- 2,211
Here you go. Is this what you were looking for? Of is that too high? Of course it is a fund. Admittedly these yield calculations change all the time.
PUA and infinite banking, bank on yourself etc...
- Thread starter SamIam
- Start date
Here you go. Is this what you were looking for? Of is that too high? Of course it is a fund. Admittedly these yield calculations change all the time.
- 4,608
yeah, I personally own some similar investments, but the majority of seniors I talk to that want guaranteed money dont want the - 13% or -16% 1 yr or YTD like this has nor the 2% annual expense ratio
agree on the bulk of the marketing hype & sales push of Infinite banking & become your own banker, especially in todays low interest rate environment
First, I think that any "concept" or "selling system" or "strategy" for that matter, that is predicated on a singular use of any insurance product, by design, is going to have limitations, restrictions, etc., and will be contingent upon a variety of circumstances. Second, while I've utilized and placed every type of life insurance in the marketplace, every life insurance product -- if structured properly, "sold" properly, funded properly, and utilized properly -- can have applicability and can work in a certain, specific situation. If you want to drive from NY to FL as fast as you can, a Lamborghini can work exceptionally well, if all goes according to plan. If you want to drive from NY to FL and take a lot of luggage with you, a large SUV or conversion van, can work exceptionally well, if all goes according to plan. If you want to take the same trip as luxurious as possible, then a stretch limo/sedan, Maybach, etc., can work exceptionally well, if all goes according to plan. Now, fill up a Lamborghini with luggage, tie 6 suitcases tied to the roof, etc., hit a great deal of stop and go traffic, hit snow, etc., and your trip is going to have many problems. Get my analogy?
Third, it's easy to generically criticize any and every life insurance product -- again, in certain circumstances. And, that's what people are doing. If this. But that. This is better here. That is better there. And so on and so on. Benefits and advantages of a particular type of life insurance product can be "created" in many situations -- and so can problems and disadvantages. The various types of life insurance products being "debated" here are being debated on a myopic, narrow, specific "hypothetical" situation, basis; absent of details, specifics, facts, and circumstances of a specific "actual" and "realistic" client situation. It's apples and bowling balls as well as apples and filet mignon.
That said, specifically regarding the "system" that is the topic for this thread, I've seen it, thoroughly and comprehensively. It is, in my opinion, nothing more than a "sales system" for a particular type of life insurance. Not unlike many others. That doesn't make the life insurance product that is being utilized a "bad" life insurance product. It speaks to how the product is being utilized within the confines and parameters of this specific system. It is not reflective of the life insurance product -- it is reflective of the "sales system" and nothing more!
In addition, those who judge any life insurance product by the so called "break even" are being very, very myopic, and truly don't understand -- the applicability, potential utilization, and versatility of life insurance, and much more -- while viewing life insurance not just as a product, but as a tool, a vehicle, an asset, and an asset class.
If you own a stock, paid $10, and the stock went to $12 in one year, your myopic rate of return (yes, "on paper") would be 20%. Yes, you would have to calculate the embedded tax liability. We all know that. In addition, if there was a dividend, that would also be factored into your ROR as well. If you happened to write covered calls against that stock, that too would be factored into your ROR. And so on and so on. Why is life insurance any different? If utilized properly, effectively, efficiently, strategically, etc., then it is absolutely not any different. Unless you are the CFO of the respective company, no one can calculate an accurate ROR on a policy -- and the overall strategy/specific case -- that is tied to NQDC. In this setting, the life insurance is used as a cost-recovery vehicle, as an ROR recovery on "lost ROR" (on corporate capital/cash flow/capital investment dollars/etc.), and as a vehicle which provides tax benefits, and more. The benefits are exponential.
So, all in all, about the subject system, I am not "a fan" -- but the debate about the system does not carryover to the life insurance product in an all-encompassing fashion. Just my opinion. Take what you life and leave the rest. LOL.
Third, it's easy to generically criticize any and every life insurance product -- again, in certain circumstances. And, that's what people are doing. If this. But that. This is better here. That is better there. And so on and so on. Benefits and advantages of a particular type of life insurance product can be "created" in many situations -- and so can problems and disadvantages. The various types of life insurance products being "debated" here are being debated on a myopic, narrow, specific "hypothetical" situation, basis; absent of details, specifics, facts, and circumstances of a specific "actual" and "realistic" client situation. It's apples and bowling balls as well as apples and filet mignon.
That said, specifically regarding the "system" that is the topic for this thread, I've seen it, thoroughly and comprehensively. It is, in my opinion, nothing more than a "sales system" for a particular type of life insurance. Not unlike many others. That doesn't make the life insurance product that is being utilized a "bad" life insurance product. It speaks to how the product is being utilized within the confines and parameters of this specific system. It is not reflective of the life insurance product -- it is reflective of the "sales system" and nothing more!
In addition, those who judge any life insurance product by the so called "break even" are being very, very myopic, and truly don't understand -- the applicability, potential utilization, and versatility of life insurance, and much more -- while viewing life insurance not just as a product, but as a tool, a vehicle, an asset, and an asset class.
If you own a stock, paid $10, and the stock went to $12 in one year, your myopic rate of return (yes, "on paper") would be 20%. Yes, you would have to calculate the embedded tax liability. We all know that. In addition, if there was a dividend, that would also be factored into your ROR as well. If you happened to write covered calls against that stock, that too would be factored into your ROR. And so on and so on. Why is life insurance any different? If utilized properly, effectively, efficiently, strategically, etc., then it is absolutely not any different. Unless you are the CFO of the respective company, no one can calculate an accurate ROR on a policy -- and the overall strategy/specific case -- that is tied to NQDC. In this setting, the life insurance is used as a cost-recovery vehicle, as an ROR recovery on "lost ROR" (on corporate capital/cash flow/capital investment dollars/etc.), and as a vehicle which provides tax benefits, and more. The benefits are exponential.
So, all in all, about the subject system, I am not "a fan" -- but the debate about the system does not carryover to the life insurance product in an all-encompassing fashion. Just my opinion. Take what you life and leave the rest. LOL.
Last edited:
