Have you ever heard of the "infinite banking" concept?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Insurance companies exist to make profit for THEM, not YOU............ :D

That's funny, mutual fund companies are positioned to do that...weird ;)

Actually, your statement is a little misleading. A mutual insurance company has as its goal to maximize profits for policyholders because they are the "shareholders" - hence the dividend-paying insurance. A stock company's goal is the same as any other stock company - to maximize profits for it's shareholders. Coincidentally, some of the best stock companies are heavier on their UL products than whole life.

If an insurance company isn't maximizing profits for stockholders or policyholders (depending on how the company is set up), that just means that it's poorly run. Eventually, it'll be absorbed by a company that "gets it".
 
Last edited:
Where are TexasProud's questions? I think they must be in a separate thread - I don't see them here. Can someone point to that thread?

I've got my comfy chair, popcorn, and adult beverage, so I'm interested in seeing this thing get started. ;)



Look around the forum, you won't see too much chasing of high returns. If anything, you will see ridicule of that approach. Mostly boring, old, (rich) , index investors here.

-ERD50


No value investors? No fundamental analysis gurus? That's too bad. I could pitch my investment software. Index investors are the ONE group that won't buy anything but index funds. ;)
 
It's too bad your adviser never checked the company's comdex score and didn't steer you away from that company.
quote]

Would it have really mattered? Conseco bought the company and raided the policy. Another great piece of insurance advice ! Wow, I feel all warm and fuzzy about life insurance company ethics now, thanks!
 
That's funny, mutual fund companies are positioned to do that...weird ;)
that = 'make a profit' (really bugs me that these posts don't embed the quoted quotes...)

No one should expect a company to provide a service for free. But, if company X is going to charge more than company Y, many of us would like evidence that company X will provide a better value.

I'd gladly pay a 100% fee, to get 200% returns with Beta =1 ;)


No value investors? No fundamental analysis gurus? That's too bad. I could pitch my investment software. Index investors are the ONE group that won't buy anything but index funds. ;)

A few - I wonder why they have not convinced too many index people to join them?

-ERD50
 
That's too bad. I could pitch my investment software.

Ahh, that must be the amazing investment software that the mega-billion buck mutual fund companies have not discovered yet. If they had, they would be offering mutual funds with consistent above-market returns with consistent below-market volatility. And many on the board here would be investing in them.

-ERD50
 
Again, dclewis, you could do well to answer TexasProud's questions instead of starting fights, or you could just take this nonsense somewhere else.

SORRY... my questions are in one of the other threads we got from the last guy.... so I guess he can not answer them....

Since I don't want to waste my time looking for them... I will just say...

IF YOU ARE NOT TRYING TO SELL ANYTHING OR GET CLIENTS.... Then why are you here? It is NOT to educate us... all we have to do is read the book to get educated (again, along with being rich, most of us are smart)... PS.. rich for this discussion is over $1 mill....
 
It's too bad your adviser never checked the company's comdex score and didn't steer you away from that company.
quote]

Would it have really mattered? Conseco bought the company and raided the policy. Another great piece of insurance advice ! Wow, I feel all warm and fuzzy about life insurance company ethics now, thanks!

Life insurance companies don't "raid" cash values, they can't. It's not like a pension fund. The money is being held for the benefit of a 3rd party (the beneficiary). As the policyowner, you outrank everyone else in connection with that policy.

There wouldn't be a reason for them to not give you the cash value unless the surrender charges prevented you from having a positive balance, there was fraud on your part in connection with setting up the policy, or you borrowed all of the available funds from your policy.

Comdex scores give a good idea of how a company has behaved in the past. If you are good at valuing a company (a reason to study value investing, not just index investing), you have a better opportunity to see what lies ahead.

I'm not blaming you for what happened, but you are making unfair sweeping generalizations about ALL insurance companies that simply aren't true. I'm sorry that you had an unpleasant experience with a life insurance company. Not sure what the exact blow-by blow details are though...you stated earlier:

"After several missed payments (I was in the midst of a divorce, commuting between the US and Europe on business, and wasn't paying close enough attention to what I thought was automated banking- and I never received an overdue premium notice from them...) they declared the policy in default and informed me that I had forfeited the "guaranteed cash value" and the insurance coverage"

Not paying premiums on the whole life should trigger a red flag. Several missed payments - they are going to assume you are surrendering the contract. They can't refuse premium payments as life insurance is a unilateral contract and governed by the principle of "utmost good faith". Did you contact the insurance company? Your State Insurance Commissioner? Generally, if you had net cash value available, it should be yours when you surrender it.
 
No. I read a lot. Perhaps there is something I should know about the folks that frequent this board? Is everyone bloodthirsty?

We'll grind your bones to make our bread.
 
Ahh, that must be the amazing investment software that the mega-billion buck mutual fund companies have not discovered yet. If they had, they would be offering mutual funds with consistent above-market returns with consistent below-market volatility. And many on the board here would be investing in them.

-ERD50


haha...no. Very cynical by the way.

The software gathers information from the SEC and does all of the calculations involved in analyzing 7 different fundamentals of a company. It's completely transparent so there's no "?" as to how the software determines value. So far it seems to be working quite well. Since 2000, our top tier stocks (which are diversified across different sectors) have averaged a little over 11% without figuring in dividends.

Actually mutual fund managers use something very similar, provided they use fundamental analysis. The problem with mutual funds is, well...among other things government regulation. The "5% rule", the liquidity issues, the fact that they are paid based on assets under management, not performance of the fund, good funds grow too big and the excessive cash dampens returns because of limited investment options, etc. etc. etc.
 
haha...no. Very cynical by the way.

The software gathers information from the SEC and does all of the calculations involved in analyzing 7 different fundamentals of a company. It's completely transparent so there's no "?" as to how the software determines value. So far it seems to be working quite well. Since 2000, our top tier stocks (which are diversified across different sectors) have averaged a little over 11% without figuring in dividends.

Actually mutual fund managers use something very similar, provided they use fundamental analysis. The problem with mutual funds is, well...among other things government regulation. The "5% rule", the liquidity issues, the fact that they are paid based on assets under management, not performance of the fund, good funds grow too big and the excessive cash dampens returns because of limited investment options, etc. etc. etc.

I spend less than my small pension, are you salivating concerning my TSP?:duh:
 
Life insurance companies don't "raid" cash values, they can't. It's not like a pension fund. The money is being held for the benefit of a 3rd party (the beneficiary). As the policyowner, you outrank everyone else in connection with that policy.

There wouldn't be a reason for them to not give you the cash value unless the surrender charges prevented you from having a positive balance, there was fraud on your part in connection with setting up the policy, or you borrowed all of the available funds from your policy.

Comdex scores give a good idea of how a company has behaved in the past. If you are good at valuing a company (a reason to study value investing, not just index investing), you have a better opportunity to see what lies ahead.

I'm not blaming you for what happened, but you are making unfair sweeping generalizations about ALL insurance companies that simply aren't true. I'm sorry that you had an unpleasant experience with a life insurance company. Not sure what the exact blow-by blow details are though...you stated earlier:

"After several missed payments (I was in the midst of a divorce, commuting between the US and Europe on business, and wasn't paying close enough attention to what I thought was automated banking- and I never received an overdue premium notice from them...) they declared the policy in default and informed me that I had forfeited the "guaranteed cash value" and the insurance coverage"

Not paying premiums on the whole life should trigger a red flag. Several missed payments - they are going to assume you are surrendering the contract. They can't refuse premium payments as life insurance is a unilateral contract and governed by the principle of "utmost good faith". Did you contact the insurance company? Your State Insurance Commissioner? Generally, if you had net cash value available, it should be yours when you surrender it.

OK, you seem to be enjoying those adult beverages too much, so I will go slower:

1. The policy was set up with AUTOMATIC WITHDRAWAL from my checking. They deliberately quit taking the payments, not the other way around. They never sent an overdue premium notice. The first correspondance I received from them was the notice informing me the policy had lapsed and would not be reinstated, have a nice day.
2. Conseco bought Lamar- I had no say in the matter, so checking their Comdex scores in advance wouldn't mean jack.
3. Of course I contacted the Insurance company- re-read my post and you will notice I mentioned how concerned and helpful their customer service staff was. I called them several times, and then followed up in writing. My "Estate and Financial Planning Specialist" (herinafter referred to as Peter Leech) contacted them on my (his) behalf -they stonewalled him, too.
4. After a couple of months of dealing with this as a sideline issue, (remember that pesky divorce I mentioned) I wrote it off as a good financial lesson, and vowed to never again get involved with
a. "Estate and Financial Planning Specialists"
b. Any life insurance product with a descriptive prefix.

Using the terms "utmost good faith" and. "Insurance Company" in the same sentence is, I believe, outlawed in most states. (notice I was careful to separate them...)

I believe there probably are probably honest, competent hardworking financial planners out there- but the shysters who are lining their own pockets at the expense of their clients by pushing questionable products give the financial planning sector a bad name.
 
Last edited:
OK, you seem to be enjoying those adult beverages too much, so I will go slower:

1. The policy was set up with AUTOMATIC WITHDRAWAL from my checking. They deliberately quit taking the payments, not the other way around. They never sent an overdue premium notice. The first correspondance I received from them was the notice informing me the policy had lapsed and would not be reinstated, have a nice day.
2. Conseco bought Lamar- I had no say in the matter, so checking their Comdex scores in advance wouldn't mean jack.
3. Of course I contacted the Insurance company- re-read my post and you will notice I mentioned how concerned and helpful their customer service staff was. I called them several times, and then followed up in writing. My "Estate and Financial Planning Specialist" (herinafter referred to as Peter Leech) contacted them on my (his) behalf -they stonewalled him, too.
4. After a couple of months of dealing with this as a sideline issue, (remember that pesky divorce I mentioned) I wrote it off as a good financial lesson, and vowed to never again get involved with
a. "Estate and Financial Planning Specialists"
b. Any life insurance product with a descriptive prefix.

Using the terms "utmost good faith" and. "Insurance Company" in the same sentence is, I believe, outlawed in most states. (notice I was careful to separate them...)

I believe there probably are probably honest, competent hardworking financial planners out there- but the shysters who are lining their own pockets at the expense of their clients by pushing questionable products give the financial planning sector a bad name.


I know you're smart enough to understand the phrase "ad hominem".

Anyway, did you contact the insurance commissioner?
 
Please refrain from personal attacks in this thread. It is getting out of hand. Everyone take a deep breath, savor the subtleties of infinite banking, and come back when you're in a better mood.

Thanks.
 
haha...no. Very cynical by the way.

Yeah, I've found that the best way to hang on to my life savings is to be cynical. I'm funny that way.

So far it seems to be working quite well. Since 2000, our top tier stocks (which are diversified across different sectors) have averaged a little over 11% without figuring in dividends.

Ok, this sounds interesting. Do you have a graph of the performance of a straight buy/sell on these recommendations that you could share? One thing I've found is that many of these 'we beat the market' claims ignore volatility. But 2000 to present includes up and down times, so this could be enlightening.

The problem with mutual funds is, well...among other things government regulation. The "5% rule",...

Assuming the 5% rule is don't have any > 5% of assets in any one stock, that would concern me a bit. Even if your algorithm is excellent, it can't foretell everything. 5% rule avoids a catastrophe from any one stock.


-ERD50
 
img_685939_0_a462015e678d0ba7dcb6aa1f12309821.gif
 
Ok, this sounds interesting. Do you have a graph of the performance of a straight buy/sell on these recommendations that you could share? One thing I've found is that many of these 'we beat the market' claims ignore volatility. But 2000 to present includes up and down times, so this could be enlightening.

Sorry no. As someone else here said, I am not here to educate, or enlighten. I also am not here to sell anything. The "top tier" was never meant to be a list of recommended stocks. And...the software doesn't recommend anything. It's simply an informational aid. The individual picks the stock based on available information. It was just a running total of stocks that were picked to see if the software worked. When stocks became overvalued, they were sold and replaced by undervalued stocks (if we could find them). Hey folks, didn't mean to rain on your parade. Honestly, I thought people had questions about the IBC. I didn't know this was just a mosh pit to bash new-comers. Really, I'm sorry for "invading".
 
I didn't know this was just a mosh pit to bash new-comers. Really, I'm sorry for "invading". Bye.

You don't tug on Superman's cape...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom