Financial Information
Life Insurance is Safer than Stocks
How Life Insurance (a very specific type) can be Safer, More Liquid and have a Higher Rate of Return than other investments. Try Missed Fortune, Equity Index Universal Life, www. CSPFinancialGroup. us
-
-
#2 written by econ137 1 year ago
at least you have cash value in permanent insurance to fall back on.
Some people are fine with risk so the conservative nature of permanent insurance is not appealing; which is fine by me go crazy with it. But, there are some people who are conservative and want to hedge their bets.
I advise everybody to be informed of the pros and cons of vehicles they are adding to their portfolio.
-
#3 written by econ137 1 year ago
Diversify your eggs in different baskets (some in stocks, some in more conservative vehicles like permanent insurance.)
Some expert once said that “diversification is for the lazy and uninformed masses who don’t know how to maximize their retirement.”
Well good job hotshot, the majority of people don’t have the time, inclination or knowledge to be their own stock manager, that’s why you diversify. The masses have regular jobs, families, other goals…they don’t have time to worry about
-
#4 written by econ137 1 year ago
-
#5 written by econ137 1 year ago
Take a breather and pay attention…
Let’s use Dave Ramsey’s example because you sound like a follower. He states in a video clip here on youtube that if you line everything up correctly you should have about $700,000 to retire on. What happened to his 700,000 last year? 40% drop in the market reduces his 700,000 to 420,000.
Am I saying stocks are bad? Hell no. I even tell my clients (if they are young) to max out their 401k’s (foregoing commission mind you). It’s just that the potential
-
#10 written by econ137 1 year ago
Let’s say you’ve got 700,000 by the time you retire. Last year you would’ve lost 40% so now it’s down to 420,000. What do you tell your clients now? “Oh, that’s the way the cookie crumbles/that’s the way stocks work/etc.”?
You also fail to address transfer of ownership; say something happens to you. You can transfer whatever is left over to your spouse/kids right?! WRONG.
-
#11 written by econ137 1 year ago
Transfer of ownership on a retirement plan (ie. 401k or stocks) is impossible. DOUBLE TAXATION – estate tax from 35% to 55% in 2011 on top of income tax of 25% to 35%. You are looking at least 63% to more than 95% in taxes wiped out because you did not use proper estate planning via life insurance. Your $700,000 is now $259,000 to $35,000 left for your spouse or kids. That’s not fear-mongering, that’s fact.
-
#12 written by econ137 1 year ago
Whole life addresses this transfer of ownership problem; stocks do not.
Whole life is conservative with a moderate yield and guarantees; stocks you can make a lot of money and you can lose a lot of money too (I’m sure you have friends that lost some money in their 401k or stocks).
If you don’t care about estate planning and transferring your money to your kids if something happens to you, don’t get whole life. But if you do, do your own research and look into it.
-
#13 written by econ137 1 year ago
I’m going to take back all my insults to you and I apologize.
I feel like somebody presented whole life to you as if it was the best money-maker out there. I will be the first one to say that it isn’t. FAR FROM IT.
If you want to make A LOT of money cash value is not for you because the potential is not there. If you want to make a lot of money research your stocks; but as the old adage goes, with great reward comes great risk.
-
#14 written by econ137 1 year ago
Is the average consumer aware of these risks? Do you inform them that it is possible to lose more than half of your money in stocks? This is not fear-mongering, this is fact.
What whole life offers is permanent insurance, automatic estate planning, tax advantages, and some cash accumulation.
Any agent that tells you whole life will make you stinkin’ rich is lying to you.
But, that’s not to say it’s worthless. Permanent life insurance does have it’s place, depending on your goals.
-
#15 written by econ137 1 year ago
Whole life is like a knife. In the hands of a criminal it can kill. In the hands of a chef, you make some tasty treats.
If you have whole life because you were told you were going to retire off the cash accumulation, you’ve been misinformed.
If you have whole life because you like having permanent insurance, like the option of transferring money to your kids without double estate and income tax, and some cash accumulation, then you have picked the correct product.
-
#17 written by ktkl68 1 year ago
-
#19 written by fritchdogg 1 year ago
Is this for real. Whole life insurance as an investment? Why didn’t anyone ask what the cost of insurance is…and the fees to manage your whopping 4.5%? It is funny, we have a downturn in the market and everyone panics…like it is the first time we’ve ever had a recession. Stocks win in the long term, which I believe we are all talking about.
-
#20 written by fritchdogg 1 year ago
@econ137 Yes, if your goal is not to retire. The majority of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. I don’t believe the average middle class family can afford to tie up their extra money per month (in the form of expensive premiums) in a 4.5% savings account. Yes, there is some risk in stocks, but if you participate in a quality mutual fund the risk is limited greatly.
-
#21 written by fritchdogg 1 year ago
@econ137 Yes, if your goal is to not retire someday. I don’t believe that the average middle class family can afford to tie up their money (in the form of expensive premiums) in a 4.5% savings account. There is more risk in stocks, but if you pick a quality mutual fund the risk is greatly limited. Mutual funds can also vary among ones risk tolerance.
-
#22 written by yovani29 1 year ago
-
#23 written by escobar103182 1 year ago
These guys are idiots… you don’t pay taxes bcuz the moneys isn’t yours it becomes their property, its stated in the policy… you can only take the money out in the form of a loan… loan means interest you have to pay… the only person this benefit is the agent, since it renews every year, meaning premium goes up every year
-
#24 written by lilant27 1 year ago
@escobar103182 Wrong. The premium on a WL policy NEVER increases. That, aside from numerous others, is just one benefit of getting a whole life policy at a young age when you are healthy. Or, buying term when you are young that can be converted to whole life over a set time. Most advisers and insurance agents recommend a healthy blend of both because it maximizes the benefits you can receive later in life for healthy conditions you have TODAY. Quit being so ignorant, do your own research.
-
#25 written by escobar103182 1 year ago
@lilant27 Ur basically overpaying for the policy even though in a WL premiums wont Increase, We can’t say the same thing with VULs and ULs, and sure the premiums cover the Cost of insurance and the investment part but if you analyse the policy it will only get you about 3-6% of return and the company charges 6-8% if you want to take out a loan from your “own money” aka “company’s money” which in the policy states its their property, Nothing against LI, I condone Term, I know over a dozen agents
- Comment Feed for this Post
How much did did people lose in the stock market last year? 40%? If I was around 55 years old and lost 40% of my retirement vehicle, how am I gonna retire now?
Look I’m not saying that permanent insurance is the only option. And I’m also not saying that investing in stocks is bad. I’m merely saying that permanent insurance should be part of every portfolio.
Sure the potential for gains is lower, but the potential for loss is pretty much nonexistent. So go crazy with stocks; if you lose