"They're not teaching their agent. Instead, Nelson is teaching the agent. And now we're all learning it from Nelson. I didn't even like life insurance until I read the book. So I learned from the beginning correctly, like yourself — the industry itself is kind of shady. And not shady, but horrible instructors, let's say. Because they say, well, we have all these products and we want money so we can invest it. And so how about you just sell any one of these? And the people inside don't understand. They need to do better due diligence. But it's hard to get them to do better due diligence when most executives of life insurance companies have 401(k)s and IRAs. They almost don't even understand their own product."
Hello, hello, and welcome back to the podcast. Thank you very much for being here. Today, we are back to BYOB and we are at Creating an Entity. Okay, there's a lot. This is a big chapter. Buckle up. This could be a minute or two.
Okay, so he kind of combined two chapters into one, in my opinion. He should have probably broke this up a little bit. But he talks about how many people die in actuaries and how they do their job and all that good stuff.
And he says, they are working with a mortality table that is constructed from a data of 10 million selected lives. People that have been through a selection process. People that have been through in a selection process, not a person off the street. The purpose of the selection process is to prevent adverse selection against the company. That is to call out the persons who are facing predictable death in the near future.
So anybody that's terminally ill, suicide, cancer, stroke, heart attack. We see a lot of people that Crohn's, colitis, depression, anxiety. Doesn't mean that you're uninsurable. Uninsurable just means that you may be uninsurable or you may be rated correctly based on that risk.
And we talked a little bit about this in one of the previous podcasts. That group term insurance is not the same as what these guys are doing for underwriting. And this is exactly what Nelson is talking about.
They're working with a theoretical lifespan of 100 years. Now, since the book has been written, they're working with a lifespan of 121 years. And so he said it doesn't matter much when the tables were constructed because the final result of the situation is dependent on the earnings of the money invested by the company, the current mortality experience of the company, and the expense of operating of the company. All they're looking for is a field of data, which to begin calculations. If mortality experience is better than indicated by the table, then it will reflect the fact that better dividends are distributed to policyholders. Exactly what we talked about in previous podcasts as well.
And so I think that people need to understand, and I like these numbers, that out of a thousand people, a hundred of them are going to die before 45 years old. So at age 65, 75% of the people are still alive. So out of a thousand people, if their mortality table is a thousand people, 900 of them are still alive by 45.
And what are we doing? Buying term insurance and saying, oh, well, whole life is expensive. They're just making a bunch of commission. When in fact, the insurance companies are making money on the term insurance. They're betting that you're not going to die within that time frame. And they have the data to do so.
Right. Because they underwrote you. Because you went through a health exam. They looked at medical records. They looked at family history.
They will also look at, and I don't think people understand this either, what your health rating isn't necessarily just your health rating. Your health rating is also based on your driving record. And they risk your financials. If you file bankruptcy in the last two years, you cannot get a policy. And people don't know that. But all of that is a risk factor to the company.
Now, some companies just do health. Other companies, though, like OneAmerica that we work with, if you have too many speeding tickets, you're out. If you have too many DUIs, you're out. There's a lot of factors that are going to go in as risk.
And so I have a client that he wants a new policy. And I said, that's good. Did you quit speeding? Because his last policy, he didn't get the best rating he could have because he had only speeding tickets. Oh, no. He's like, well, I drive a lot. I'm like, doesn't that matter? You don't need to speed. You don't need to speed a lot. Figure your time accordingly, my friend.
So 75% on the mortality table — if you guys have the book, go to page 36 and look at this. Because after age 45, a quarter of the people die during their prime working years. A quarter will require income after 65 and a quarter will require income after 80. That's important for them to know that and what they're underwriting for. Any comments on that before we go on to the retirement stuff?
I would just say that, like, they're building in this fudge factor within the mortality table. So what he's saying here too, is that because they have this information, if the mortality table is better, or like the mortality experience is better, then those dividends are greater.
Mm-hmm. Yes.
He goes on to say in this chapter that retirement age 65 came from where? Franklin D. Roosevelt got the idea from Bismarck in Germany. I'm assuming Bismarck is a person. He said that the whole idea was to get those old folks out of the workforce in order to provide jobs for the younger generation.
I like the next sentence. "As if there are only so many jobs around. A socialist mental hangup that has no validity here."
It's so funny because Nelson never — he thought that retirement was a huge scam. Because he literally worked until the day he died. Nelson passed in surgery and he was complaining about the Federal Reserve before he went in. If you were going to put Nelson under, he was not counting sheep, okay? He was probably telling you a story.
And I think that that's funny because if you think about it, and Nelson said, we are still using the age 65 for retirement. "The coming debacle of Social Security is a natural result of operating from a faulty premise."
So we still think all these people are going to be dying early. When in fact, males in 1937, the life expectancy of males was 61 years old. So we thought, oh, well, they'll retire at 65. And they'll be dead shortly after and Social Security will be great. Don't have to pay off.
Clearly, the Social Security Administration doesn't have actuaries. Or mortality tables.
Yes. Perhaps they should. Right? And they still don't. And there's not money there. Right?
And so now we're living even longer. So I think that — and I just talked to the insurance company about this. I talked to the head actuary. I said, I'm hearing so many people say, oh, we're dying younger. We're dying younger. But you guys actually took a mortality table of 100 and you moved it to 121. So you're telling me that people are dying later, but everything I'm seeing and everything you Google, they're dying sooner.
And our head actuary said, well, that would probably be true for just the general public. She said, but we're going based off of our underwriting. Right? So exactly what Nelson is saying. They have their select people. They underwrite privately for that. We don't have this group insurance mentality. And so they know that these people are going to most likely live to 121.
And so the people that are responsible to get whole life insurance, in all reality, they're being responsible. Responsible people live longer. And so now the mortality tables have moved out. So when I say, oh, people are living longer, people are like, you're such an idiot. No, they're not. Everything you see, they're dying sooner. No, they're not. Not the responsible people.
That's a really good point. I never thought about it like that. Because he's saying these are the select people.
Yeah. Because responsible people, they take care of their health. They drive slow. They just don't take a lot of risks. Like we're boring. Right? Like the average person would say, we're boring. We're not skydiving, scuba diving, spelunking, mountain climbing. We're not doing those things.
It's not that those people are irresponsible. They're just parachuting and thinking it's fun. We're saying, no, thank you. We — be on the ground.
Yeah. And it's funny because it doesn't mean on the ground is safer. But obviously, we drive more conservatively. So we're less likely to get into a car accident. Like they have this all figured out. So security, not so much.
I like that he goes on to say, "All should plan on working to at least age 70 before considering retirement. The most productive years are being wasted. Study the mortality charts and notice where most of all the dying takes place. Out of the 900 alive at age 45, 75% of them die past age 65."
Of course, the situation is much more accentuated towards later deaths now, which is what you basically just said. "But in everyday conversations about the need for life insurance, it's all centered around on the period of age 21 to 65. Not many people die during this period."
And next to that, I just have the no written term insurance. It's like, this is great for giving you coverage in the meantime, when you're healthy. But when you're not healthy or when you're older, it's not a good deal. It's not a good deal for the consumer. It's a great deal for the life insurance company because chances are they're not going to have to pay it out.
Absolutely. And we see so many people die younger now. Like, I have had one claim over 65. So we think that even what I'm seeing is people are dying younger, but they were underwritten. And so, you know, maybe there was something crazy that happened. A couple of them were COVID. The other ones were just crazy things that happened.
But they figure that in, right? Like the anomalies?
Yes. And he goes on to say, "All calculations by the rate makers begin with the cost in a single sum of providing a plan of insurance that would cover one for their whole life. It is called single premium whole life. The insured plunks down a single sum and insurance is guaranteed for the rest of his life. Now, it's possible to buy life insurance this way, but it is not a common occurrence."
And so I get asked often, I came into some money, can I just put a single sum of money down? Yeah, you can, but it's going to MEC, which we'll talk about in two seconds. It's going to MEC, but you can.
What Nelson is trying to get us to understand here is that you can pay a single sum and it's going to be a lot of money right now. Or you can take that sum and break it up from however old you are now till 121. And you can make payments on that, on that same death benefit. So I don't think people understand how it's figured, how the base is figured. And that's how it's figured. This is how much it is if you pay it one time. This is how much it is if you pay it over 23 years, 43 years, 53 years, whatever that is.
Well, kind of like buying a house, right? It's like you could pay for all at once in cash or you could just make payments.
Yeah. Yep. I like that. I like that.
He goes on to say, "And in this plan insured is simply renting the single premium insurance for a limited period of time. When life insurance began over 200 years ago, it was all term insurance. It paid a death benefit if the insured died during the given time frame. So the insured persons paid ever increasing premiums because each year they lived, it was more probable that they would die in the current year. And finally quit because the premiums became prohibitive. And a few years later, they died. Perceptive people noticed that this was not like other forms of insurance. They buy fire insurance and it pays the benefit if a fire occurred during the period covered. But death for a person is not an if, it is a when."
And so people will buy homeowners insurance, auto insurance, disability insurance, accident insurance. They'll buy insurance for all of these ifs, but they don't look at the one that's guaranteed. You're not getting out alive. Dang it.
Yeah. Sorry to break that to you.
So they developed a new plan, which was called ordinary whole life. Today you hear more people call it permanent life insurance. He said, "When you classify something, it is based on its major characteristics. The animal they created had much more in common with banking than it did with life insurance. When you look at the proportions of the whole activity, it is obvious that the banking quality become much greater than the death benefit quality of the policy. A better name would have been a banking system with the death benefit thrown in for good measure."
It doesn't really roll off the tongue.
It doesn't. But it is an accurate way to describe it.
It is. But he's right. And he's just touching for the first time on the word classification and how we classify things. He said, "The whole idea of the infinite banking concept started with the realization that there is a huge amount of nonsense going on in the marketplace because of the misclassifications of things. This is not new, nor is it unique to the financial world."
Then he talks about potatoes. Another analogy that — I mean, this one kind of makes sense, but like, really, Nelson just kind of knew everything about everything. Like, he knew a little bit about everything. It's so weird.
Anyway, he starts talking about potatoes and how Europe used to think that potatoes were poison, and they were classified as poison. Then they reclassified them, and he said, "Europeans went from a condition of thinking that the potato was poisonous to one of the largest scale dependents on it. Of course, this change of understanding took place over a long period of time. The world seems to always be this way. We pick up some screwball idea that is based on a half truth and let it grow into a monster that blinds us to what is really happening."
We could end right there. Like, that could explain everything, because we have this screwball idea, and we've misclassified dividend paying whole life insurance. And so automatically, like we've talked about already in previous podcasts, automatically, Aunt Susie and Uncle John and Grandpa Joe are saying, no, it's bad. Because they have a screwball idea based on what? What? Nothing. What they heard about it. It might not even be their own experience of something.
Oh, or the right product.
Yeah. Or, or, or. Yeah. You know? And it most likely is not their own experience. Because even if they had an experience, and it was bad, it was probably universal life. It was most likely not dividend paying whole life.
So then he talks about, on page 38, he's got the scale. And on the scale, he is talking about where the MEC is, and all these other things. He's starting to tell us how the policy should be structured. And he says, the shorter the payment period, the better suited it is for purposes of the infinite banking concept. So, the shorter the period, the faster the cash value grows.
So, he's talking about a base only policy. And a base only policy is, I'm buying basically whole life only. I don't have any riders on the policy. It's just a — I call it an old-fashioned, traditional whole life policy. Nothing wrong with it. But these are why people, like the talking heads, do not like whole life. Because it takes forever to gain cash value. And they're not wrong. It does take forever to gain cash value in a traditional policy. But if we shorten that payment period, cash value comes very, very quickly.
And I see this a lot with a few companies that try to compete with us. That they don't have a paid-up additions rider, because not every company does. And so what they're trying to do is they shorten the policy. Oh, I know what Mary Jo's doing. Infinite banking? I can do that. And I'm like, oh, it's a 20-pay or paid-up at 65? Right every time. Because it's the only way they can compete. Right? Like, I've seen it so much that I know it's the only way they can compete.
So, do we want a 20-pay policy? No. Because the compounding happens when? The last 25, 30 years of your life. Right. So, why would you want to stop paying when that compounding is massive?
You're limiting the effectiveness.
Yeah. You know, it's like, well, if you could put a dollar in and get three or four out at that point, why would you want to cap your ability to stop paying premium at that time? That's the best time to pay.
Right. Right. It's like saying I'm going to build my business and it's going to produce a lot of cash flow. And then I'm going to sell it and start over. How would you do that?
Right. You want to keep adding on to it because now you've capitalized it.
He said that these plans are not treated as life insurance by the IRS. So, he's talking about a policy that does not become a modified endowment contract. And so, he's explaining — but here, let me go back. "Any plan located to the left of this line is classified by the IRS as a modified endowment contract."
So, with his single premium, it's on the left of the line. It's going to be a modified endowment contract. We call it a MEC. So, we want everything to be to the right of that MEC line so that we are not paying tax on any of it. Because if it MECs — and I'm just going to use my own terminology here — if it MECs, it acts like an IRA, a 401(k). The interest is going to come out first and it's going to be taxable. And then what you put in is going to come out.
Okay. And I think we need to note this at the top of the next column. "It is not a matter of earth shaking consequences, but it can be avoided with a little bit of understanding of just what is going on."
So, if the policy MECs, it's not the end of the world. For a long time, I was like, you don't want to MEC policy? Oh my God, that's terrible. But let's just say you put $100,000 in, and you have $110,000 of cash value. If you take out $10,000, you're going to pay tax on that $10,000. But now that $10,000 becomes part of the $100,000. So now you only get taxed on anything over $110,000, because you've already paid the tax on that $10,000.
So you don't do it every single time, right? So they're like, oh, I don't want this to MEC. Well, if it does MEC, not the end of the world. Ideally, we don't want it to happen. We should try to avoid it. But if it happens, nothing to, like, really lose sleep over.
Well, I think it depends on, like, obviously, where you're at in life, and, like, if it makes sense. Like, sometimes a policy that MECs still makes sense for someone's situation, compared to not having it.
Right. Right. I've written MEC policies before, because it does make sense for that situation.
What was the situation, if you don't?
So, I have a client who wanted to do a single premium policy on his dad. And I'm like, well, that's dumb. Why would you do that? He says, you're not even going to gain any death benefit, really, because dad was over 80, like, 80 or 81 or something. And he said, because I just want to pay for his funeral. I want enough death benefit to pay for his funeral. I'm never going to need to access the cash value. He's like, so it doesn't matter. And it wouldn't actually affect him till year five of the policy anyway, if he took money out.
So, I was like, oh, well, that makes sense. He basically wanted to put $100,000 in, and get $115,000, $120,000 when dad died, had enough to pay for the funeral, got all of his money back. Right. And the death benefit does not become taxable in a MEC. A lot of people think, oh, well, the whole thing is taxable. No, the death benefit is still income tax free.
But Nelson says, "We are not attempting to accomplish all of the banking needs through the device of one policy. We will need a system of policies in order to do a complete job."
So, that means, because it MECs, and because we hit our limit in one policy, essentially, now we have to start another policy, and keep that on the left side of this line — or on the right side of the line, sorry. And then we start another policy, and another policy. And that's why Nelson had 49 life insurance policies.
Didn't he used to say he was diversified in lives? Isn't it?
Maybe. I don't know. Really? I've never heard him say that.
Okay. Because I can't remember where I heard that story, but it was like, you know, people are talking about being diversified in investments, and he's like, I'm diversified in lives, and like, death is not an if event, it's a when.
Yeah. And he's not wrong.
Yeah. I always thought that was a really interesting, like, perspective, comparatively to how most people think about money.
And I like how he says, just in that next paragraph, he says, "The whole idea is to snuggle up to the MEC line, but don't cross it," because you're going to be taxed. "This will de-emphasize the immediate death benefit, but accelerate the banking qualities. The irony is that doing it this way will result in providing more death benefit at this point where death will probably occur than any other plan. The base policy will pay dividends, and the paid-up additions will pay dividends, which gives more meaning to the infinite qualities of the system."
And so, we want to snug up to the line, and then we start more policies, and we start more policies, and we start more policies.
I think here's another thing that people think, is they're going to get so close to the line — like, if the amount that you can put in up to that line, they'll go to the penny. Well, that's not good either. Because if you're so close to that line, and you go from an annual pay to a monthly pay, you might MEC your policy. And I've done it. It's happened to me, where I got so close to the line in some of my early policies, that I have one client that she can't go to an annual payment. She has to stay on monthly, because it would MEC the policy.
So, this is good. For anyone who's listening, what would you recommend? Like, kind of like the range of — like, let's say I can overfund my policy by $2,500 this year. What would you say to just like, give myself a little room?
I like to — we can see that number, and I like to stay within $2,000 of that number.
Okay.
And when we run illustrations, you can run it monthly to annual and see, but I don't have to do that if I know I shouldn't put every penny in. So, what happens is, when a client calls the insurance company and says, well, how much can I put into my paid-up additions? The insurance company is going to give you to the penny. Don't put in to the penny. Do what your agent told you to do in a year. Don't be adding different amounts. And keep track of what your agent told you to do.
Like, I have so many clients that I type it all out on the screen. And they're writing it down, but then they never look at it again. And so, make sure that you're paying attention to what that limit is so that you're not putting more in.
Now, if it does MEC — Nelson doesn't talk about this in this chapter, but every time you send a check in to the insurance company or they receive a payment, they do a MEC calculation before they even take that deposit or take that payment or whatever it is. And so, if it MECs, they're going to send you a letter. You have 30 days to respond. And what they'll say is, hey, Teresa, you sent too much money. So, we're over by $3,210.15. Do you want that back? Yes. Send me a check for the difference and then they will use the rest.
But they are going to make sure that that policy doesn't MEC. Now, you need to open your mail. That's your part in it. You can't get a letter from the insurance company and not open your mail.
Right.
So, make sure that — like, so it's not the end of the world. It's not earth-shaking, as Nelson said.
I like that he also goes on to say, in describing this design of a policy, "Some people have called the process of putting a paid-up additions rider on an ordinary life policy over funding the policy. Maybe that can help in the overall understanding, but the objective should be simply to get as much money as possible into a policy with the least amount of insurance instead of trying to put as little money in and provide the greatest amount of insurance initially. It is the exact opposite of what one thinks about when purchasing insurance. This is understandable because of the history of how the whole subject developed."
So, I really love this section because I think people get so confronted in this process of, like, how much death benefit am I getting? And it's like, no, our conversation is centered around how much do you want to capitalize your system? What is sustainable for you? What's an appropriate size policy for the amount of resources that you have and what's going to feel comfortable in the future?
Yeah. And then the death benefit will be taken care of.
We've already learned that like 10 times.
I know. Just over here repeating what we already know.
And then he gets into the classification and said that when Christopher Columbus went westward to Europe, he was in India and he called them Indians. And Nelson said they weren't, but the name stuck. "There are probably thousands of such examples of misclassification that we run into every day, but they probably don't increase the quality of our lives. Instead, they limit our thinking and lead us to the wrong conclusion. Words are powerful things."
And a lot of people misclassify a lot of things in the insurance world. I think Nelson said it in — no, not this chapter, the chapter coming up. There are things that people will say, like, let's just go back to the 20-pay policy, a 10-pay or 20-pay policy. They'll say, well, Nelson said the shorter the premium, the better the policy. So that's all you got out of that? Because he's also talking about till you're 100 years old. That's what you got is 20-pay. You didn't know paid-up additions rider? Where was that? I'll do a 20-pay policy.
But there's a specific reason for that. Because ideally, I want you to be able to pay. If you are young, you should be paying and having this thing till you're 121 years old. And you want to have it. Because like you're 20, that's where it's getting real good.
Mm-hmm.
And this is the best part. My thoughts on universal life and variable life. And he died before he could add indexed universal life. This is funny. He said universal life was invented in the early 1980s by E.F. Hutton, the stock brokerage firm that, in my opinion, knew nothing about life insurance.
And you probably don't remember the commercials. When E.F. Hutton speaks, everyone listens. Have you ever heard those commercials? Yeah, you're too young. So I remember those commercials. When E.F. Hutton speaks, everyone listens. Where is E.F. Hutton now? He says in here, they don't exist anymore.
"UL was nothing more than one year term insurance with a side fund of an interest bearing account. It was an attempt to unbundle the savings element of the life insurance element of a whole life policy. Something that can be done if one understands the concept of whole life insurance. This happened at a time of high interest rates."
He is not saying anything different here because I have family that had whole life insurance. And then in the '80s, when the stock market took off — because remember, 401(k)s in '74, IRAs in '80. So everybody's moving over to the market. Huge rates of return. Well, that should be expected. Everybody's getting in, right? Huge rates of return. They were told to cancel their whole life policies and move it into an IRA.
Well, now the insurance companies are saying, well, for the love of Pete, everybody's canceling their whole life policies. What should we ever do with ourselves? Oh, let's create a universal life policy so we can compete with —
The market.
Yes. The stock market and the rates of return. And so it happened during the high interest rates.
He said, "I ran some illustrations and they kept falling apart," because we have to remember, Nelson was a life insurance agent at this time. And he was one of the top salesmen within Equitable Life. He got awards all the time because he sold the most amount of insurance. So he was running these things.
He said the cost of one year term became very prohibitive at the advanced ages and it ate up the cash value. So what he's talking about is renewable term renews every single year at a new cost. And that new cost is because you're older. So you're closer to death. So it's going to be more expensive. You're not buying life insurance at 45. You're buying life insurance at 75. It is much more expensive over 65. And so now all these costs are eating it up, which is what I scream and yell about all the time.
He said Executive Life out of California made a big splash in the business. "And I understand that policy owners actually lost money with their policies." So Executive Life basically went under.
He said, do you know Michael Milken? I don't know that guy, but this is funny. "He did prison time as a result of his financial shenanigans." I like that word. Shenanigans. "Would you guess where he is selling all of his junk bonds? If you replied Executive Life, go to the head of the class."
So Executive Life then said, oh, well, we're going to buy all of these, you know, crappy bonds. And they didn't perform.
Then came along Variable Life. It was nothing more than one year term with a side fund of a mutual fund. And so that didn't work. And he saw that that wasn't going to work. And so he never sold any of that either.
And he finishes with, "The tragedy of our times is that the Life Company never spent any time on understanding dividend paying whole life and teaching the buying public its characteristics."
So a funny story. I thought that an IUL was how you did infinite banking. And, you know, they make — you make that list of people to call and tell them about this exciting new thing you've discovered. And so I actually called one of my girlfriends whose stepdad was an agent. And she was like, oh, you should sit down with my stepdad. This is what he does. And then he handed me this book. And so I never actually went through with my IUL policy.
Yeah.
I opened up my whole life policy.
I was like, well, that sounds pretty plain to me. Pretty plain and simple. He's saying, don't do it.
Right. But so they started with universal life. Then that sucked. So they're like, oh, let's do variable universal life. Well, that sucks even worse than universal life. So now let's add IUL. It'll be better. Well, that's even worse. They're not making it any better, but they're still chasing these rates of return.
And the crazy thing is people canceled their whole life and went — insurance companies created ULs to compete with the market. The market is not doing this anymore. You're not getting 20% rates of return and you're never going to. Everybody's in and people are getting out because they're retiring. They're having to get out. We don't have as many people going in, and hopefully we can be part of that solution.
Well, also say, hey, that's not really the place you probably want to be putting your money. I think that if, like, whole life insurance would have just stayed in, like, their lane, you wouldn't have created those problems as well. It's like, don't try to be something you're not.
Yes.
What are you here to do? You know, provide people certainty, guarantees. That's something that the market just can't provide you.
And if they would have taught their agents — they're not teaching their agents. Instead, Nelson is teaching the agent and now we're all learning it from Nelson. I didn't even like life insurance until I read the book. So I learned from the beginning correctly, like yourself, but it very much is — industry itself is kind of shady because, and not shady, but horrible instructors, let's say, because they say, well, we have all these products and we want money so we can invest it. And so how about you just sell any one of these? And the people inside don't understand. And so they need to do better due diligence, but it's hard to get them to do better due diligence when most executives of life insurance companies have 401(k)s and IRAs. They almost don't even understand their own product.
That's really interesting.
Right. Because if we go to Think Tank, all these insurance companies are there. Not all of those executives there have whole life insurance. And the ones that do — any executive that I've talked to that works for the company, any company employee that has whole life insurance, they don't even use the cash value. They all know about infinite banking, right? Because we're submitting business through and they know why we're doing it and they don't even do it themselves.
You would think that someone within the company would be like, this is amazing, but they're not doing it. And we expect them to be teaching our agents? No. So we have to do it outside of the insurance company because the top executives have it. They buy their own product, but they're not using it for financing anything.
It's interesting. I wonder if it's just like —
It's like our own family not having policies.
Part of the game. Part of the deal.
Not everybody catches it.
Yeah, IBC is caught, not taught. That's what Nelson said.
So this is the last page of this chapter, page 40, but the review part two says, "For banking purposes, you want the highest cost life insurance as possible, but avoid it becoming a modified endowment contract. Minimize the death benefit and maximize the cash value because our need for finance is so much greater than our need for death benefit."
Okay. And that's where we'll end this one. If you guys have comments, questions, concerns, haven't gotten your book, need to schedule an appointment, you know where to go for that. Let us know how we can help. Otherwise, we'll see you in the next podcast.
View More
GET THE BOOK
