Best use of $5k annual premium for retirement cash?

Maybe they are afraid of financial advisers. I have never had that experience but then I don't even tell people what I do unless asked and then I say as little as possible. I do think people don't want to meet with commission sales people. To much like dealing with a car salesman.
I believe the key is how they are introduced to you. First thing I think is get a 65 next is become an educator. I never sell,only educate and completely disclose how I am compensated etc.
January class had 21 buying units pay $25 each to attend. 18 showed,33 total students, class less than 3 hours, 15 requested appointments. have seen 11 so far, 9 engaged me for a financial plan, other 2 want to think about it. Normally this means 1 of the 2 will engage me. The poorest person of the 11 has over $700,000 in investable assets
 
Having a Series 65 has nothing to do with being an educator. Compensation also is not a factor in becoming an educator.

Your biases or brainwashing is really shining through.
Fee-based = good
Commission = evil and greedy

Therefore, anything that involves a commission must be "sub-par" to what a fee-only person could provide.

It's an interesting perspective.
 
you are forgetting about human nature & writing agent disappearance.( true but this a problem no matter what type of insurance is used) max funded UL or IUL (which I own) need to be held long term to get through the gauntlet of fees( WL needs to be held just as long or longer )
. Most consumers bail on their long term plans either because of financial trouble, divorce, hearing a radio talk show guy or merely consumerism spending. IUL pricing appears to have a great deal of great performance in later years when the projected math plays out. But, those that back off the throttle after only 3-10 years & never hear from their agent wont realize the problems they have created for many years later or decades.( WL is even worse with upfront charges and holding period)

max funded WL (which I own) has some exit strategies legally & contractually to keep the coverage in place by either changing dividend option to reduce premium, surrendering PUAR to cover premiums & electing reduced paid up coverage. ( IUL can just skip or reduce premiums or reduce to paid up as well)

Again, to each his own as I have seen horribly designed UL/IUL & WL where the client suffers. Lastly, so you believe IUL carriers will never have to raise COI to offset bad UW, worse mortality or costly/inefficient options markets? ( If mortality costs go up you can reduce the face on the IUL to reduce the morality costs, IUL contractually provides a maximum mortality charge. WL does not. I have never seen or heard of a WL company producing the maximum mortality costs they can charge
 

your 1st 3 points are factually incorrect, unless you are only familiar with garbage WL products. Selling a base WL with 3x PUAR max funded with a 1-2% PUAR load will have more CV in those earliest of years. You state opinions as if they are always factual. Depending on the product & carrier, your opinions may indeed be fact, but they are not in every situation.

your 4th point is flat out wrong. UL, nor IUL have a legal right or contractual right to elect a reduced paid up non-forfeiture option as you state. merely reducing the face amount is not the same thing as reducing the face amount can impact TAMRA/TEFRA calculations & can then block future premiums or force out cash value even in a crashing policy. Yes, reducing the face amount can many times be helpful, but it is entirely different than a legal & contractual right to elect guaranteed reduced paid up coverage.

your 5th point is not always true. Many clients got burned on UL & cant save them. because of how they may have been used during their lifetime, face reductions can have severe TAMRA/TEFRA/DEFRA violations. So, while IUL allow contractually a face reduction, there are clients who cannot legally make that product change because of the government premium rules. Face reductions, along with a number of other policy changes (like withdrawals) are considered material changes that have impacts to the premiums or even force out cash regardless of if the policy will lapse or not. WL mortality cost was already built into the contractual premium. WL policies have no ongoing cost of insurance. the contractual premium at issue is the locked in premium.

If you are running financial planning seminars & charging for financial plans, I suggest you stick to just charging consumer AUM fees to hold their securities as it appears your basic understanding of insurance products might be outside of your expertise.

again, I own all these various products, so I don't have one that I prefer over the others, I am just sick of people on both sides of the debate acting like only 1 is perfect. neither are, but they all have their place in some consumers holdings if they choose to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DHK
Wow,insulting me really is not the way to go unless you are insecure I was hoping to have a constructive discussion. Attacking me because I don't want to get down into the weeds doesn't prove or accomplish anything.
First you still have avoided addressing the real issue. WL can not meet its cash value projections because companies investment returns have fallen off a cliff. If you are using an illustration to sell you are probably committing fraud because you know or should know the projection have no way of coming true.

I am sure you are most honest and when you show the illustration you point out that in year 20 the cash growth shown is a 3.5% IRR. at best.
I don't know what IUL's you sell but what I place with clients often has positive cash value in years 2 through 4. I truly would like to see a WL that have positive cash value that early. I certainty would consider it for clients. So please share.

All the tax code issues you spout are faced with WL too. Reducing an IUL to the minimum face to keep the policy alive at guaranteed rates is no different in practice than reduced paid up . Sure the mechanics are different but the practical results are the same.

What you say about WL mortality costs is entirely wrong! You should leave the insurance industry .(WL policies have no ongoing cost of insurance) call your home office,speak to the actuaries and learn what is behind the illustrations . Part of the dividend is mortality experience up or down. Every single premium paid has mortality expense
If you are going to insult me at least have the decency to not make ridiculous statements like WL has no ongoing cost of insurance.
 
(WL policies have no ongoing cost of insurance)

Wow. Um... do you know how wrong you are?

There are two different disclosure standards between UL chassis and WL chassis.

Whole Life:
Here's a way to understand it: You go to a bank. You ask for the rates of current certificates of deposit. You get the rates and you open a 12-month CD for a 1.0% rate.

Did they have to disclose their ongoing costs? No. Why not? Because it's a fixed product. Fixed premiums, fixed death benefit, fixed cash value (not including non-guaranteed dividends).

Universal Life:
You go to your brokerage firm. You ask for current money market fund rates. Flexible and adjustable returns and possible risk to capital (if the fund 'breaks the buck').

Therefore, you receive a prospectus, because you have other expenses that affect the account. Flexible premiums, flexible death benefit, and flexible cash values. Yes, I know that UL and IULs don't have prospectuses (obviously VUL does), but the prospectus is merely a disclosure statement, similar in purpose to a projection of policy expenses.


Whole life DOES have ongoing costs of insurance. Here's the difference: whole life "funds the box" and posts a higher reserve compared to UL.

Just because it's not ITEMIZED in the illustration doesn't mean it isn't there.

 
Now, if you have a SHORTER Whole Life box, then you are simply funding the box in a greater amount for a shorter period of time. The liability for the ongoing costs of insurance AFTER the box is funded (for a 10-pay for example) is on the COMPANY. But that cost is still there.
 
Having a Series 65 has nothing to do with being an educator. Compensation also is not a factor in becoming an educator.

Your biases or brainwashing is really shining through.
Fee-based = good
Commission = evil and greedy

Therefore, anything that involves a commission must be "sub-par" to what a fee-only person could provide.

It's an interesting perspective.
Actually it is your Bias and insecurity that is shining through.
There is nothing at all wrong with commission products.
There is something wrong with non licensed people giving investment advice.
Being an unbiased Fiduciary is the only type of educator I would trust. In fact why would anyone deal with a product salesman when they could deal with someone that by law has to put the clients interest first
Compensation is indeed a fact in being an educator. Knowing that someone earns their living from selling life insurance or selling stocks is a critical part of determine if someone is giving biased information or has an understanding of both sides of the street.
A fiduciary advisory covers all sides. It doesn't matter where the solution comes from only what is best for the client.
You clearly only sell insurance so you always try to sell insurance no matter what the problem is. Sad for you and worse for your clients.
 
You clearly only sell insurance so you always try to sell insurance no matter what the problem is. Sad for you and worse for your clients.

What's sad, is that you don't understand insurance... therefore you paint us all with a negative stereotype due to your ignorance.

You think what I do is a disservice, but you don't understand it yourself, as proven by your posts.

When you want to take on a more complete knowledge, my past posts and my blog is there for your edification.
 
Back
Top