Scroll down for a discussion on Real price of WL insurance? within the Life Insurance Forum.
Carol, you're best off sitting down with a FEE-ONLY financial planner (people who do not received commissions from products they sell, nor advisory fees - ...
Carol, you're best off sitting down with a FEE-ONLY financial planner (people who do not received commissions from products they sell, nor advisory fees - they only charge on a per hour basis for what they do - pay the money and then move forward), who should be able to go over your situation and give you options. From there, you can select an insurance agent who represents the right type of policy for you. I'm not a member of this group (my business is simply different), but here's how you can access someone to help - www.garrettplanningnetwork.com
Carol, you're best off sitting down with a FEE-ONLY financial planner
This is not the worst advice you will get, Carol, but when you wade waist-deep into this ocean there is a good chance a shark will come along and take off your knees. In most states anyone can buy a desk and a chair, put it in an office, and decide that they are a fee-based advisor. If you are going to go that route and have $2K to $3K for said advice and you have received solid recommendations from credible friends or business colleagues, than by all means proceed.
I "insist" on you working with a "named palyer"... an insurance or brokerage house that you have heard of before because these houses have standards their people have to meet. They can weed out most of the slime-balls (but not all.) They also have given their people training and they almost all have a methodology for determining your needs as opposed to a crystal ball or throwing tarot cards.
Yes, I am aligned with a major house (MoO) because I know that people feel comfortable with someone who has the logo of a major house on their business card. I wanted the training and access to the methodology and computer systems to interpret the data the fact-finding methodoogy uncovers and create multiple options and scenarios for the client to consider.
That does not make me "better" than other agents, it just give me a set of tools to use that has been proven to work well for other clients.
There is no perfect agent and there is no perfect company. Some companies are very restrictive. At MoO I can sell product from any carrier I want. Obviously I sell more MoO plans because they are good ones for the clients I market to... but not always. (Ask the question to the agent "Can you only sell your own firms' products?" and note the answer.) For example their new GUL-Complete has a sweet-spot rate for people between the 45 and 60 band... the heart of my market.
As for WL, I'm a fan of it, but prefer to sell a high-accum GUL instead... one designed to create CSV. The BTITR is fine for young savvy investors who are risk tolerant and who have the discipline to save and invest in ultra-safe issues as opposed to those who will either buy a new car each year or buy into the latest investment fad (ethenol is hot now!) My entire approach to my clients is simple: "It is not how much you make that will ultimately determine your net-worth... but how much you don't lose."
I have no issue with having money in mutuals. Everyone should, especially long-term money like 401s and IRA. But you ought to have at least half if not 2/3 of your money in safe, solid, no-care products... insurance, insured CDs, government bonds, etc.
The most important thing I tell my clients is to live just slightly below their means... and save ten cents of every dollar they make. Do that for 40 years and a well-off person you will be when you are my age (60).
[quote=LGilmore;68590] To sit there and tell you to buy term and invest the difference without any knowledge of your risk tolerances is MALPRACTICE. [quote]
That is YOUR opinion... My OPINION is... it is financial MALPRACTICE to sell someone a WL policy with a 3500 yr prem, when they do not own a home, and wish to... The net result of the premium may well keep her from accomplishing that goal of owning the house for a few more years, and maybe not at all.
There is nothing wrong with owning a WL policy, but it is for someone with greater financial stability than has been attained thusfar by Carol. Much better suited to one who has discretionary income to allocate to savings, investment, etc. In her situation she needs max insurance DB for the lowest cost over the next 5 to 10 yrs while her kids are in school. Also hopefully she can attain "HER GOAL" (not yours, mine or the other agents goal) of purchasing her own home. Potentially at that time she can convert the term to a more permanent plan when it suits her cash flow better; at the time the education expenses dissapate and she has the discretionary income to allocate.
Carol; buy the term insurance now. Save for the condo or home and set a realistic goal of attaining that purchase. When the term ins runs its course consider converting it into a WL or Universal Life plan then, if the premium is affordable (without pain) to you at that time.
The problem with the WL recommendation to Carol at this point is it is much better for the financial plan of the AGENT, than it is for Carol's finacnial plan; IMO... and I have a real problem with that type of recommendation.
Last edited by SportsNut : 05-11-2008 at 12:46 PM.
I've never seen so many posts say so little. You have no money? Buy term insurance. You don't mind a 3% return (at most) and have lots of extra cash? Buy whole life.
I'm definitely not a life insurance expert but I cannot see any need for life insurance once I reach 65 or so. I've planned well enough that if I die before my wife, our assets will be sufficient to take care of her forever. Had I dropped $6,000 into whole life instead of $700 into term each year we would have less money to INVEST. Whole life is NOT an investment.
As to going with an agent with a big company, big companies did not get big by necessarily having the best products - only the best advertising. And don't think that they hire the best agents. Many companies will hire almost anyone, whether or not they have the ability to properly understand their products. (I won't point fingers here).
Go with your gut feelings as they are probably correct. I have no issue with term insurance even though it will likely expire before you do. I have homeowner and auto insurance I certainly would prefer to not file a claim.
Good luck.
Rick
------------------------------------ ILIAA
Training, Community, Support, and Success Independent Life Insurance Agents Assn rick@iliaa.org
Ditto - got 30 yr term that will take me until I'm 68. At 68 there's no mortgage - son's out of college and I have assets/investments.
If my car gets stolen I'm protected. It's never been stolen nor would I imagine it will even be stolen. Am I pissing away money by having theft on my policy?
I do see that arguing about this with some life agents it a bit like our fantastic religion thread - it can be debated, heatedly, forever and no one will ever see the other's point of view.
You can do the math 100 different ways and I'll show you how putting money into perm life is a financial mistake.
Yes, if you're lazy and "scared" about investing then perm life is for you. After infllation and fees might as well have buried it in a box in the back yard
------------------------------------ Health Insurance Agents: Training, Support, Discounts, E&O for $440 www.ihiaa.com
And yet another health insurance agent tells you not to buy wl.....
I think xrac summed it best. What if she becomes uninsurable? Just because you don't want perm life for yourself doesn't mean it isn't right for her.
This thread reminds me of why James doesn't post here any more. This forum is overpopulated by health agents who seem to have an irrational fear of life insurance. I say fear because that tends to be the underlying driver for dislike and hatred. And why do people fear? Typically, because they are under- and ill-informed.
The prejudice here against wl is palpable. And since I am already embarked upon a group psychoanalysis, I shall tell you why you are so afraid.... It stems from your early days trying to make a living selling insurance. It has been stated before by health agents on this forum: health insurance is an easier sale. Over the course of time, your fear of trying to make a living as a life agent has become distilled to a dislike of the source of your fear -- life insurance.
In a attempt to marginalize your fear, you poo poo wl. Your lack of self-awareness and resulting cognitive dissonance (is your penis shrinking or are you getting fatter?) releases itself as an emotional zit being squeezed for all of us to see. The pus? Bad, ill-informed, prejudiced advice.
[COLOR=navy]"I do see that arguing about this with some life agents it a bit like our fantastic religion thread - it can be debated, heatedly, forever and no one will ever see the other's point of view."
I will ask again.... NOW FOR THE 5th TIME....... name me 1 recognized financial advisor that would urge the purchase of Whole Life versus term and invest in cheese-on-the-moon (I don't care where you invest it)..... find me just one!!! I keep asking and you WL kook-aid drinkers keep avoiding!!! Go figure!
Just post the link for all of us term advocates selling health insurance, so we're complete idiots will go away and bow to your superior financial planning skill set!!!!!
Just post the link for all of us term advocates selling health insurance, so we're complete idiots will go away and bow to your superior financial planning skill set!!!!!
Comparing WL against a Bank CD? How about comparing it to the S&P 500 over that term? Also, showing term held for 50 years to compare? Without converting any of the term and actually holding it???
(Note: I'm not taking a position in this fight. You wanted a link... here is a link. Tell us what you think of it.)
Al
Al: That's certainly a good article about the merits of WL... which I would actually agree with... but it certainly doesn't fit the request of a nationally recognized financial advisor,,,,, since it's written by a CLU, ChFC......
I could easily write an article and fine ONE illustration where it is a benefit to buy what ever it is I'm selling.... but I will ignore that and reiterate that I'd rather have a prospect buy WL than to buy nothing at all... at least they are buying some level of protection and some level of savings build up versus what most middle/low income people do... which is own/buy/have nothing to sneeze at.
There still is a significant LACK OF SUPPORT for you WL guys/gals from anyone in the mainstream Financial Planning arena, which I maintain makes it very difficult in supporting your position.
I will ask again.... NOW FOR THE 5th TIME....... name me 1 recognized financial advisor that would urge the purchase of Whole Life versus term and invest in cheese-on-the-moon (I don't care where you invest it)..... find me just one!!! I keep asking and you WL kook-aid drinkers keep avoiding!!! Go figure!
Just post the link for all of us term advocates selling health insurance, so we're complete idiots will go away and bow to your superior financial planning skill set!!!!!
Hmmmmmmm?
Ummm. Burt Meisel.
While I'm sure many of us would like to have our own tv or radio show, do you really think James Cramer and The Suze give good financial advice? Or are you referring to hacks like Greenspan?
Tell us please, the nationally recognized financial advisor whose kool aid you drink? Is there anyone you follow and parrot? To whom do you confer god-like status? Chances are there is no one you agree with 100%. National Status has as much importance as Charmin vs Ultra Soft.
There still is a significant LACK OF SUPPORT for you WL guys/gals from anyone in the mainstream Financial Planning arena, which I maintain makes it very difficult in supporting your position.
Good luck
Let me ask two questions. How old are you, and what, for the most part, what is the age-group (demographics) of your client base?
Yes - Suze and Cramer both give good financial advice. If they didn't they would have been off the air within weeks/months and exposed as frauds who give lacking advice.
Greenspan a "hack?" - go get 1/1,000th of his credentials then come back to us:
No contest. Charmin has Mr. Wipple. Who the f--k does Ultra Soft have? Three generations of agents have grown up in mortal fear of Wipple? No one takes Ultra Soft seriously.
Show me an agent who uses Charmin and I'll show you an aggressive, "take the risk" BTITD agent.
Those who use Ultra are wimpy WL guys and you don't want to hang with them.
Yes - Suze and Cramer both give good financial advice. If they didn't they would have been off the air within weeks/months and exposed as frauds who give lacking advice.
Greenspan a "hack?" - go get 1/1,000th of his credentials then come back to us:
If Greenspan sat down in a room with you and started talking, smoke would come out of your ears within 2 minutes and your brain would expode.
The reason they are still on the air is ENTERTAINMENT. That has nothing to do with good advice. Insurance is not entertaining. Therefore there are no insurance names that the public will recognize.
Yeah, Cramer's so great:
On March 11th, 2008, Jim Cramer advocated on CNBC that "Bear Stearns is Fine!" and "Don't move your money from Bear. That just being silly! Don't be silly!". Six days later on March 17th 2008, stock price of Bear Stearns dropped to $4.81 per share from $62.97 on March 11th.
In February 2000, Cramer proclaimed that Internet-related companies "are the only ones worth owning right now." These "winners of the new world," as he called them, "are the only ones that are going higher consistently in good days and bad".
In 2006 Cramer's suggested portfolio lost money "despite nearly every major equity market on earth being up between about 15 percent and 30 percent."
In March 2007, a review by CXO Advisory showed that Cramer's stock picks have done worse than the market averages.
In March 2007, Joseph Parnes, a noted short seller featured in Barron's, refuted positions by Cramer on Web Hosting, VPS and Dedicated Servers by eBoundHost, and has shown to his audience in his publication, Shortex, that using positions contrary to Cramer's recommendations is actually more advantageous.
In April 2007, Credit Bubble Stocks criticized Cramer because of a speech he gave on February 29, 2000, at the height of the dot-com bubble, recommending a number of speculative stocks that ultimately fell in value substantially with some even becoming worthless.
In August 2007, Cramer called for the Federal Reserve to support hedge funds that were losing money in the Subprime mortgage financial crisis, prompting Martin Wolf, the chief economics commentator for the Financial Times, to accuse Cramer of advocating an offensive and catastrophic "socialism for capitalists".
Two weeks before his well-known speech against the Federal Reserve, Cramer appeared in a segment of TheStreet.com's Wall Street Confidential stating that the subprime crisis wasn't all that bad. Itulip.com features a video showing Cramer's contradictory statements about the Subprime crisis over the past year. The video could also be found on YouTube before it was removed on the request of TheStreet.com for alleged copyright infringements.
On January 22, 2008, Jim Cramer was confronted by Rick Santelli on CNBC for Cramer's bullish perspective over the preceding several months and how this contradicted Cramer's recent forecasting of a bear market (after significant market drops) and "how things were incredibly dangerous."
Suze Orman has donated thousands of dollars to Democratic causes, according to the website Opensecrets.org. She has donated money to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and to the campaigns of Hillary Clinton (D-NY).
When you see Greenspan, be sure to thank him for the easy credit which created the housing bubble. You might gargle with the old man's urine, but I maintain he is a hack.
But really John, it's all about you. My most humble apologies for not remembering that you are always right.
Re: Real price of WL insurance?
Linear Mode
