Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Term or Permanent?

Comments:
: : Billy Bob, : : Every single question you have asked was answered CLEARLY in the posts on Ken's board. Everyone else understood what I was saying, except you. : That was the answer I expected from most insurance people. It may be clear to you, but you need to make things clear to the consumer. Do you not understand that? Yes, I agree, what you posted there was obviously clear to the people who responded there. They seemed to be congratulating you and each other on doing such a great job in explaining things. That's fine and dandy and sweet as candy if you can explain to other insurance agents. But where does that leave your customer? Are you going to limit you business to selling to other agents? : :It was also very much like you just wanted an argument. If anyone is interested, they should check the board out for themselves. : As I told Jeff, I was not (and am not) looking for an argument. I am looking for an explanation that makes sense to a consumer. It is a good idea for people to check out that board for themselves. But remember, if you are reading the posts as an agent, what makes sense to you may not make sense to the customer. So keep your focus in the proper place. Generally I feel that most people who read these boards are agents however. : :I have not been able to get on Ken's board for two days due to a computer problem. If you have posted a detailed hypothetical scenario since my last post, would you repost it here? : I did not post a detailed hypothetical, that's what I wanted you to do. Why is it that no one will do that? Is it against some kind of ethics rule you have as an agent? : : In the hypothetical scenario posted about "John", 30K of permanent and 70K of term would be the best option, assuming affordability. It is stated that the need for the 30K will continue after 30 years. If he cannot afford that then he should consider a 20/80 split, then a 10/90 split, or even 100% term. If the term insurance is convertible, part of that term coverage can be switched to permanent in later year without evidence of good health. He NEEDS that $100,000 of coverage NOW so a reduced amount is inappropriate. The more permanent he can afford now, the lower overall cost will be paid over the 30+ years. The $100,000 loss at age 30 would have a much larger impact than the $30,000 loss at age 60+ so purchasing a lower total amount of insurance in order to afford the full $30,000 in permanent coverage would not be a good idea. Because it is anticipated that the $30,000 permanent policy would be adequate for his needs after age 60, there is no real compelling reason to purchase any more permanent than the $30K. : OK, so the answer to does budget determine what is right, is "yes", correct?

Please enter the characters in the image above.