Article Suggests Moving CDs into LTC

[scagnt83]

When I was a young new agent asking for financial info made me nervous. And prospects pick up on that. If the agent is not comfortable asking for info then the client will not be comfortable giving it to them.

The same goes for asking for a large check/transfer. Back then asking for a $100k check was a daunting task.

Confidence in yourself and your recommendations gives clients the same confidence. But a lot of it is just mindset. A 25 year old agent who is confident will have a better chance of getting that $100k+ check vs. a 50 year old agent who is not confident.

 

[CALTCAgent]

I was talking to a guy yesterday that tells me he joined Knights of Columbus and he had to listen to their pitch, whatever that may be.

The Knights of Columbus agents tells him he will need to move 100K and pay a monthly premium.

Do they have a hybrid ?

 

[1reason]

...And even though Bonds have nothing to do with the underlying subject, I named not 1 but 2. Now you want to nitpick that statement... whatever...

...Because so far your only interactions with me have been totally off topic. I didnt take the left turn down Bonds lane...
:

You're awesome. I went out of my way to allow you to save face. Even though I didn't do anything wrong, I still apologized and provided you with every possible courtesy and even explained in painful detail why you missed the mark and reasoning for your mistake and yet, you go on to say I'm in error.

You jumped on my thread saying I was wrong about rates claiming "...There are plenty of AAA bonds out there that pay over that..."

You say I'm rude when I respond to your accusation.

Then, after extending an olive branch you continue to claim I'm wrong with "...And even though Bonds have nothing to do with the underlying subject, I named not 1 but 2..." (after starting this crap)

I can only conclude that either you don't know enough about fixed income to realize I proved my original statement was correct, or you're hoping others won't know and you don't want to admit your mistake.

Here are actual trades from a relatively high volume AA callable issue pre-tax issue.

The effective "true" yield is less than 1.7% after tax, and closer to 1.5% after transaction costs. Or half of your so-called 3%+

Albeit they're not AAA rated and trade at a HIGHER yield because they're only AA and pre tax. (if you don't understand, it means AAA is at a lower yield)

Look, there's no shame in admitting you made an error. Fixed income is incredibly complex and even a lot of Wall St. professionals don't fully understand all the nuances.

But don't be disrespectful and claim you demonstrated I was in error when that's not the case. I'm sure you know more than me about LTC, and I have a lot I can learn from you about it, but when it comes to equities, fixed income, and derivatives, it's a safe bet you're the student.

 

[scagnt83]

Hopefully we can now get back to LTC, which is where I want to be.

Your last post completely disproves this earlier statement.

My last post directed at you was an attempt to make peace with you. Now you selectively quote a single sentence or two in an effort to be condescending and argumentative.

If you bother to read the bulk of what I posted:

And my real issue is that you accuse me of being anti LTCI awareness when I never once mentioned the article. Only the merits of the product mentioned in the current rate environment. I attempted to have a professional and intelligent conversation about lump sum hybrids compared to alternative options. Instead you just argued semantics about AAA Bonds, and made baseless accusations about the intent of my posts.

If you honestly want to discuss LTCI, then why not go back and actually consider the alternatives mentioned and compare them to a lumpsum hybrid? Why argue semantics that have nothing to do with the conversation? Every one of my posts in this thread except for one are on topic and professional. If you honestly want to discuss LTCI then prove it. Because so far your only interactions with me have been totally off topic. I didnt take the left turn down Bonds lane...


But I do look forward to having productive an open minded LTCI discussions with you in the future

I attempted to make peace here and explain my position. I even gave you a suggestion for future dialogue about LTCI.

Instead of making peace you decide to argue and condescend.



_________________________________________________

You're awesome. I went out of my way to allow you to save face. Even though I didn't do anything wrong, I still apologized and provided you with every possible courtesy and even explained in painful detail why you missed the mark and reasoning for your mistake and yet, you go on to say I'm in error.

..............

Then, after extending an olive branch you continue to claim I'm wrong with "...And even though Bonds have nothing to do with the underlying subject, I named not 1 but 2..." (after starting this crap)

I can only conclude that either you don't know enough about fixed income to realize I proved my original statement was correct, or you're hoping others won't know and you don't want to admit your mistake.

............

Look, there's no shame in admitting you made an error. Fixed income is incredibly complex and even a lot of Wall St. professionals don't fully understand all the nuances.

But don't be disrespectful and claim you demonstrated I was in error when that's not the case. I'm sure you know more than me about LTC, and I have a lot I can learn from you about it, but when it comes to equities, fixed income, and derivatives, it's a safe bet you're the student.

Look buddy.

I NEVER SAID THAT ANYTHING YOU POSTED ABOUT BONDS WAS INCORRECT.

Mainly because I never read your post since it had nothing to do with LTCI... We had actually managed to get this thread back on subject today and you take another left turn and go on a tirade...

You probably do know more than I about Fixed Income. And if your specialty is trading equity options then more power to you. I myself enjoy trading FX, and I do well at it. I am the first to admit that I am no expert on Bonds. What I listed was the Yield to Maturity. I put in about 1 minute of effort in finding those 2 so if I am wrong I am wrong.

Looking over your previous post about the only thing I can say is that you seem to have mixed up S&Ps rating system and Moodys rating system (Moodys highest rating is Aaa, S&P is AAA). Unless you were implying that S&Ps ratings are superior to Moodys?


Again, I never said that you were wrong. I simply stated that I listed 2 Bonds with a YTM over 3%. After trade fees, taxes, etc. no one here can say exactly what the final return on the investment will be. If the Bonds are called, traded before maturity, etc. who the hell knows... there is no way to say for sure.


In your eyes this is about "saving face".... what you do not seem to comprehend is that no one here cares about Fixed Income Investing. Fixed Income is not the subject of this thread, yet you still are going on and on about the issue. I have made every attempt to get the conversation back on track, yet you still want to argue and condescend.


Now if you would like to discuss how Treasuries are having a severe impact on LTCI then I am all for it. But that is the only form of Fixed Income that is relevant to this discussion.


As I said before, if you honestly would like to discuss LTCI, go back to my original few posts and have a discussion about the merits of the product the article referenced in the current interest rate environment. Or if you are looking to learn, then ask questions.

But my guess is that you will continue to argue about Bonds and being "correct" despite the fact that I never once said you were incorrect...

I actually almost sent you a PM this morning to attempt to make further peace and to express my hope that our disagreement would not discourage you from being an active member around here... now I am glad that I did not. Antics like your last post are the last thing this forum needs more of. We get enough d#ck measuring contests over on the FE forum.


And I even said in my post that I look forward to discussing LTCI with you in the future.... but somehow I had a feeling that your tirade was not finished... and I have that feeling again now...


If you would like to discuss LTCI and learn about LTCI then prove it.

 

[1reason]

Looking over your previous post about the only thing I can say is that you seem to have mixed up S&Ps rating system and Moodys rating system (Moodys highest rating is Aaa, S&P is AAA). Unless you were implying that S&Ps ratings are superior to Moodys?

I could have skipped the part about Farmer's paper wasn't AAA rated. It didn't add any value and you called them Aaa (best Moody's rating) and while they're not AAA (but are Aaa), it didn't and doesn't matter.

So what are your thoughts on using a relatively low death benefit on a single premium life with LTC rider and use an inflation hedge?

I know a lot of people buy the riders, but all else being equal, it seems to make more sense to jack the death benefit up to the point that you don't think you'll use all the "extra" money in the account and can pass it on.

 

[scagnt83]

So what are your thoughts on using a relatively low death benefit on a single premium life with LTC rider and use an inflation hedge?

I know a lot of people buy the riders, but all else being equal, it seems to make more sense to jack the death benefit up to the point that you don't think you'll use all the "extra" money in the account and can pass it on.

What type of inflation hedge do you mean?

Since the LTC benefits come from the DB I dont know that it makes much sense to lower the DB. Of course if you are using IUL or trad UL you want to lower it so that the policy will perform well. When you lower the DB, basically there is no reason to use a LTC rider since the CV will be close to the DB... so just save the money on the LTCI rider and use the CV to fund any expenses.

I like NA/Midland because they include a chronic rider for free. It only pays if care is expected to be needed on a permanent basis. So it shouldnt be used as true LTC funding. But they give you for free what others like LFG charge you for. It can act as a nice safety net, especially combined with true LTCI.

I do like Mass Mutuals WL LTCI Rider. It is much different than all of the UL Riders out there. Imo it is the way to go if you want to insure against LTC claims using a life policy. The 10 Pay or 20 pay will perform around 2%-3% and give you an increasing pool of LTC benefits.

Guardian just came out with a LTCI rider that Ive heard competes with Mass. I havent checked it out yet though.

 

[ltcadviser]

I know it is only early March....but......So anybody qualify yet for the 2016 State Life conference in Charleston? She Crab soup is on me.

 

[scagnt83]

I know it is only early March....but......So anybody qualify yet for the 2016 State Life conference in Charleston? She Crab soup is on me.

I love Charelston... but when its on the company dime I want someplace I dont visit already a few times per year

 

[ltcadviser]

I love Charelston... but when its on the company dime I want someplace I dont visit already a few times per year

Yea, i was hoping for Ireland or Scotland but Aruba in June will be ok