The only people that usually benefit from fincanial hand waving are the ones pitching the product. It's insurance people, just buy term and be done with it.
Life Policies w/ Cash Value
14,940 Views |
198 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by ebdb_bnb
**********zYo! said:
The only people that usually benefit from fincanial hand waving are the ones pitching the product. It's insurance people, just buy term and be done with it.
And yet here's an accountant recommending it for his client because he understands the tax aspects/benefits of it as it relates to his client's situation and in all likelihood, he's not getting paid for it at all.
Just because you don't understand it and/or it doesn't fit your situation doesn't mean it doesn't work for others.
**********zYo! said:
The only people that usually benefit from fincanial hand waving are the ones pitching the product. It's insurance people, just buy term and be done with it.
Oh look y'all, it's another person who has no idea what they're talking about.
**********zYo! said:
The only people that usually benefit from fincanial hand waving are the ones pitching the product. It's insurance people, just buy term and be done with it.
No. Not what's happening in the slightest.
I've met with an independent advisor that wanted to learn how he could use it as a bond proxy. The math works out and then some for the client. He decides against it because after 4 years, he makes more money keeping it in bonds. Even though the client makes more having a whole life portfolio.
This rhetoric is spouted by people that don't understand taxes, how to use leverage the way banks do, and how to structure these things.
Ah ha! Three in a row! More than I expected. Thanks!
Oh and to help you out, slow down and comprehend my statement, "usually benefit". It's a tough one!
Oh and to help you out, slow down and comprehend my statement, "usually benefit". It's a tough one!
**********zYo! said:
Ah ha! Three in a row! More than I expected. Thanks!
Let me know if you want to learn IRR calcs.
But math is hard.
Stive said:
But math is hard.
And rookie tags are easy...
Math is hard? I hope the two of you don't think the mechanics of financial calculation is difficult (it isn't - try something that requires a bit more acumen than decimals and percentages).
How about you engage in reading comprehension and notice i stated, 'usually benefit'. Clearly you two think this stuff is a laughing matter but I've seen far too many people get the short end of the stick when it comes to salesmen pitching vastly inferior products for their own benefit.
How about you engage in reading comprehension and notice i stated, 'usually benefit'. Clearly you two think this stuff is a laughing matter but I've seen far too many people get the short end of the stick when it comes to salesmen pitching vastly inferior products for their own benefit.
Who is this *******?
We bring up a few points and you resort to saying "I said usually"....
And yet your last sentence is a blanket statement telling everyone to just buy term. So what is it: usually buy term or always?
And yet your last sentence is a blanket statement telling everyone to just buy term. So what is it: usually buy term or always?
A gif of a guy that owns permanent insurance and doesn't practice what he preaches about needing/wanting/owning life insurance in general.
Awesome!
Awesome!
Stive said:
A gif of a guy that owns permanent insurance and doesn't practice what he preaches about needing/wanting/owning life insurance in general.
Awesome!
Nearly every "disciple of Ramsey", as I like to call them, agrees with me that his program is great for people who have made mistakes and need to get out of debt, but poor for those trying to accumulate wealth.
Permanent insurance is for the latter, not the former.
Quote:
Yet in most cases, one of the main forms of life insurance permanent life insurance is a bad financial idea for consumers. Most people overpay for it without seeing any benefit at all, it produces poor investment returns, and sales incentives may cause insurance agents to recommend policies that may not be the best fit for the consumer.
Quote:
In fact, nearly 88% of universal life policies (a type of permanent life insurance) never pay a claim.
This is largely because many people allow their permanent policies to lapse, and the No. 1 reason is they can't afford the premiums due to a period of unemployment or other financial setback. Or they may decide it's no longer something they want or need.
Quote:
All of those paid premiums from a lapsed policy just go to the insurance company as pure profit, so the insurance industry isn't bothered by lapse rates in fact, it counts on them. A policy that never pays a claim is much more profitable to an insurer than a policy that pays a claim.
Quote:
Insurance agents are incentivized to sell consumers overly complex and expensive permanent life insurance policies because of larger commissions.
Quote:
It only makes sense to buy permanent life insurance when you've maxed out your 401(k) and Roth IRA, which are far better investment options and are much more effective in safeguarding your financial future; when you know for certain that you'll never lapse the policy; and when you are seeking certain estate-tax advantages, making it an option for some high-income individuals.
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/insurance/why-permanent-life-insurance-is-a-bad-idea-for-most-people/
Diggity said:
OP seems to be a troll. He's the same guy that argues that leasing is always more financially savvy than purchasing.
Here's a fun older thread, with the same guy selling a different questionable product. The same excitement and condescension and arrogance shows up in all the responses there too! Thanks for the entertainment guy!
https://texags.com/forums/57/topics/2613622/1
Forgot about that gem. I guess SquareOne changed jobs?
I'm a Ramsey disciple. At least most of what he says makes great sense. And I disagree that it's only for people trying to get out of debt.
I disagree on a few things with Ramsey.
1) 12% return expectation
2) never owning permanent insurance. I think it can make sense is estate planning situations. In other words after I have already accumulated a lot of wealth.
3). He generally seems to think you should only own equities for retirement no matter the age. I think there's enough data to suggest that it isn't the best idea.
Other than that I agree with all the rest.
Cash is king. Debt is dumb. 15% to retirement. Don't buy a new car until your nw is over 1mm. 15 year fixed mortgage payment less than 15% of take home. All of these are smart ideas for everyone.
I disagree on a few things with Ramsey.
1) 12% return expectation
2) never owning permanent insurance. I think it can make sense is estate planning situations. In other words after I have already accumulated a lot of wealth.
3). He generally seems to think you should only own equities for retirement no matter the age. I think there's enough data to suggest that it isn't the best idea.
Other than that I agree with all the rest.
Cash is king. Debt is dumb. 15% to retirement. Don't buy a new car until your nw is over 1mm. 15 year fixed mortgage payment less than 15% of take home. All of these are smart ideas for everyone.
Wrighty said:Diggity said:
OP seems to be a troll. He's the same guy that argues that leasing is always more financially savvy than purchasing.
Here's a fun older thread, with the same guy selling a different questionable product. The same excitement and condescension and arrogance shows up in all the responses there too! Thanks for the entertainment guy!
https://texags.com/forums/57/topics/2613622/1
Always? Nope. But it's not the scam that many make it out to be.
Just like permanent policies aren't the right answer for everybody...in fact, as I've mentioned, they make sense for very few.
Are they the scam that many make them out to be? Nope.
But hey, I guess those massive companies who lease and those millionaires with permanent life policies should come to TexAgs more often so you guys can teach them the error of their ways.
*edited to laugh about the guy crying about condescension in a condescending post. Keep it up, guy.
You are 100% committed to whatever product you're schilling at any given point, I grant you that.
Keep up the good work.
Keep up the good work.
Damn, I forgot about that thread. I'm still driving the same Honda now at over 150k miles. Waiting for my first major repair...
You're reading comprehension is taking a backseat to whatever story you're trying to craft.
When you can respond to my comment rather than making up things I never said, I'd be curious to read what you come up with.
When you can respond to my comment rather than making up things I never said, I'd be curious to read what you come up with.
Given a number of the comments here and the 6 pages this has been discussed, I had a few questions for some of the folks who are well versed in the matter:
1) How do you intend to manage a negative sequence of returns as retirement nears/begins?
2) How will you tax efficiently reduce the amount of risk you're taking in retirement if a good amount of your resources are in taxable accounts?
3) In retirement, how will you avoid selling out of a loss if your primary source of income are your assets allocated in IRAs, 401ks, brokerage accounts, etc?
4) How will you mitigate the risks of a long term care situation for yourself or others?
5) How do you plan to address the heavy tax burdens, potentially, associated with the transfer of your wealth upon dying?
If anybody's located in Austin, I'd love to grab lunch or coffee sometime to get your thoughts on the above and just your investment/wealth philosophy in general...and also to prove firsthand that the last thing I am is a Life Insurance Salesman.
1) How do you intend to manage a negative sequence of returns as retirement nears/begins?
2) How will you tax efficiently reduce the amount of risk you're taking in retirement if a good amount of your resources are in taxable accounts?
3) In retirement, how will you avoid selling out of a loss if your primary source of income are your assets allocated in IRAs, 401ks, brokerage accounts, etc?
4) How will you mitigate the risks of a long term care situation for yourself or others?
5) How do you plan to address the heavy tax burdens, potentially, associated with the transfer of your wealth upon dying?
If anybody's located in Austin, I'd love to grab lunch or coffee sometime to get your thoughts on the above and just your investment/wealth philosophy in general...and also to prove firsthand that the last thing I am is a Life Insurance Salesman.
The variable indexed life insurance thread brought me here
HahahahahahahahahainvestorAg83 said:SquareOne07 said:Cyp0111 said:
What exactly are you arguing?
I'm not arguing anything. Merely making the point that it doesn't make sense in the immediate or short term, as cow hop and win are pointing out, doesn't make it a scam or a poor product.
Again, I'm not arguing that you should purchase this investment, only that you owe it to yourself to be informed of it and not write it off because you heard it was a scam.
Dude...you will not change minds on an Internet forum. Cow hop and others are firmly planted. Move on.
And FYI...you can't call it an investment and the fact you refer to it as such means you need to bone up on how it really is supposed to fit in a portfolio and serve its purpose. Before you fly off the handle at me, I implement it as a part of planning as well and I've been where you are. It's one thing to know about the tool and another to know how to use it. It's almost like you're just running around this place waving a gun around screaming 'check out what I found!'