Insurance agents love to hate Suze Orman, who regularly bashes whole life insurance and annuities on cable TV and in her books and speaking engagements.
Due to her relatively high profile, Orman’s message seems to resonate with many middle income Americans who generally do not work with their own financial advisors. It might be the only advice they hear, and the one-sided message has been a thorn in the side of insurance agents for years.
One member started a discussion thread to vent some frustrations with her sweeping generalizations and overly simplistic views, advising her audiences to stay away from any type of permanent life insurance.
“I agree with some things she says, but she makes it seem like it applies to everyone,” lamented on member. “Today on TV she said absolutely no whole life, no IUL, no VL, and that anyone who sells it to you as a tax-free investment vehicle is just a salesman.”
Another post offered this as a counter to Orman’s standard argument against whole life: “Show two sample illustrations.
The first one: Base policy only. The second one: Max-Funded policy with the same premiums as the first one. It’s the first one that the entertainers love to bash… and you can show them why that is. The second one is ‘investment grade’ life insurance with cash values in year one. Which savings plan using life insurance would your prospective client prefer?”
Do you ever run up against a prospect citing Orman’s advice against whole life products? If so, how do you counter it? Please chime in on the Orman thread here.