than the interest charged in the mortgage and the lost guarantees and dividends from their whole life contract. Again, there was no discussion of the fact that taking such action put their real property at greater risk and did not replace the guarantees that were present in their whole life policies.
When Police Chief Gillespie challenged Virgil Tibbs’ self image and deeply held beliefs, the detective defended himself and his beliefs with a simple emphatic statement. Every day we face the same kind of challenge to our common sense about how we handle our money. An onslaught of advertising and misinformation tells us that our conservative financial values are foolish or simplistic or contrary to the conventional wisdom – which is no wisdom at all.
There are many reasonable and sensible ways to handle your money. Universal life insurance, indexed life insurance, investments and home equity can be important pieces of the puzzle that is unique to your situation.
Any approach that suggests, however, that you can build wealth without establishing a foundation of money that you control, is misleading at best and illegal at worst. Suggesting that you can behave the same as people who have already accumulated great wealth, denies the reality that those who have great wealth behaved differently while accumulating their wealth than they do after they have it.
Every reasonable financial “plan” should aim at
-
eliminating debt-to-others
-
guaranteeing you a secure income
-
making sure you have ready money to deal with the ordinary and the extraordinary events that make up your life, and
-
creating a legacy of your wisdom and wealth.
Once these goals have been met you can consider the schemes of the merchants of misinformation and the financial snake oil sales reps who want your money in their pockets.
by Jeffrey Reeves MA, www.youBEthebank.com
_______________________________
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Small life insurance companies flourish
“A new study from Conning Research and Consulting shows that despite tighter competition and consolidation in the life insurance market, many smaller life insurance companies are still flourishing.
The study, entitled “Successful Small Life Companies: Remaining Nimble in a Supersized World,” analyzed small companies as a group to identify the key earmarks of their success, which, according to the study’s authors, can be helpful to companies of any size.
Whole Life Insurance is one of the keys
Findings indicate that successful small life companies often share these common traits: a stronger focus on ordinary life insurance, a defined and sustainable niche, and effective cross-selling strategies, all of which lead to premium growth that’s higher than average. ” (Emphasis added)
Ordinary life insurance is just another way of saying whole life insurance.
I just thought you might like to know that not only are the people who want to build a solid foundation for their personal finances putting their confidence in whole life insurance, but also that the companies who are committed to helping them achieve that goal are building strong financial reserves in support.
Learn more! Money for Life…How to Thrive in Good Times and Bad shows you how whole life insurance can help you travel the safe and easy path to prosperity.
Buy your own copy of Money for Life…How to Thrive in Good Times and Bad today!
©2008 Poor Richard Publishing Company – PoorRichard.Reborn@yahoo.com







