Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Primerica is great

Comments:
: Why waste time discussing minor details with people who don't believe in the crusade? For every answer you respond to they will always have another question to dispute your last one. Their goal is to keep you busy on this site so that you can't build your business and they want to keep you as broke as they are. Who cares what they think, we're right and we know it and our clients know it and that is all that matters. Now go WIN!!!!!!! : : : : Not the way they see it. They need for you to have inaccuracies in your report. : : : I see your point. I would agree if there were glaring inaccuracies, such as exist on Ken Young's site. But there is nothing on there that would destroy my credibiltiy as Ken Young's has been destroyed as a result of his inaccuracies and total lies. : : : : They will not point out the inaccuracies on your site because if they cannot pay you off to disappear they need your site to contain inaccuracies to discredit it. : : : Okay, I hear you, but I disagree. The site is effective and serves its purpose very well. : : : : It enables the RVP's to respond to your site by pointing out inaccuracies and thus discrediting it. : : : Again, I disagree. My site is very thoroughly researched. If I make a claim that the recruiting methods are deceptive, it's backed up with a copy of a recruiting script that shows the deception. Much of what is there are links. Every example of a fine is backed by a link. There are few opinions there that are not backed up by evidence. : : : I don't doubt that some RVPs will deny the truth in order to discredit my site, but if they deny the truth and the evidence is present, they do so to their own detriment. : : : For instance, if they misrepresent income, there are the Citigroup Financial Statements to back up my income stats. : : : I think you are taking the one issue we have been debating: the $199 fee, and using that as a brush to paint the entire site. The $199 issue is discussed on my site, and my beliefs about the $199 are stated only as that, as my beliefs, as my opinion. I have no evidence that would prove Primerica profits from that, but again I ask you, why would Primerica take on all the extra work of processing tens of thousands of $199 checks if it were to lose money doing so? That does not make sense from a corporate point of view. : : : : : My logic is not faulty, and I'm not a CEO, and I'm not facing a board of directors. : : : : steve, I know you are not a CEO or facing a board of directors. You made an analogy or a suggestion to think like one. I used your suggestion and showed your faulty logic. : : : Naw, you're using faulty logic in the wrong sense. Faulty logic is things like red herring arguments, non sequitur, false dilemma, cause and effect etc. Asking you to think like a CEO and to consider whether a CEO would risk losing millions is not faulty logic. : : : : If you are not saying 280,000 paid 199 then where did your 55 million come from? : : : I'm talking in terms of potential income. MLMs love to use that word, right: "Unlimited potential income!" So I'm using the same method they use regarding the $199. In 2001, 100,000 recruits recruited 180,000+ additional peope. That's a tiotal of $280,000 bodies and a potential $55 million+. Thats the MOST they could have grossed from the fees. How they disburse those fees is speculation. : : : My view is even if Primerica earned $500,000, ot even $100,000 from forfeitures, that is an opportunistic corporate cash grab. IMO, They are not entitled to keep money which was given to them in trust towards a license exam or license, not under any circumstances. : : : : How many should get a refund if they completed their training and received their license? : : : None. But many people do not write the exam or get a license. : : : : How many should get a refund if they received their training and decided to leave? : : : All of them. Primerica's training is supposedly free, or at least that is what I was told when I was recruited. "Training" is not listd on the Primerica website as one of the four things covered by the $199. : : : I didn't pay the $199 because I noticed in the contract it is OPTIONAL, at least in Canada. I opted out. I received the same training as everyone else. The course the office offered was an additional $50 for everyone, even those who paid the $199. I opted out of that as well and studied on my own. : : : : : :What about all the oldtimers who came in on a fast pak? : : : : : How many are there? Do you have the numbers? Neither do I. : : : : I know of 1. Myself. I paid $25. Think there might be a couple more? Or is easier to say that you don't know therefore you will post that every rep paid 199? : : : You haven't read my site. Nowhere on the site do I say everyone paid the $199. Nowhere on this board do I say everyone paid the $199. I said the potential was there to collect $55 million+ in these fees, and it is there. : : : : Next will you be requiring us to get proof on "company letterhead" like our friend? : : : Give me a break. : : : : : :How much was paid out in infrastructure? : : : : : Infrastructure? What infrastructure? Nothing out of the $199 goes to infrastructure. : : : : You are naive if you think Primerica does not account for their costs in everything they do. : : : What does that have to do with infrastructure? : : : : : You think salaries are paid out of the $199? Man, you are WAYYY off base. : : : : They run a prelicensing school that has expenses. : : : In SOME states, not all states. In British Columbia, the school they offer is user pay. : : : : I'm quite sure they know what they are and have accounted for them in what they charge. : : : That's what I'm saying. If they found there was a loss or only breaking even, do you think they would allow the $199 to continue? Of course not! Your argument simply backs my point. Of course they account for every penny. : : : : : :Exam reimbursements? : : : : You are very wrong. I think it is profitable. I just believe your analysis is horribly deceptive. : : : Well, thanks for sharing your opinion. But I disagree. I think you haven't read the website and are simply responding to posts on these boards. : : : : By the way in many states they pay the exam fee which I have seen as high as $175. Whatever that adds up to (you are right I don't kow) where is that subtracted from your 55 million? : : : In Wisconsin, the exam fee is $50. Louisiana is $69. Utah and Illinios are both $90. If you visit the state websites, you can verify these numbers. Unfortunately, I can't verify your vague reference to a $175 exam fee because you don't name the state. I think you are arguing a point without having done the research. And you are asking me to do math calculations based on a vague supposition on your part. : : : : Your number is way off. : : : My number is not off. The potential gross income from $199 fees is over $55 million. : : : :Just a prelicensing school in my area runs on average about $125. : : : Some states don't require that applicants take prelicensing school. : : : :I paid $110 or so but that 12 years ago. If the course itself is accounting for nearly 2/3's of the 199 shouldn't your 55 million reflect that cost? : : : I don't have information verifying the cost of pre-licensing school in every state. All I ask my readers to do is to verify in their state that they will not be paying more than they have to for their course and license, that they also consider taking pre-licensing from someone other than Primerica, and that they consider the fact that they may have to forfeit their money if they change their mind about becoming an MLM salesperson. : : : : : It's "potentially" a $50 million interest free loan for Primerica. As far as the exact amount of profit, I have no idea. But I'm willing to bet they aren't LOSING money or breaking even. : : : : PFS does not lose money on anything. They will always find a way to pass off expenses to their sales force. I find them to be an excessively greedy company. : : : My belief is not only will they pass the expenses on, they will also make profit where they can. : : : : : If someone wants to prove otherwise, I'll be happy to retract that theory. Otherwise, my belief that Primerica PROFITS by setting itself up as middleman between government and agent stands, and I'll continue to report that belief, because it makes sense from a business standpoint. : : : : And I'll fight that fight with you. I have no doubt they profit. But using that same business perspective I will also correct the obvious deficiencies in your argument. : : : There are no deficiencies in my argument. You have agreed with my point: you agree Primerica probably makes a profit from the $199. That was my point from the beginning of this. : : : : : Corporations like Primerica are not out to lose money by doing their agents favours. Get real. They won't even cough up ten bucks for a crim check, agents pay it themselves. So don't expect me to believe that they are not profiting from all the extra work involved in collecting money which is not earned by them or due to them. I don't buy it. : : : : Thankfully, we are in total agreement on this point. It is only the logic of your numbers that I question. : : : Well, tell you what: you do some research and come back with some verified disbursements and I'll publish them. This would include: : : : 1. Cost of Prelicensing materials in every state and Canada : : : 2. Cost of prelicensing courses in every state and canada, except where prelicensing courses are optional. : : : 3. Cost of license fees in every state and canada : : : 4. Cost of license in evey state and canada. : : : 5. Cost of securities license in each province of Canada. : : : Then, find out : : : 1. the exact number of people who paid the $199 : : : 2. the exact number of those who paid $199 and who : : : a) dropped out before receiving preliensing materials or any other benefit promised in the $199, and : : : i) received no refund : : : ii) received a partial refund : : : iii) received a full refund : : : b)received prelicensing materials, but dropped out before receiving any other benefit promised in the $199 and : : : i) received no refund : : : ii) received a partial refund : : : iii) received a full refund : : : c) received prelicensing materials and the prelicensing class, but dropped out before receiving any other benefit promised in the $199 : : : i) received no refund : : : ii) received a partial refund : : : iii) received a full refund : : : d) received prelicensing materials, the prelicensing class, and sat for the exam, but dropped out before receiving any other benefit promised in the $199 : : : i) received no refund : : : ii) received a partial refund : : : iii) received a full refund : : : e) received prelicensing materials, the prelicensing class, sat for the exam, and received a license exam, and : : : f) In Canada, those who received their Insurance Level 1 license but not their securities license, as well as : : : g) In Canada, those who received both their securities license and their life license, also, : : : h) Any disbursements from the $199 that Primerica does not account for. : : : Once you have those numbers, you can subtract the total costs from the total income and come up with an accurate number. : : : Now I hope you understand how impossible that will be to do. That is why the only accurate statement I can make is that there is a potential gross income of over $55 million dollars in the fee. That statement is 100% true.

Please enter the characters in the image above.