medical uses of drugs

Posts Tagged ‘cash value life insurance’

Personal Financial Management and Economics Simplified

Imagine this result of Personal Financial Management…

  • A successful 45 years old
  • A couple of children about to go off to college
  • The stay-at-home spouse is about to re-enter the work force even though the family doesn’t need the income
  • The mortgage is paid off
  • No auto loans, credit card debt, or home improvement loans
  • Several years of living expenses set aside in cash value life insurance and the local credit union to deal with life’s surprisingly unsurprising surprises
  • A legacy of wisdom and wealth for those they care most about

Imagine that!

If you think you have to win the lottery or marry rich to achieve these goals, you are-as they say-drinking the Kool Aid. The Behemoths of big government, big investment houses, big banks, big stock insurance companies, the FED, the SEC, big unions, and big whatever have you bamboozled.


Behemoths have Americans convinced that cash and home equity, which are the two most basic elements in a successful personal financial management program and personal economy, are of no significant value.  According to the Behemoths, Americans should surrender their wealth and well being to them  for safekeeping.  Americans should ignore credit union membership, eschew tax advantaged whole life insurance policies from mutual companies, and convince themselves that eliminating the mortgage is a really bad idea.

BUNK!  Baloney! Bull!

Look more closely America. You’ve been misled. When you buy anything from a Behemoth, whether investments, 401(k)’s, IRAs, mutual funds, or stocks and bonds, the Behemoths guaranteed themselves a profit and guarantee you only that they guarantee you nothing.

As Benjamin Franklin wisely stated over 250 years ago, when you commit to a mortgage or any other form of debt you “give to another power over your liberty.”

Twenty Years Is All It Takes…

It doesn’t take a lifetime to lay a foundation and erect the Four Pillars of the EUREKONOMICS™ Model for creating wealth and managing personal finances…

  • Freedom from debt – including the mortgage
  • Plenty of ready cash to deal with life’s surprises
  • Secure income they don’t have to work for and can’t outlive
  • A legacy of wisdom and wealth

American families that use common sense and put their money into whole life insurance policies and local savings institutions where they can control it, can expect to create the financial management system described above in twenty years of earning and saving using the EUREKONOMICS™ Model.

Unclear Thinking

It is unrealistic and unclear thinking for American families to plan for and uncertain retirement when they have only a few months of expenses saved, they have little or no discretionary income at the end of each pay period, are “up to your eyeballs in debt,” and have an unpaid mortgage.

Tax Deductibility Is A Trap…

PS – “But, I get a tax deduction from the IRS when I put money aside for retirement.”

True. However, the IRS is a Behemoth and a tax deduction now defers both  the tax and the tax rate.  When you take post-retirement income the IRS will collect the taxes on that money and the tax they’ll levy will most likely be a lot higher than the relief you gained from your deduction early in your career.

If the IRS gives you a dollar today, they’ll take ten or more tomorrow.

by Jeffrey Reeves MA, EUREKONOMIST

ING To Review “Strategic Options” For U.S. Ops; May Shift Annuity Book

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’…”
ING is a good company with a solid base in the U.S.  It is not, however, a U.S. company.  For the past few decades insurance Behemoths from Europe have been buying their way into the U.S. market by buying U.S. companies.  These have been strategic decisions aimed at improving both the profitability and the balance sheet of the alien Behemoth.  Insurance and financial Behemoths from the other side of the world are currently eyeing U.S. insurance and financial businesses as potential acquisitions.
If and when an alien Behemoth finds its U.S. operation to be unprofitable and unable to add to its bottom line, the Behemoth will divest its interest in its American business and leave the country.  The adverse effects such a departure may have on American families and other American businesses will be only a minor consideration.
I’m not suggesting that ING or any other alien Behemoth is currently planning to leave the U.S.  I am suggesting that insurance purchases, and particularly life and health insurance products, are based on long-term commitments from both sides.  The stability and commitment of the Behemoth needs to be based on a commitment to America and the U.S. economy.  That is not and cannot be the basis of an alien Behemoth’s commitment, whose country of origin regulates and controls it to a greater extent than the host country does – in this instance the US of A.
I personally choose to write cash value life insurance, long-term care, and annuity contracts with US companies for this reason and because there is no compelling reason to do otherwise.  US companies perform as well or better than their alien counterparts, offer equivalent or better products, and don’t bow to foreign powers or governments.
The wealth creation, family wealth management, and personal asset protection of clients are better served over a lifetime with cash value life insurance, annuities and long-term care insurance from companies that owe allegiance to America and American families first.
If there were compelling reasons to do business of any kind with an alien Behemoth one should be willing to do that.  In the case of life insurance, long-term care insurance, and annuities there is not only no compelling reason to do so, but some pretty darn good reasons not to do so.
by Jeffrey Reeves –

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.


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 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.