Whole Life... Why Not to Love It?

[WCMason]

Yes, that happened in the early 1800's. But the interesting thing about this example of conventional wisdom isn't what the people of the 15th century believed, but rather what the average person of today believes the average person of the 15th century believed.

In other words, most people today believe that most people in Columbus's day thought the earth was flat. "Enlightened" people know better, but enlightened people aren't the masses. By definition conventional wisdom IS the masses.

Point here is that following the conventional financial wisdom of maxing 401's, buying 30-year term, hanging your hat on ONE blue-chip stock, etc will not produce the desired outcome. If you want a different outcome than the masses, you have to do different than the masses.

You changed who the "enlightened" are to try to save your incorrect historical point. They actually didn't know better on that issue. They just tried to make themselves sound more enlightened by mischaracterizing others as ignorant "flat earthers."

Now that I think of it, this isn't as off topic as I first thought...

 

[Mr_Ed]

Point here is that following the conventional financial wisdom of maxing 401's, buying 30-year term, hanging your hat on ONE blue-chip stock, etc will not produce the desired outcome.

I never said to invest in ONE blue chip stock.

you guys are such liars.


mrsed
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You changed who the "enlightened" are to try to save your incorrect historical point. They actually didn't know better on that issue. They just tried to make themselves sound more enlightened by mischaracterizing others as ignorant "flat earthers."

Now that I think of it, this isn't as off topic as I first thought...

Bravo, Mason.
Bravo!

 

[DHK]

You can't get that 2,000% return if you dilute your investment among multiple stocks, now can you? Diversification, or rather di-worsification, isn't always a good thing.

And yes, I understand how dividends work as a former series 7, 66 and current ChFC designee holder.


Aside from that, what is my motivation for teaching you? I've paid THOUSANDS of dollars for my training. Why should I offer it to you for free? What does it get me? Oh, you want me to train my competition... without even earning an override on future production? Doesn't sound smart to me.


There are tons of posts on this subject on these forums. I suggest you learn how to use the search function. There's plenty to learn from, and I've simply lost my desire to train the world on why permanent life insurance is the greatest asset one should have.

Just like with prospects... if you're not open to help and you're going to have an attitude, I would simply ask for the door and leave. There is absolutely no reason anymore to continue to argue with someone who has already made up their mind.

 

[rousemark]

2 comments:

1) The loan is not added to the DB. The DB is what the loan has reduced it to when you die. The loan is not added on top of the DB.

2) This is why I like UL. Most ULs have an "overloan protection" feature that guarantees that if the CV goes to zero, the policy will stay in force for life with a very small DB.

Penn Mutual actually has this feature on their WL. They are the only company on the market who has this on WL.


With loans and overloan protection you can guarantee tax free.

I don't claim to be an expert on these matters so let me see if I can understand what you are stating.. I have a 1M policy with a 500K outstanding loan.. At my death, for estate tax purposes (not income tax) the reportable amount is only 500K that is actually paid to the beneficiary? The 500K that stood as collateral for the loan is not a part of the estate?

I can see where that would make sense on the basis that I have already spent the 500K and the estate no longer has it but since when is our tax code sensible?

 

[Larry Tew]

You changed who the "enlightened" are to try to save your incorrect historical point. They actually didn't know better on that issue. They just tried to make themselves sound more enlightened by mischaracterizing others as ignorant "flat earthers."

Now that I think of it, this isn't as off topic as I first thought...

Between you and Wikipedia, we'll never be short on truth and accuracy. Keep up the good fight.

 

[Mr_Ed]

You can't get that 2,000% return if you dilute your investment among multiple stocks, now can you? Diversification, or rather di-worsification, isn't always a good thing.

And yes, I understand how dividends work as a former series 7, 66 and current ChFC designee holder.

This is getting old.
This is basic stuff, guys.
Why don't you guys know these things?

Investing in large cap companies that pay quarterly dividends, year after year after year, is one of the safest investments one can make.

Most insurance agents don't understand business and how businesses make profits. If you don't understand business and how businesses make profits, you can't understand how a company could grow by 1,000% over 40 years.

But they can and they do.

Profits are not linear. They are exponential.

That is why a 25 year old should NOT make WL their #1 investment for "retirement income".


Here are dividend paying stocks that also have had capital appreciation.

In addition to the enormous capital growth, they've also consistently paid dividends, every quarter, with annualized dividend returns in the 2% to 5% range. (PLUS the capital growth).



KMB 2,543.75% return over 40 years.


PG 2,188.53% return over 40 years


INTC 5,670.57% return over 37 years


JNJ 3,051.10% return over 40 years

KO 2,580.19% return over 40 years


MO 1,194.39% return over 40 years



PEP 4,234.19% return over 40 years



ABT 2,632.21% return over 40 years


MCD 4,077.19% return over 40 years


MMM 990.95% return over 40 years

UTX 2,164.74% return over 40 years


CAT 1,464.60% return over 40 years


XOM 1,945.81% return over 40 years


COP 943.84% return over 40 years


CVX 1,283.89% return over 40 years


WMT 5,929.75% return over 40 years


TGT 2,369.55% return over 40 years


TXN 1,710.55% return over 40 years


ADP 2,606.29% return over 40 years


PFE 1,529.68% return over 40 years


MRK 1,676.47% return over 40 years


SO 1,839.17% return over 40 years

 

[DHK]

Risk is not linear. It is exponential.

Look, if you don't need a death benefit for any reason... don't buy life insurance. It's quite simple.

If you do need a death benefit, how do we maximize that policy for the policy holder? There are many ways.

Who doesn't want a death benefit? Those people should do what you're talking about.

Those that want or need a death benefit? Should not talk to you because you don't know the first thing about life insurance.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You will recall that in the OP, it talked about a IRR (or return on premiums paid) that it included the death benefit in that calculation.

What is the death benefit of your investment ideas? Exactly the value they are when they are finally sold out.

If you want a higher death benefit, you use life insurance.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BTW, at 25 years old... what are the greatest threats to him and his family? It's death and disability.

Hmmm... I wonder what can help him continue to save in the event of being disabled? Or keep food on the table for his family if he died?

At 25 years old, depending on the circumstances, protecting his economic life value and his ability to bring in a paycheck are two top priorities.

This is HIGHER than contributing to a Roth IRA/401k or Traditional IRA/401k.

If you're dead, what does it matter?

If you're disabled... how can you continue to fund it?

Yes, the 'free money' through the company match is nice... but it isn't nearly as important as the living and death benefits available through life insurance and a disability income policy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This is getting old.

Why don't you know these things?

 

[Mr_Ed]

Risk is not linear. It is exponential.

Look, if you don't need a death benefit for any reason... don't buy life insurance. It's quite simple.

If you do need a death benefit, how do we maximize that policy for the policy holder? There are many ways.

Who doesn't want a death benefit? Those people should do what you're talking about.

Those that want or need a death benefit? Should not talk to you because you don't know the first thing about life insurance.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You will recall that in the OP, it talked about a IRR (or return on premiums paid) that it included the death benefit in that calculation.

What is the death benefit of your investment ideas? Exactly the value they are when they are finally sold out.

If you want a higher death benefit, you use life insurance.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BTW, at 25 years old... what are the greatest threats to him and his family? It's death and disability.

Hmmm... I wonder what can help him continue to save in the event of being disabled? Or keep food on the table for his family if he died?

At 25 years old, depending on the circumstances, protecting his economic life value and his ability to bring in a paycheck are two top priorities.

This is HIGHER than contributing to a Roth IRA/401k or Traditional IRA/401k.

If you're dead, what does it matter?

If you're disabled... how can you continue to fund it?

Yes, the 'free money' through the company match is nice... but it isn't nearly as important as the living and death benefits available through life insurance and a disability income policy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This is getting old.

Why don't you know these things?

The OP was emphasizing the "retirement income" of WL and suggesting that a 25 year old would be better off "investing" $500 per month in a WL policy.

With a 40 year time horizon, the $500 per month would be much better invested in some type of a retirement account and buy some term life for the temporary need for a death benefit.

 

[DHK]

Then you need your eyes checked. He talked about "retirement income" AND the death benefit paid.

That was this part:

On top of that leave a TAX FREE inheritance to his family of 343,000.

 

[Mr_Ed]

Then you need your eyes checked. He talked about "retirement income" AND the death benefit paid.

That was this part:

woot woot!

they'd get a $343,000 "tax free" inheritance.

they'd be better off getting the higher return on a "taxable" death benefit.

gimmeabreak.

just do the math, people.

and open your eyes.