Category: Life Insurance

I’ve been thinking a lot about life insurance.

Mainly because I’ve been redoing a lot of videos, and audio, in preparation for the new Monegenix® Media app. But, also because I’ve been seeing more and more myths about life insurance floating around the web.

Here are a few of them:

1. You should never mix insurance and investing.
2. Permanent life insurance is too expensive.
3. You don’t need a middle-man for your investments, and that’s what an insurer is.
4. Term insurance is cheap.
5. You don’t need a lot of life insurance.
6. You can never buy too much life insurance.
7. Whole life has a terrible rate of return.
8. The only ones recommending permanent insurance are the ones making a commission off it or who have a vested interest in sales.
9. Term + investing always results in more money.
10. Complexity favors the seller, and whole life is too complicated.
11. Even when it works out OK, it takes too long to see positive returns.
12. Most people lapse their permanent insurance policies.
13. You should only expect the guaranteed minimum in your insurance policy.
14. You don’t need insurance when you’re old.

And the list goes on and on.

Anyway, these myths are pervasive and…

…if you believe them, then so be it.

I’m not going to force you to buy whole life insurance.

But, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Now, if you’re serious about understanding whole life insurance, and how it can help you build real financial security, then join my email list and start the journey.

A few years ago, I flew down to Florida for Christmas to spend time with family, and we ended up playing that game Taboo. It was boys vs girls. The word was “Nike.” The clue was “Prefontaine.” They guessed correctly. We lost.

I was dumbfounded.

Right then and there I made a New Year’s resolution to work on my Taboo skills.

OK, I’m lying. I made no such resolution. But, with the new year still fresh in my mind, I thought I would revisit one of those myths in finance that just won’t die – the idea that you should always own your own home and that owning is always superior to renting.

This year, hundreds, possibly thousands, of people are resolving to pay off their home. Many are thinking about buying a home for the first time. When it comes to business property (especially buildings and storefronts), many business owners understand the economic benefits of leasing and renting. Yet, when it comes to personal residences, they buy.

Since a house is one of the largest personal purchases you will probably make in your lifetime, you should know what you’re getting yourself into. Seriously.

Don’t take your financial planner’s word for it.

Don’t take your mortgage broker’s word for it.

Don’t take your real estate agent’s word for it.

Don’t even take my word for it.

For me, I don’t start to really benefit, economically, from buying a home unless I can find a nice place selling for under $350,000. Ideally, that home would cost about $300,000 or less.

One of the “undeniable” truths you’re told is that it’s  always better to own a home than to rent an apartment.

The logic behind this advice is that when you own a home, you are always (or  often) building equity, when you rent, all you’re only ever left with are receipts.

But, is it true?

There are two ways to look at it.

When Buying A Home, And Building Equity, Is A Bad Idea

When I lived in central New York, I was renting an apartment for $600 per month. It included gas (heat) and water/sewer. The electric was not included. Electric ran me about $80 per month. So, my total household expenses were roughly $680 between rent and basic utilities. Sure, there’s T.V., phone, and Internet, but let’s keep things simple for now.

People used to tell me all the time that I should be buying a home – that I was losing money by renting. But, I was always curious about this idea. I didn’t really know what the market was like.

So, I started going to a lot of open houses, I checked the local listings in the newspaper, and I spent some time driving around new housing developments.

What I noticed was this: most of the homes in the area sold for about $100,000. Some of nicer ones went for $150,000 or $200,00, but this was somewhat unusual.

If I purchased a home in the $100,000 range, my mortgage payment would have been about the same as my rent at the time (assuming a 6 percent interest rate on the home loan).

However, I would have had to pay for homeowner’s insurance ($35 per month), and I would have been responsible for paying for my own natural gas/heat. What about renter’s insurance? Shouldn’t I be including the cost of renter’s insurance in my analysis when I say I’d have to buy homeowner’s insurance?

Well, I was in my 20s – young, dumb, and without anything worth insuring, so no.

This wasn’t a cost I was considering at the time. When you take out a massive loan for a house, though, they pretty much make you buy homeowner’s – at least basic fire coverage, so that would have been an increase in outlay for me.

The natural gas would have cost me an additional $100 per month (based on an average of about 20-30 homes I walked through during “open house season”), and taxes on the property would have likely been $225 a month or more (taxes are really high in the Corning/Elmira area). Some of the nicer homes in the new housing developments came with a property tax bill in excess of $10,000.

So, right out of the gate, I figured it would cost me an additional $360 every month to own a home – just in the added cost of the utilities, taxes, and homeowner’s insurance.

That doesn’t even include mortgage interest. But, I know what you’re thinking:

What about the equity that my house would have been building?

For a moment, let’s assume that I took the standard deduction on my taxes instead of itemizing. If my home appreciated an average of 3-4 percent a year, that gain would have been offset by the additional $360 I would have had to pay over renting. The additional mortgage interest would put me in the red. So, I’d need an appreciation of more than 4 percent annually to make it worthwhile. In Corning/Elmira area, homes don’t really appreciate in value all that quickly. If I continued to rent, I could save and invest that $360 every month and wouldn’t have to worry about the interest on a new mortgage loan – so, I continued to rent. If you’re still doubting the benefits of renting, consider this: most people don’t take out just one mortgage on a house. Electrical wires fray, furnaces break, plumbing  leaks, roofs sag. That’s just a fact of life.

The interest on the original mortgage alone (assuming a $100,000 home at 6 percent interest) amounts to $116,000 over the life of the  loan, or $3,866 per year (average over 30 years). Now, add in any additional interest from a second or even a third mortgage that you take out to do remodeling or repairs. When I add the $360 per month extra over renting ($4,320/yr) to the $3,800 in interest per  year, I end up with a total of roughly $8,120 a year that I have to overcome for the house to be  more profitable than renting. Even if I let my hypothetical house deteriorate over time, and do no repairs on it, my home would have had to consistently appreciate faster than 8 percent a year,  every year. That’s just not realistic.

Now that I’m living in Raleigh Durham a much smaller town in the country, has the story changed any? Sort of.

I used Michael Bluejay’s awesome rent vs buy calculator (which I talk about in one of my videos) to help me get a rough idea as to when it made sense to buy a home. After my son was born, what we needed was a 3 or 4 bedroom home with a finished basement or… a garage with 8-foot ceilings, minimum. Because of all the lockdowns and restrictions that happened during COVID, we wanted to build our own home gym and avoid the hassle of going to a commercial gym. We needed a 2 bedroom (minimum) home with a den or a separate room that could be used as an office for me.

Something like that (the 4-bedroom) could run us anywhere between $65,000 in a dumpy neighborhood to $3 million for something really very amazing.

Really, I can find something OK for about $200,000 to $350,000 in OK neighborhoods. If I were to buy, the mortgage payment would be around $1,500/month with a 5 percent interest rate. If I were to pay rent on a 4-bedroom home, it would have run me around $1,200 on average at the time I was making this decision. 

Yes, there were $3,000 rents – but those are high-rent districts.

According to Bluejay’s calculator, I really needed a home under $350,000 to benefit, economically. At $350,000 or more, it takes more than 30 years for buying a home to be more profitable than renting.

Even at $325,000, it takes a good 19 years for the home purchase to pay off – and that’s assuming I earn no more than 5.5 percent on my investments (remember, I will save the money I’m not spending on mortgage interest, taxes, etc.).

I am pretty confident in my ability to earn 5.75 to 6 percent annually over the long-term. This means that I really need a cheaper house – somewhere in the $300,000 range – for buying to become profitable.

You want to know what’s weird? Even if buying a home eventually does start to pay off, there’s no guarantee that it will always pay off in the long-run.

If I adjust the calculator to show what would happen if I earned 8 percent annually on my investments over the long-term, instead of 5 to 6 percent, I end up with a scenario where buying a home is a better deal than renting after 12 years – but that deal eventually turns sour on me. In year 19, renting becomes more profitable again. Ouch.

Now, while I know my situation is unique to me, I’d wager a guess that there are many scenarios under which renting would work out to be a better deal for you too. Now, onto the qualitative side of things.

When Buying A Home Is A Good Idea

Buying a home can be a good idea when the qualitative factors outweigh the quantitative ones, when the quantitative factors make sense, or both. Qualitative factors include things like your own personal needs, optional objective values, and rational wants. Quantitative is numbers. So, either you have to really, really want it (in spite of whether it’s a good “investment”), the numbers have to work out so that it’s a good investment, or both.

So, for example, I lift weights. Currently, I pay a membership to a gym. Really, it’s not that much money, and it would actually cost me a lot more to set up a proper gym in my own home.

But, I want the ability and freedom to lift weights on my own schedule. I don’t really like the idea of waiting around for some guy who’s hogging the squat rack so he can do bicep curls (which is a universal annoyance in a public gym). It wastes my time, and that is presumably a real cost though not something I bother to sit down and calculate.

I also would like to have a larger yard for a future child to play in. How do you quantify joy?

I don’t know.

Finally, I want my own garage so I can do “guy stuff” like change the oil in my car and sit around and use foul language with other guys while we eat chicken wings and drink beer. Having a garage with a rental is difficult to impossible. So, all of those things are big benefits of buying a home.

Likewise, if I can buy a home, and it appreciates faster than what I’m paying in interest on a mortgage plus the cost of maintenance, then numbers-wise, it makes sense to buy a home.

A Few Other Opinions

A few other opinions and perspectives from people you may or may not be familiar with, and whose opinions you may or may not value:

James Altucher — He’s run a hedge fund, authored numerous books, has operated I don’t know how many businesses, and is probably Superman for all I know.

Anyway, his take on buying a home? I’ll let him tell you in his own words:

…I’m never going to buy a home again.

According to Altucher, they’re expensive, they leave you with no cash (and lots of debt), and they trap you in ways you never realize until after the loan docs are signed.

Paula Pant — Paula warmed the frigid cockles of my own miserly Scrooge McDuck heart when she dared to post this article on renting vs buying a home.  She’s a professional real estate investor. Anyway, I highly recommend Paula’s “rant,” if you can call it that, because it’s highly informative and lacks the usual B.S. you see on the web about this topic.

Giovanni Isaksen — Isaksen owns a successful real estate investment company. Like other professionals in the industry, his business depends on understanding these kinds of analyses. And, he spent a lot of time breaking down the numbers. In fact, he threw down the gauntlet when Zillow published its now-famous study which concluded that buying a home was awesome.

What Isaksen brings to the table is a keen eye on what things really cost in real estate. According to the analysis:

…previous calculation ignored the real costs of maintenance, repairs and saving up for replacing big expensive things like the roof, the furnace and the driveway and that is a pretty big chunk of money over time. Industry figures for repairs and maintenance on single family housing run from one to three percent of the home value.

Underestimating costs isn’t new. Investors do this all the time.

All. The. Time.

But, you’d never figure a respectable site like Zillow would do it. But, they did.

Anywho, if you read the full analysis, you’ll see some stuff in there that you will not see anywhere else (including my blog).

So…Why Do Real Estate Investors Own Homes?

I know what you’re thinking: But David, real estate investors own homes!

You’re right. They do. And, here’s why: Because it can be an excellent (and profitable) business.

They also use lots and lots of leverage.

Paying off a home isn’t necessarily the goal. Making rental income is.

So… it’s profitable because they are basically lending the house to renters and using the bank’s money to make a very high return on investment.

But, if all you want to do is live in your home, then you’re (probably) going to be disappointed by the ROI (especially if your goal is to pay with cash or pay off the home and live in it “free and clear”).

Yes, a you can use leverage (a mortgage) to get a good return (on paper) on buying a home to live in… but you have to sell the home (and buy another) to realize that profit… and really… a house is something you buy because you don’t want to deal with your landlord’s B.S. anymore or maybe you just want to paint the walls puce without getting permission first, and you’re willing to pay a premium for that benefit.

A little while back, I stumbled into the graveyard of YouTube, where a bunch of “Karen” videos lie. 

Basically, a bunch of amusing videos of “Karens” flipping out over inane things like yard signs, people moving furniture into their homes, and neighbors having the “wrong” flags flying in front of their homes. 

There were even some soy boy male “Karens”…

Anyway, the reason I bring all this up is because it seems like “Karens” are everywhere these days. 

… getting offended by nearly any little thing. 

… feeling entitled to your time, money, and even…

… feel compelled to tell you how you *should* live your life. 

Example:

One time I got a series of comments (from the same person) on one of my YouTube videos about whole life insurance that went like this:

“Your cash value should never commingle with your life insurance… Cash value is a fraud… See Dave Ramsey…. he will let know that this is BS.”

In fact, there were so many comments on that video by the same person, left in rapid succession… it sort of seemed like the person was having a full blown panic attack, right there on YouTube.

It was a great opportunity for me to link to some of my other videos (for the benefit of others in the comment’s section, obviously).

Another one of my favorites is this:

“My friends/family/co-workers think I’m crazy for buying whole life insurance instead of doing [insert traditional investment].”

My response to that sort of comment?

“If you like your retirement plan, you can keep your retirement plan!”

I’m not a politician making promises I don’t intend to keep, nor am I telling you what to do with your money. 

Also… if a person is that worried about what others think, then they probably have no business doing something so “outside the box” as buying whole life insurance. Seriously, this is outside the box type of planning, and it creates a lot of stress and anxiety in people who are conformists or people who can’t think for themselves. 

And since a lot of conformists today are driven mostly by feels, it probably “makes sense” to them to simply follow the crowd instead of doing something that requires independent thought.

Look, the only thing I do here is insure and safeguard people’s savings with life insurance (and teach them how to use their policy to grow and protect their business and their wealth).

But only if they really value that sort of thing.

Anyway… if that sort of thing appeals to you, and you’re ready to learn more about how this stuff really works, then go download the free Monegenix® Labs app, and start listening to and watching all the free life insurance videos and trainings.

The U.S. national debt currently stands at $28 trillion and counting. 

While a lot of people are rightly freaking out about this, methinx the world will not end tomorrow and probably not in our lifetimes. 

What, me cray cray?

Nay. 

Not too long ago, I read about how the U.S. government has the power, right now, to release us all from this never-ending burden and life-sapping spiral of destruction. 

But, they don’t.

Here’s why I say that:

A report from a few years ago by the Institute for Energy Research estimated the U.S. government owns real estate, oil, gas, and mineral rights collectively worth ~$128 trillion… and that’s not including all the businesses the U.S. government has nationalized over the years, which generate ongoing income and, in some cases, have hundreds of billions of dollars in excess capital reserves which could immediately and forever be released to taxpayers. 

Assuming that’s true, that’s enough money to pay off the national debt and still have enough money left over to write a check to every single American for roughly $300,000. 

Plus… whatever refunds can be generated through the sale of government owned corporations.

It’s very likely every single American, regardless of age, would be well on their way to being a millionaire.

Infinite prosperity, zero poverty.

If that doesn’t razz your cherries, honestly, you must be either emotionally dead inside or  part of the political class.

So…

I can’t help but think this issue of a $1.9 “stimulus” plan could all be over if the government immediately and forever relinquished all rights in taxpayer property and sold it to the highest bidder, paying off the national debt, refunding every American for a year of utter bullsh!t, and every politician and government bureaucrat immediately quit their job and go find real work, and on the way out, beg for forgiveness and apologize for decades theft and for wasting everyone’s time and precious resources.

Chew on that for a second, Mojumbo. 

When I say taxation is theft, and that the government has stolen a helluva lot of money from taxpayers, I ain’t just whistlin’ dixie. 

I think any smart, decent, and honest person recognizes our current government institutions for what they really are. 

I’ll go one further:

The only thing the country really needs is a strong military to protect us from foreign government criminality, local police to protect us from neighborhood criminals, and a court system to help settle contract disputes, and enforce whatever objective laws are left after getting rid of the plethora of politically-motivated non-objective laws on the books. 

Anyway, enough wishful thinking. 

If you want a second-best option to build real, lasting, financial security or yourself and your family, one option still left in America is… dividend paying whole life insurance. 

Specifically, a custom whole life policy, like the type I design for clients. 

Life insurers are crafty creatures of survival. 

They implicitly reject self-sacrificial attitudes, which is why they’ve survived for so long.

They thrive on a mutually-beneficial business arrangement, with everyone working for his or her own rational long-range benefit — the company works in its own best interest by making long-range decisions and investing money for decades at a time. 

By doing this, the company achieves its own mission and purpose, which is to serve its policyholders (which often includes upper management, who gleefully own many millions of dollars of the company’s own life insurance policies) and increase the long-term value of the company and the value of the policies of its policyholders. 

Its policyholders, in turn, contribute increasing premium dollars which increases the long-term cash surrender value of their whole life contracts. The premium dollars become the fuel that directly benefits the life insurance company, creating an endless virtuous circle of growing cash values, death benefits, and increasing stability with each generation. 

Each party independently works for its own benefit. And, by doing so, it creates a mutually-beneficial, almost symbiotic, relationship.

It’s a business model almost no one has tried to reproduce. 

Regardless of any odd comments made by management, lawsuits brought by disgruntled individuals and profit-draining lawyers, or lip service given to “higher causes, it never changes the fact that in order for a mutual life insurance company to work, there must be — by the fact of its very existence — a sort of self-serving, capitalistic, mutually-beneficial relationship between the life insurance company and the policyholder.

Each feeds the other by feeding itself.

A mutual life insurer cannot exist — and I don’t mean this as hyperbole; it literally cannot exist — without policyholders. The very idea of a mutual insurer means a company owned by, and full of members who are, policyholders and whose management is beholden to those policyholders for the benefit of everyone involved in the mutuality.

This is the not-so-secret secret of why these companies have never died and, as long as there are policyholders willing to pay premiums, probably will never die.

A lot of people just plain don’t understand it, can’t understand it, won’t understand it. 

So be it. 

It is what it is.

But, if you want to understand it, and plug into the system, then I invite you to first download the free Monegenix® Labs and access the free trainings, courses, and special reports and get your head around the idea of how life insurance planning and financial planning really works.

Choices, choices, choices. 

At some point in the not-too-distant past, life insurance agents decided it was a cool idea to give folks a bazillion different choices, let folks choose what type of life insurance policy they want, how they want it designed, and even which company they want to go with. 

Some agents will even let their clients tell them how to design the policy, how much premium to put into term riders, base premiums, and PUA riders… and then the agent just sort of takes orders and files the paperwork.

I don’t do that. 

In fact… in my heretical opinion, agents are the experts and running an insurance brokerage that way is extremely irresponsible and probably eventually will end in a lawsuit at some point.

Agents know (or should know) infinitely more than their clients about life insurance. 

Now… don’t get me wrong. 

That doesn’t mean clients should just shut up, nod, and follow along without questioning anything.

In fact, I almost think there’s something wrong with a person who *doesn’t* ask questions before diving into whole life insurance. Makes me suspicious. Who the hell dumps $50,000 a year into a whole life policy without asking a bunch fo questions?

For my part, I show people a few different policy designs (unless they just want me to pick a company and policy for them). 

And, I explain as much about the policy as I think they’ll understand (my new Life Insurance MasterClass goes into explicit detail about anything anyone would ever want to know about any type of life insurance policy).

I even go so far as to show 2 different policies (maybe 3) from different companies, but… 

Even that can be dangerous. 

And… giving you too many choices, options, and showing you too many policy illustrations is an exercise in futility.

Here’s why:

For the most part, life insurance companies make it near-impossible to compare policy illustrations from other competing companies. 

It’s an open secret int he life insurance biz. 

Illustrations are not the same thing as your policy contract. They are a tool to explain how a policy works… not necessarily how it will perform.

Knowing how a policy works is extremely valuable information, but… it’s not the only thing you need to know. 

So, getting a policy illustration from MassMutual, and comparing it to an illustration from Penn Mutual or New York Life or Northwestern Mutual, or the Guardian will show you a few things, but it’s not as useful as you might think. 

The one thing it will show you is… which company can produce the highest guaranteed cash value and death benefit for you. 

That’s very useful information. 

Illustrations also show you how each company’s policy works. 

Also… useful.

But, in the wrong hands, illustrations can be deceptive and can be used for dishonest and deceitful purposes.

If an agent is savvy with a spreadsheet, he might be inclined to alter some of the basic assumptions in the illustration and show you policy values that have a snowball’s chance in hell of materializing. 

Or… he might downplay certain undesirable things in the policy and emphasize something that you’re sure to like. 

On the other hand… an agent might also use his powers for good. 

He might be able to reverse engineer the policy and figure out how much of the hypothetical cash value growth is due to things like a high lapse assumption (which can infer a few other things about a company). That, in turn could influence your decision to go with a particular company.

But… there are limits…

Policy illustrations won’t show you anything about how each company handles customer service, billing, how each company treats policyholders over the long-term, differences between implied promises and actual contractual promises, dividend stability over time, investment management of the general investment account, risk profile of the products being sold by the company, and so on. 

This is something that takes some investigative work and is usually not something most agents have the intelligence or inclination to do. 

What they’ll do instead is amp up the marketing angle of a company. 

For example, historical performance of a company’s whole life product doesn’t guarantee (or even imply) that company is a good company… nor does it mean they will experience the same results in the future. 

I’ve often said Penn Mutual’s dividend has been the most stable dividend out of all the mutuals over the past 20 years. That doesn’t necessarily mean it will stay that way, but what it does indicate is the company’s reputation and practice of stabilizing the dividend. 

It doesn’t say anything about future policy performance. It only says something about how management views its job in regards to running the company.

But, some agents use the historical performance of Penn Mutual to suggest that the past will be the future. 

It won’t. 

Likewise, agents sometimes use historical performance charts published by MassMutual, or the Guardian, or Northwestern, to imply that past successes will (or are likely to) translate into future successes.

When I wrote about these companies in ThinkAdvisor, I pointed out the company’s past successes, but also stressed that dividend rates change over time and are likely to continue to change based on the company’s performance in the future.

A very “DUH” statement, but you wouldn’t believe the amount of hate mail that generated from insurance agents.

Anyway, there’s just no way to know what future dividends at any of these companies will be. At most, I could say that past successes demonstrate a commitment by management to run a profitable company. But if Northwestern Mutual produces a 7% annual compound return for its policyholders over the past 20 years, it does not mean they will produce the same return over the next 20 years (and in fact, they’re not). 

They can still be profitable at a 5% return or even a 4% return.

More:

The differences between the companies I mentioned above are… huge. 

Penn Mutual and New York Life run completely different life insurance companies. 

Guardian’s business model is totally incompatible with MassMutual’s.

And, it’s the business model that drives the dividend payments at each company. 

There are reasons for choosing a life insurance company that run far beyond the policy illustration. 

So… even if you sat down and looked at the spreadsheets showing dividend payments from different companies, it tells you nothing about what’s behind those payments, the investment philosophy at each company, and how each company handles investments and products if they happen to go sideways for whatever reason.

And those differences are what really affect how you view your life insurance policy over the next 10, 20, 30 years and, ultimately, how it performs.

It’s not necessarily a matter of good or bad. 

All the companies I mentioned above are good… in their own way. They all have strengths and weaknesses. 

And, they all cater to specific markets for specific purposes.

None of this is apparent on the policy illustration though.

But, what most life insurance agents focus on (and what most policyholders are taught to focus on) is only the non-guaranteed portion of the policy’s illustration. 

They focus almost exclusively on the numbers, and ignore the underlying value of the company and its whole life contract.

It’s one column of one page of a 30-40 page document. 

And, based on that one column, on that one page, life insurance agents somehow make recommendations to their clients that will affect them for the next several decades of their life. 

It’s friggin’ insane. 

No honest and legitimate life insurance agent runs their business that way. 

Sure, it’s fun to make marketing pieces showing the potential cash value growth.

But, making a decision based solely or primarily on hypothetical numbers?

Get real. 

Now… let me take a step back for a moment here, because I’ve probably turned over at least one apple cart. 

You are not a life insurance expert (unless you’re an insurance agent). 

The easiest thing for you to see is the guaranteed cash value and death benefit of a policy. These numbers are “set in stone”. They are the worst case scenario. And, I wouldn’t blame you at all for choosing a policy based solely or primarily on these guaranteed values. 

It makes good, logical, sense. 

Your agent, however, should be able to guide you through this process, look beyond the numbers, and help you find a company that is fundamentally strong with the highest guaranteed cash value possible *and also* the highest long-term potential cash value and death benefit growth given your financial goals. 

Nobody wants a poorly performing policy. But, nobody wants an unrealistic illustration that is unlikely to pan out either. And nobody wants their insurance company to blow up and go insolvent because they mismanaged the general investment account in the name of paying an unsustainable dividend payment.

A lot of the choices an agent makes about choosing life insurance companies to work with is “behind the scenes stuff” (stuff I’ll be covering more in my Life Insurance MasterClass for interested clients). 

It’s not that you can’t understand it. But, it’s not something you’d easily remember or get a lot out of if I rattled it off during a first or even second phone meeting. It would probably be a little bit confusing. It’s stuff that’s best learned slowly, over time, and usually… learned after the fact while you are “getting to know” your life insurance policy and what it can do. 

This is why trust is so damn important in the life insurance business, and why it’s so frustrating to see life insurance agents running cheap marketing gimmicks on YouTube.

Anyway, if you want more inane ramblings about life insurance from some dude on the Innernet, go sign up to my free email list. The stuff you’re reading here is about 1/30th of the stuff that you get just by reading my free daily email.