Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deceptive Practices?

Comments:
: Sorry George, but do a little research. The term policies I refer to are level premium and level coverage amount with the same features as their equivalent Primerica policies. I do have personal knowledge. : Your $25 going through Smith Barney vs. Primerica will get you to exactly the same place at exactly the same time every time. : Most whole-life policies pay out about the same in commissions as Primerica pays for their term, but a much larger portion goes to the actual writing agent instead of their upline. Learn a little about statuatory reserve requirements and such before you make any more statements about your interpretation of how a whole-life policy works. : Your entire post illustrates that you do nothing more than quote inaccurate figures and "facts" given to you by your upline. And I'm sure that if you looked at the figures provided by AM BEST, you would actually understand what I was talking about re:commission expenses compared to premium income and paid claims. Your lack of advertising expense is more than compensated for by the lapse rates. : "Playing"? I'm not the one who is playing. : : : "Whole life and other permanent products do not subsidize term plans. And if the term insurance is convertible, it raises the cost of the term insurance. and it is still cheaper." : : - That is because if you compare the two policies you will discover several differences. I KNOW, because I PERSONALLY have inspected "cheaper" term policies. First of all, with Primerica, the cost of the policy is FIXED for up to 30 years, and WILL NOT go up, nor will the coverage go down. With other "cheaper" policies, you may have a level 30 year term, but only the death benefit is level, the premiums go up yearly. Why don't you do me a favor and not talk garbage about something unless YOU HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE about the policies in question. This above scenario has been the case on almost EVERY individual (not group) policy that is "cheaper" than Primerica. : : "Smith Barney fund sold through Primerica give the same performance as the same funds sold through an independent broker." : : - Ok, but too bad the only places you can buy Smith Barney investments is through either Primerica or Smith Barney directly, and I am pretty sure that going to a Smith Barney broker with $25/month with no lump-sum investment will get you no-where. With Primerica, you can start investing for as little as $25/month. Thanks anyways though. : : " As far as other insurers ripping people off, do yourself a favor. Get a subscription to A.M. Best, and take a look at the amount of claims paid out by Primerica relative to its total premium income, and its total commission expenses. Now go look at Prudential, or AIG, or any other insurer you don't care for and look at the same numbers. Do you notice anything interesting? What do you notice about the numbers?" : : - If you want to talk about commissions, then why is it with the typical whole live "Cash Value" policy no cash value typically accumulates for the first 2-5 years? Because of the INSANE commissions that are paid. Not to mention that the cost of the policy is already outrageous. Next, they usually "guarantee" a return of around 6% (again, not always this exact number, but in the same general area). This 6% is before the fees and commissions that are paid to the agent (yes, that's right, commissions are paid more than once, where they are only paid once wit a term policy), so the NET return on your money is actually closer to 2.5-3%. Not bad considering inflation has averaged about 4.90% the past 30 years. Oh, they also tell you that it's a great deal, because you get tax benefits and you can cancel your policy to get the money, or "borrow" against it. Let me ask a question....does anyone know when they'll die, so they can cancel the policy for the cash value before hand? NO! And guess what, once they die they LOSE the cash value. What a great deal, huh? But let's say for arguments sake they did know that and cancelled for the cash value. Well, any income they earned on that cash value is now taxable (since it is tax deferred, not tax free such as a Roth IRA), and we've already seen how small a return they were actually getting, so now the cash value is almost non-existent. Where, they could have instead bought a cheaper term policy, invested the difference to fairly easily earn a 10% return (after fees it may be 8-9%), and have this money grow TAX FREE because they paid the tax on the upfront. Which would you rather pay tax on, $100 or the $100,000 that it grew to? Also, if they die, they get both their policy and their investment instead of just the policy and not the cash value. Which option do you think is better, and which type of company blows more money? I'll let you figure that one out on your own. Oh, and by the way, we do get higher commissions than a typical insurance company, but they have something called advertising and salary, where we have none. So, our costs are MUCH lower, which is why if you look at the details of policies and compare two near identical policies, we are typically cheaper (most of the time except for group or internet companies). Once again, thanks for playing. Better luck next time though :)

Please enter the characters in the image above.