psrayburn
Expert
- 48
Does anyone still use these presentations anymore?
Both have made me lots of money in the past.
Both have made me lots of money in the past.
Rule of 72, 100 Average Americans
- Thread starter psrayburn
- Start date
- 17,072
I've never heard of 100 average Americans. How does it go?
Most folks have no idea about the rule of 72, but it is a simple, and powerful message about the magic of compounding.
100 Americans was effective at one time. Not sure it still works but I could be wrong. If you wanted to use it, if you could find that pitch from say 30 years ago and compare it to today it could prove a point . . . that we really don't change.
First time I saw 100 Americans was over 30 years ago when I was starting out and still in college. The story was graphic and powerful (even to a 22 year old). It had credibility because of the footnotes indicating where the data originated.
If you could find data from 1975 and compare it to 2009 it will probably make a statement.
Why 1975?
Unemployment was high and we were in a recession. Nothing as deep as now . . . this is not like anything I have seen in my lifetime . . . but still there was a general malaise in the country.
Combining 100 Americans with the rule of 72 can paint a picture that might resonate, especially if you have the data as suggested above.
The market, and 401(k)'s are down 40 - 50% over the last couple of years for many folks.
If your clients portfolio is off 40% they need to gain 67% to get back to par. If they earn 7% each year compounded it will take them 10 years to attain parity.
Some folks won't have that much time.
Enough of my view. What were you thinking?
Maybe Paul, Dave (Fluker) & Ned will wade in on this. They were in the life business in the "old" days before computer spreadsheets. They probably used 72 and 100 in early presentations.
100 Americans was effective at one time. Not sure it still works but I could be wrong. If you wanted to use it, if you could find that pitch from say 30 years ago and compare it to today it could prove a point . . . that we really don't change.
First time I saw 100 Americans was over 30 years ago when I was starting out and still in college. The story was graphic and powerful (even to a 22 year old). It had credibility because of the footnotes indicating where the data originated.
If you could find data from 1975 and compare it to 2009 it will probably make a statement.
Why 1975?
Unemployment was high and we were in a recession. Nothing as deep as now . . . this is not like anything I have seen in my lifetime . . . but still there was a general malaise in the country.
Combining 100 Americans with the rule of 72 can paint a picture that might resonate, especially if you have the data as suggested above.
The market, and 401(k)'s are down 40 - 50% over the last couple of years for many folks.
If your clients portfolio is off 40% they need to gain 67% to get back to par. If they earn 7% each year compounded it will take them 10 years to attain parity.
Some folks won't have that much time.
Enough of my view. What were you thinking?
Maybe Paul, Dave (Fluker) & Ned will wade in on this. They were in the life business in the "old" days before computer spreadsheets. They probably used 72 and 100 in early presentations.
- Thread starter
- #4
psrayburn
Expert
- 48
Based on 100 average americans
The Average person earns his first regular paycheck somewhere between 18 and 25 and his/her income tends to go up until reaching 50 to 55.... then the average persons income levels off until Social Security time, then it stops...... "Jim/Prospect" here's the point that suprises me: This average person will earn between his first and last paycheck more than $900,000. The person with special training wil earn more than $1,800,000 during his or her working years. Thats alot of money Jim.... but look at this: Here's how these orginal 100 made out after having this kind of money go through their pockets.
4... will be well off They will have annual income of more than $40,000
49.. will have annual incomes of between $7,000 and less than $40,000
22... will have income under poverty less than $7,000 per year!
25... will be dead.. They never made it to Social Security time. Thats about the average... one out of four wont live to 65.
But Jim, Look at this next figure. This really tells the story.
That means Seventy one have only Social Security benefits or they are dependent----on friends,family, charity etc..... why thats almost 3/4 of them. almost three fourths of the orginal 100 after earning this kind of money.....(Point to lifetime earnings). Ok look at this add 25 and 71. thats 96.....think about it..... starting here at age 18... ninty six are either Dead or Dead Broke when they get to Social Security time.
Jim, do you suppose any of these people when they were starting out planned to be financial failures? of course they didn't. Nobody works their entire life with the goal of being a financial failure. Maybe these people didn't understand the need to have a written plan. A written plan with automatic systematic deposits like the plan I am going to show you TODAY.
The sources for the 100 average americans are as follows. Income figures, U.S. Department of Commerce Publication "What's It Worth?" 100 Average Americans, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, SSA Pub #13-11871, Vernon Publishing.
NPCOACH
Expert
100 Average Americans - what a memory
I used that presentation with Franklin Life back in the early 80's. It was effective then - probably would still work today. What a great memory you have.
I am not sure how many life agents actually sit down with clients at the kitchen table, do a fact finder of some sort and make recommendations based on that anymore.
Everyone wants to sell mortgage only, or final expense or hawk term from home over the phone in their underwear.
The death of the agency system was also the end of this kind of training and selling. It was also the advent of more innovative and competitive products. IMO give access to more and better products. Agencies gave access to better training - at least in my opinion.
I used that presentation with Franklin Life back in the early 80's. It was effective then - probably would still work today. What a great memory you have.
I am not sure how many life agents actually sit down with clients at the kitchen table, do a fact finder of some sort and make recommendations based on that anymore.
Everyone wants to sell mortgage only, or final expense or hawk term from home over the phone in their underwear.
The death of the agency system was also the end of this kind of training and selling. It was also the advent of more innovative and competitive products. IMO give access to more and better products. Agencies gave access to better training - at least in my opinion.
G
Guest
Guest
Jim, do you suppose any of these people when they were starting out planned to be financial failures? of course they didn't. Nobody works their entire life with the goal of being a financial failure.
- 868
I disagree the average person does plan to fail by failing to plan.
We have become a society of short term patching rather than long term solutions and this trickles from people to government to business.
We have become a society of short term patching rather than long term solutions and this trickles from people to government to business.
G
Guest
Guest
It was not my opinion whether they did or not. I inserted it because that was part of the presentation that was being taught back then, or at least being taught to me. So I added it since I still remembered it and haven't fried all of my brain cells yet although I'm still working on that.
Similar threads
