Annual Renewable Term

[scagnt83]

Have you noticed that laws are written by trained professionals (lawyers) but cases are decided by 12 people who are not professionals.

It sometimes pays to listen to what the jury has to say.

We are not talking about a court case. We are talking about the application and effective use of life insurance.

If a life insurance situation was in a court of law, then something fraudulent was done. Which would have absolutely no bearing on the proper and effective use of a life insurance policy.

What you would be referring to is a breach of Suitability. But that would be handled within that state's DOI. And it would be handled by someone trained in the suitability (proper use) of life insurance.


What if your doctor used yahoo answers to base their decisions about your care and diagnosis on?? Would you really trust that doctor? What if it was your lawyer? Or your CPA? Most sane people would run like hell and find someone who gets their info from reputable sources within that professional's industry.


The reason we as agents use professional sources to educate ourselves and not Yahoo Answers, is to avoid ever needing to prove our innocence to 12 random strangers. Ignorance is a very dangerous thing in this industry.

 

[DHK]

I'll try these questions again, before I invest additional time to read further into your material:

Is fire insurance a want product or a need product?

Is car insurance a want product or a need product?

The answers for each are either:

1. Want
2. Need

If you can't or won't take the time answer those simple questions, why should I read further?

Fire insurance (or rather homeowners insurance) is required by the lender, therefore, it is classified under a "need" product. If you have no mortgage on your property, I don't know if it's required by your homeowners association or by the state... so it could be a REGULATED "need", or it can be a "want".

If it wasn't required by lenders... would people still buy it?

Car insurance is a regulated and mandated purchase for minimum coverage levels. Therefore "state minimum" coverage is a "need" while anything above state minimum coverage is a "want".

If it wasn't required by state law... would people still buy it?


Life insurance is not a regulated or mandated purchase by any government agency, as far as I know. It is a purchase that responsible people make. They can either purchase a minimum amount or time of coverage, or they can upgrade that coverage and enjoy additional protections and economic benefits.

It is NOT required by state law or lenders (except maybe SBA lenders)... but people still buy it!

Making a comparison of regulated purchases of insurance products to insurance products that have no such purchase regulations... is a stupid comparison and a diversion away from the true point of the current conversation in this thread - the economic value of a cash value permanent life insurance policy.

 

[pfg1]

....and... Life insurance addresses the one thing that WILL happen. We're all gonna die. We may not have a car accident, house fire, or major illness.... yet we have insurance for them, just in case we do.

I'm with DHK, Larry, SC, et al... Max Funded Permanent Life Insurance IS the steak, not the sizzle.

 

[DHK]

Have you noticed that laws are written by trained professionals (lawyers) but cases are decided by 12 people who are not professionals.

It sometimes pays to listen to what the jury has to say.

Did you just essentially say that the recommendation of a permanent life insurance policy should land us in court???

Taking Notes may insulate your business Best Practices

Why clients win lawsuits against their financial advisors. Best Practices

I don't know when the last time you took a real course on how to properly utilize a life insurance policy... but your mindset and attitudes are very far out of date.

It's okay if all you want to do is peddle term life insurance. But don't tell the rest of us who have studied the laws and economic benefits that we are ripping our clients off.

Life insurance... and every other kind of non-need or non-regulated insurance purchase... is an EMOTIONAL purchase... with enough logic to justify the purchase.

----------

The Truth about Participating Life Insurance - Rick Miller, CLU, ChFC

 

[Robert Barney]

Fire insurance (or rather homeowners insurance) is required by the lender, therefore, it is classified under a "need" product. If you have no mortgage on your property, I don't know if it's required by your homeowners association or by the state... so it could be a REGULATED "need", or it can be a "want".

If it wasn't required by lenders... would people still buy it?

I hesitate to respond, out of confusion. I thought I was "blocked". If not, here's my response. I suspect I may get blocked.

So the only "need" for fire insurance is dictated by the fact a mortgage lender dictates you must have it to get the loan.

Otherwise, fire insurance is a want, not a need.

I'd like to put you in charge of the food stamp program.

You and I have very different opinions as to what a "need" is, and I am left to guess that you believe that unless someone tells you to do something, you don't feel any need to do it.

My decision to buy life insurance, to protect my family in the event that I prematurely die and they lose my income, is on my "needs" list. I suppose, if such a product did not exist, it would be on my wants list. But the fact is that the product does exist, and so I perceive a need to have it. In the years I sold life insurance, I only recall one guy who disagreed with me about that, and wanted me to sell a policy I deemed too small. I walked out of the sale and advised him (nicely) he's have to find someone else to sell him too little life insurance. I can only say I was glad his wife heard what I had to say. I don't know if they remained married.

You apparently disagree with the concept of what is a need, and have reduced ALL forms of life insurance to "want" and NOT "need". I think that all you have done is come up with a clever sales hook for peddling whole life. It is indeed clever, but I would call it irresponsible, but don't take that personally.

Speaking for the majority of consumers (and I am quite certain I do on this), the concept of protecting the income that your family depends on, should you die, is very much a need.

But I will go this far with you. I believe that a family breadwinner with children "needs" term life insurance. Permanent life insurance is a want product. No one "needs" permanent life insurance. Once again, many people "need" term life insurance.

Personally, while I am happy to help and advise people regarding their wants, I am far more concerned that they are first and foremost focused on addressing their needs. I believe that's what the insurance business should be.

Does that help you?

I didn't think so.

Car insurance is a regulated and mandated purchase for minimum coverage levels. Therefore "state minimum" coverage is a "need" while anything above state minimum coverage is a "want".

If it wasn't required by state law... would people still buy it?

I would invite those of you who sell property and casualty insurance to weigh in on these preposterous comments. Do I have more liability insurance on my vehicle than the state requires - HECK YES! Do I need it, are you nuts? Further, and on top of all the liability coverage that I can get, I have umbrella coverage for as much as I can get.

I can see there is little point explaining it to you, you are a gambler who thinks life is just a big gamble and if something unfortunate happens, and you experience a significant financial loss, then you can best sum it up as "shiite happens". And while it's a free country, and you are entitled to your opinion, I note that you have an insurance license and are in a position to advise people on buying life insurance, I would say we "need" some new subject matter for testing life insurance agents before issuing licenses.

Life insurance is not a regulated or mandated purchase by any government agency, as far as I know. It is a purchase that responsible people make. They can either purchase a minimum amount or time of coverage, or they can upgrade that coverage and enjoy additional protections and economic benefits.

And so responsible people only have wants, not needs?

It is NOT required by state law or lenders (except maybe SBA lenders)... but people still buy it!

Once again, unless someone requires you to buy something, it is your view that there is no need for it. So only if the government forces you to do something, do you think you need to do it.

Making a comparison of regulated purchases of insurance products to insurance products that have no such purchase regulations... is a stupid comparison and a diversion away from the true point of the current conversation in this thread - the economic value of a cash value permanent life insurance policy.

Wow, I have spoken with consumers of life insurance who are more informed than you.

Yes this has been a diversion, but I suspect a useful one.

 

[DHK]

Now we're into semantics on the English Language and Psychology.

YOU classified life insurance as a NEED because of your value system. That's a good thing! However, it is because of your values that you classified your WANT as a NEED. It's not just a "wish list" item... it's a necessity for you.

Now, you're also assuming that we only sell minimum coverage because it's a permanent plan? Sorry, wrong again.

The first step is to determine if there is a need for a death benefit. Then I help the client determine how much death benefit they would WANT in the event of their death. I also disclose the MAXIMUM amount an insurance company would be willing to issue to insure the economic life value of that person.

Most often, it is LEAST expensive (in terms of premium) to solve their NEED with a term life insurance policy. However, once people see the benefits of a permanent life insurance policy, they WANT it.

My usual recommendation is a perm/term blended policy so they can have the benefits of both for a reasonable premium... and we can convert the term over time.


However, you are a person who sees the world with your own lens. It's not my job to educate you or teach you.

I would only consider this thought: There is a market and a purpose for every available and legal financial product and service. I take it as a personal challenge to determine the best markets and uses for each product and service. Then it's my job to learn how to present it properly to that target market so that they WANT it.

If they don't want it, that's fine. Just like you don't want it either.

----------

Speaking for the majority of consumers (and I am quite certain I do on this), the concept of protecting the income that your family depends on, should you die, is very much a need.

That's coming from YOUR VALUE system. That's not a bad thing, but I don't assume that everyone shares the same values.

But I will go this far with you. I believe that a family breadwinner with children "needs" term life insurance. Permanent life insurance is a want product. No one "needs" permanent life insurance. Once again, many people "need" term life insurance.

Both are "want" products... but in the order of solving for the death benefit, term is first, and then mix in some permanent.

Personally, while I am happy to help and advise people regarding their wants, I am far more concerned that they are first and foremost focused on addressing their needs. I believe that's what the insurance business should be.

yes

I would invite those of you who sell property and casualty insurance to weigh in on these preposterous comments. Do I have more liability insurance on my vehicle than the state requires - HECK YES! Do I need it, are you nuts? Further, and on top of all the liability coverage that I can get, I have umbrella coverage for as much as I can get.

I suspect that's because you have significant assets that need protecting in case "stuff" happens.

I can see there is little point explaining it to you, you are a gambler who thinks life is just a big gamble and if something unfortunate happens, and you experience a significant financial loss, then you can best sum it up as "shiite happens". And while it's a free country, and you are entitled to your opinion, I note that you have an insurance license and are in a position to advise people on buying life insurance, I would say we "need" some new subject matter for testing life insurance agents before issuing licenses.

And where is YOUR CLU or ChFC or CFP? Hmmm? I've got mine.

And so responsible people only have wants, not needs?

You don't see your own emotional investment in this conversation? You want to win this, but you can't see the forest for the trees.

Once again, unless someone requires you to buy something, it is your view that there is no need for it. So only if the government forces you to do something, do you think you need to do it.

Again, you have an emotional connecting with the way you interpret the word "need".

Wow, I have spoken with consumers of life insurance who are more informed than you.

Yes this has been a diversion, but I suspect a useful one.

Yep... maybe you'll learn the difference between a need and a want.

----------

Let me put it this way: Everyone needs transportation.

If everyone bought based on needs... wouldn't everyone have the same car? Wouldn't the old YUGO meet that need?

But I'm willing to bet that you don't drive a YUGO. You have something else. Let's just say you have a Mercedes Benz.

Why would you WANT a Mercedes Benz instead of a YUGO? The YUGO would meet your need for transportation, right? Why bother with the expense of a Mercedes?

Because the Mercedes meets your WANTS requirements. You want a bigger chassis, better engineering, better safety, and the perception of prestige. You want them so much... that you turned it into a NEED and made a purchase.

That's the difference between needs and wants.

If I remember correctly, Larry's paper goes into that... so if you read past page 3, you'd get a better idea of the differences between needs and wants.

----------

This presentation also goes into the "needs vs wants" discussion when it comes to permanent life insurance:

https://www.mdrtstore.org/p/3316/increasing-the-efficiency-of-retirement-income

 

[Robert Barney]

We are not talking about a court case. We are talking about the application and effective use of life insurance.

Sorry, using analogies is clearly beyond you.

What I am trying to say is that some professionals have pretty elevated opinions of themselves and their ideas, which are not shared by the man in the street. My view is that the man in the street, particularly in this example, is correct.

 

[DHK]

Yep... and the masses who follow the stock market are also correct with their buying and selling of their mutual funds are also correct.

There is no need for financial professionals to bring new ideas to their clients... because the masses are better planners for themselves than the professionals who have spent years or decades in the field.

You're absolutely right. /sarcasm

 

[Norwayguy]

Guys your arguing with a guy who gets his income selling a product that can not illustrate all forms of life insurance. If he doesn't try to strike down those other types his customers may find themselves looking for another software system to meet all their needs.


I find it interesting Barney's contemp for the very people he sells his wares to. I can't believe I might actually agree with he who shall not be named in regards to this software.

 

[Robert Barney]

And where is YOUR CLU or ChFC or CFP? Hmmm? I've got mine.

You're not the first individual with those designations to advocate positions on life insurance that I strongly disagree with. In fact, it was having encountered such ideas very early in my life insurance selling experience, that I wanted nothing to do with the designations. Kind of a "by their fruits you shall know them" thing.

So as a caution, I would not rely upon those designations as some measure that might impress me. It could have the opposite impact.

You make comments about what I am assuming. I don't think I am assuming anything. I am responding to comments you made, and if you need to expand those comments to more clearly communicate your position, feel free.

You said:

YOU classified life insurance as a NEED because of your value system.​

Yes, and I am taking issue with your views because it does not appear to be your value system, or the value system that you were taught when you were getting your license and/or designations.

I am not prepared to label every belief as a "value system". I would not for example, be prepared to accept radical Muslim ideology as a "value system" that someone should embrace, or to say nothing to offend those who have it. But I digress. Oh, and that's why my critics dislike me, but I digress X 2.

As a person who is an expert in the field of life insurance (we can debate what legally constitutes "expert", but don't read too much into it) I find myself in the position of life insurance teacher, explaining the product to those who are more ignorant on the subject (ie. most consumers). Playing games with words does not help those consumers with their understanding of what they should be doing.

My goal, and I considered it my responsibility when I actually sold life insurance, is to ensure that the consumer carries adequate insurance coverage to address their insurance "need". And yes, from time to time I sold people (usually upper income) permanent policies to address their wants.

My experience was that the vast majority of consumers were underinsured and they were underinsured as a result of people with CLU's peddling them whole life policies. That says more about the people who issue the designation, than the individual who has it, which is why, once again, I saw no need to get such a designation.

As to whether you sell enough coverage to your clients or not, I did not say. You seem to think that is what I am saying, but I don't see where you got into sufficient details for me to come to that conclusion. I think you are jumping to conclusions having had arguments with "term-ites" in the past.