Another great interview with Bobby! Thanks for having him on again. The Taco/Burrito conversation was great! 😅 I don't particularly agree with everything he said, but it's still valuable to have the dialog. I don't think you have to buy a permanent policy when you're young. Often times you actually can buy a policy when you're 65. A lot of people do! And if you are unisuranble (based on regular underwriting) you can either a) get a final expense/guaranteed issue policy or b) get nearly all of the same "bond alternative" benefits with a non-qualified annuity. This is why I'm buying term for my primary insurance protection, and permanent for my long-term cash savings needs and eventual living benefits and retirement benefits. I have 5x the amount of term death benefit over whole life, and probably will have 10-15x in the next few years. I consider the death benefit to be even more important at my age to replace income if I die. It's pure protection against a catastrophic risk, which is what traditional insurance is for. When I'm retired, my assets can replace my income, so I will mainly want whole life for its living benefits and as a non-qualified bond alternative. The "buy a car with your policy" argument that you and Bobby make does make sense. I see buying a car as something people will do anyway on a semi-regular basis. Having that money inside of a whole life policy takes advantage of the long-term compounding of that money. Yes, you could get a bank loan and pay interest. You can also save money in a bank account and earn some interest for a short period of time. I think the Whole Life simply makes the net cost of the loan very small (while the loan is outstanding) and allows you to keep uninterrupted lifetime compounding on your money. Which, to me, seems like a good deal. (assuming you repay the loan on a regular schedule, otherwise it doesn't work).
Love the conversations with Bobby. His experience is mine. Life insurance requires a thoughtful look at your mortality. Everyone assumes they will die at 95 with a fat bank account. No one thinks about the possibility of passing away in your 50’s or early 60’s, which is where traditional term insurance really fails people.
I loved this video‼️I’ve become a Bobby Samuelson fan; as you stated he is neutral and moving the needle in the industry. I like tacos 🌮 and burritos 🌯 🤣. I agree with the position that you need to really take the time to assess the clients needs and present them with the best solution that aligns with their objectives.It’s our responsibility and obligation to make sure when it comes to the client we understand their what and their why. As the agent we need to understand the in/outs of our product offering or refer the client to someone who has the knowledge and ability to help them. Keep putting out awesome content 👏🏾‼️
Just the comparison with maximizing my tax deferred retirement contributions to having a guaranteed wealth base to transfer to my son and his family was the clincher for me. I am a CPA and have seen the tax gouge out of client retirement funds that effectively leave them with no funds to give their children. I am not against the deferred accounts, but I personally use a ROTH. And I have seen clients lose so much money in downturns and never get it back. ALSO you cannot borrow against your retirement funds risk free. In my mind there is just no comparison.
If your cash flow positive on a traditional whole life policy but have debt on it then can you max it out for efficiency long term but have some debt then use the dividends to pay down the debt long term? Also, wouldn’t the dividends you pull out be tax free up to the policy contribution amount? Wouldn’t an amount of leverage be optimal if this strategy allowed you to own more whole life at 65 years old?
I dont really see why 45:24 if Bobby has a problem with talking out a policy loan with your par wl ins policy to buy a car (because its a deprc asset) why is that an issue vs getting a car loan the car is STILL a deprec asset no matter how its financed PLUS if you have the $$$ in csh value and the int rate is the same or similar to a car loan from a bank why bother even going through the underwriting process with a bank c.u. or dealer financing ??! Plus you may not qualify for the car loan or the car loan that YOU want
Fantastic podcast. You guys collaborate very well. Can't wait to hopefully have Bobby on my own channel at some point. One part I wanted to ask about was at 40:00 when Bobby talks about how it doesn't make sense to put $40K into a policy and immediately pull out $30K. I know the context of the conversation is about the terrible information out there regarding the use Infinite Banking to buy cars, go on vacations, pay for groceries, etc. (which is terrible advice). But what if we use the concept correctly by pulling the money out to invest in an income-producing asset like real estate, and pay the policy loan back over time with its cashflow? Would love to hear your thoughts on that scenario.
Booby talks as if your letting the interest compound yr over yr on loan but when your annual Premium is due the ins carriers ALWAYS give you an opportunity to pay off the annual interest accrued along with your annual premium, which nix the -negative compounding
@@DerivCapital True. Unfortunately though, based on some of the content I've seen, many consumers are led to believe that they don't need to pay the policy loan back due to positive arbitrage and that the death benefit will just pay it off when they pass away. This is very dangerous and can lead to devastating financial consequences. But you're right that as you pay the policy loan back (which you should always do unless utilizing it for retirement income), the interest does not compound, which is something that needs to be made more clear to consumers.
@@themillennialwealthcreator I agree infact the arb play is talked about WAY more with IUL's which i think is a terrible product in general .there is only one guy i can think of that pushes the arb thing with Par WL but for the most part that Arb narrative is definitely not the IBC (dont steal the peas) way Im more of a max fund type of guy myself then use these polices as a And asset and large purchases but not vacations and oh God groceries?!?! etc lol....
@@DerivCapital very much agreed. IUL influencers are out of control if you ask me. Some of the stuff they say is just insane. I'm the same with my policies. Large front load, max fund, use the policies to build wealth. Lol definitely not groceries and vacations! 😂😂
You have the history of past data from someone who did whole life insurance vs. term (and invest the difference). Can you demonstrate where whole life comes out ahead over 30 years? Secondly, to the point of "having your 65 year old thank you for a decision made at 35", do you have someone you can interview who would attest to that? That would be a good way to prove this point. Thirdly, isn't a way to look at whole life insurance is that it's a one-year term insurance renewable annually, so hence the cost of insurance for each year of the permanent insurance go up every year? Lastly, there was no discussion that when the insured person passes away, what happens to the accumulated cash value and the death benefit? Am I wrong that you only get one of them (whichever is higher)? If your family chooses the accumulated cash value because it's higher than the death benefit, does the family still pay a surrender charge?
Whole life probably won’t beat a great equity investment, but it’s not supposed to. It’s supposed to provide a zero volatility piece to your overall portfolio. Unless you’re a rank amateur, you’re never deciding between 100% whole life and 100% equities. It would be a great case study to interview someone in their 60s who bought a policy in their 30s. One individual who does talk about it publicly is Peter Neuwirth. He’s an insurance actuary. Regarding the NAR, it’s effectively a “decreasing term”. So while the cost is rising per $1,000, your overall NAR is dropping. The guaranteed rate is always sufficient to overcome these costs-that’s baked into the product. You are wrong that you only get one of them. The cash value is the cash reserve that will pay for the future death benefit. The net amount at risk is the amount the carrier is on the hook for. Your death benefit is effectively a combination of cash value and NAR. This is why your death benefit is reduced by the amount of any outstanding loans at your death. The carrier pays off the loan with the secured CSV which, in turn, reduces the death benefit $1:$1. That’s really the only time the carrier is taking your cash value when you die. There are no surrender charges in whole life.
@@MonegenixTV Thanks for clarification. So just when someone dies with a whole life insurance, they will get the stated insured amount (e.g. $500,000) plus accumulated cash value (e.g. $600,000) for a total of $1.1M (assuming no loans)?
@@MichaelCarpio-vd1dh Let’s use industry standard terms just for clarity. They get whatever the net death benefit is. If they bought a face amount of $500,000 and it grew to $1million by the time they died, their heirs get $1 million. Of the $1 million, $500,000 of the death benefit might be pure insurance, which makes the remaining amount cash value. If they somehow live to age 121, the cash value equals the death benefit (it literally is the death benefit-no insurance) and the insurer will hand them a big pile of cash.
Another great interview with Bobby! Thanks for having him on again. The Taco/Burrito conversation was great! 😅
I don't particularly agree with everything he said, but it's still valuable to have the dialog. I don't think you have to buy a permanent policy when you're young. Often times you actually can buy a policy when you're 65. A lot of people do! And if you are unisuranble (based on regular underwriting) you can either a) get a final expense/guaranteed issue policy or b) get nearly all of the same "bond alternative" benefits with a non-qualified annuity. This is why I'm buying term for my primary insurance protection, and permanent for my long-term cash savings needs and eventual living benefits and retirement benefits. I have 5x the amount of term death benefit over whole life, and probably will have 10-15x in the next few years. I consider the death benefit to be even more important at my age to replace income if I die. It's pure protection against a catastrophic risk, which is what traditional insurance is for. When I'm retired, my assets can replace my income, so I will mainly want whole life for its living benefits and as a non-qualified bond alternative.
The "buy a car with your policy" argument that you and Bobby make does make sense. I see buying a car as something people will do anyway on a semi-regular basis. Having that money inside of a whole life policy takes advantage of the long-term compounding of that money. Yes, you could get a bank loan and pay interest. You can also save money in a bank account and earn some interest for a short period of time. I think the Whole Life simply makes the net cost of the loan very small (while the loan is outstanding) and allows you to keep uninterrupted lifetime compounding on your money. Which, to me, seems like a good deal. (assuming you repay the loan on a regular schedule, otherwise it doesn't work).
Love the conversations with Bobby. His experience is mine. Life insurance requires a thoughtful look at your mortality. Everyone assumes they will die at 95 with a fat bank account. No one thinks about the possibility of passing away in your 50’s or early 60’s, which is where traditional term insurance really fails people.
I loved this video‼️I’ve become a Bobby Samuelson fan; as you stated he is neutral and moving the needle in the industry. I like tacos 🌮 and burritos 🌯 🤣. I agree with the position that you need to really take the time to assess the clients needs and present them with the best solution that aligns with their objectives.It’s our responsibility and obligation to make sure when it comes to the client we understand their what and their why. As the agent we need to understand the in/outs of our product offering or refer the client to someone who has the knowledge and ability to help them. Keep putting out awesome content 👏🏾‼️
As soon as I saw the title, which originally said "this expert says he will never buy term", I knew this would be a good show.
Great discussion Caleb keep making videos like these stay away from politics 👍🏾
Great video. Knowledge not nonsense.
HUGE BOBBY FAN HERE!
Whole life increases your retirement income and enhances your returns overall.
The EY study shows this.
Just the comparison with maximizing my tax deferred retirement contributions to having a guaranteed wealth base to transfer to my son and his family was the clincher for me. I am a CPA and have seen the tax gouge out of client retirement funds that effectively leave them with no funds to give their children. I am not against the deferred accounts, but I personally use a ROTH. And I have seen clients lose so much money in downturns and never get it back. ALSO you cannot borrow against your retirement funds risk free. In my mind there is just no comparison.
If your cash flow positive on a traditional whole life policy but have debt on it then can you max it out for efficiency long term but have some debt then use the dividends to pay down the debt long term? Also, wouldn’t the dividends you pull out be tax free up to the policy contribution amount? Wouldn’t an amount of leverage be optimal if this strategy allowed you to own more whole life at 65 years old?
I dont really see why 45:24 if Bobby has a problem with talking out a policy loan with your par wl ins policy to buy a car (because its a deprc asset) why is that an issue vs getting a car loan the car is STILL a deprec asset no matter how its financed PLUS if you have the $$$ in csh value and the int rate is the same or similar to a car loan from a bank why bother even going through the underwriting process with a bank c.u. or dealer financing ??! Plus you may not qualify for the car loan or the car loan that YOU want
Round 2👍🏻
Fantastic podcast. You guys collaborate very well. Can't wait to hopefully have Bobby on my own channel at some point. One part I wanted to ask about was at 40:00 when Bobby talks about how it doesn't make sense to put $40K into a policy and immediately pull out $30K. I know the context of the conversation is about the terrible information out there regarding the use Infinite Banking to buy cars, go on vacations, pay for groceries, etc. (which is terrible advice). But what if we use the concept correctly by pulling the money out to invest in an income-producing asset like real estate, and pay the policy loan back over time with its cashflow? Would love to hear your thoughts on that scenario.
Booby talks as if your letting the interest compound yr over yr on loan but when your annual Premium is due the ins carriers ALWAYS give you an opportunity to pay off the annual interest accrued along with your annual premium, which nix the -negative compounding
@@DerivCapital True. Unfortunately though, based on some of the content I've seen, many consumers are led to believe that they don't need to pay the policy loan back due to positive arbitrage and that the death benefit will just pay it off when they pass away. This is very dangerous and can lead to devastating financial consequences. But you're right that as you pay the policy loan back (which you should always do unless utilizing it for retirement income), the interest does not compound, which is something that needs to be made more clear to consumers.
@@themillennialwealthcreator I agree infact the arb play is talked about WAY more with IUL's which i think is a terrible product in general .there is only one guy i can think of that pushes the arb thing with Par WL but for the most part that Arb narrative is definitely not the IBC (dont steal the peas) way
Im more of a max fund type of guy myself then use these polices as a And asset and large purchases but not vacations and oh God groceries?!?! etc lol....
@@DerivCapital very much agreed. IUL influencers are out of control if you ask me. Some of the stuff they say is just insane. I'm the same with my policies. Large front load, max fund, use the policies to build wealth. Lol definitely not groceries and vacations! 😂😂
@@themillennialwealthcreator
You have the history of past data from someone who did whole life insurance vs. term (and invest the difference). Can you demonstrate where whole life comes out ahead over 30 years? Secondly, to the point of "having your 65 year old thank you for a decision made at 35", do you have someone you can interview who would attest to that? That would be a good way to prove this point. Thirdly, isn't a way to look at whole life insurance is that it's a one-year term insurance renewable annually, so hence the cost of insurance for each year of the permanent insurance go up every year? Lastly, there was no discussion that when the insured person passes away, what happens to the accumulated cash value and the death benefit? Am I wrong that you only get one of them (whichever is higher)? If your family chooses the accumulated cash value because it's higher than the death benefit, does the family still pay a surrender charge?
Whole life probably won’t beat a great equity investment, but it’s not supposed to. It’s supposed to provide a zero volatility piece to your overall portfolio. Unless you’re a rank amateur, you’re never deciding between 100% whole life and 100% equities.
It would be a great case study to interview someone in their 60s who bought a policy in their 30s. One individual who does talk about it publicly is Peter Neuwirth. He’s an insurance actuary.
Regarding the NAR, it’s effectively a “decreasing term”. So while the cost is rising per $1,000, your overall NAR is dropping. The guaranteed rate is always sufficient to overcome these costs-that’s baked into the product.
You are wrong that you only get one of them. The cash value is the cash reserve that will pay for the future death benefit. The net amount at risk is the amount the carrier is on the hook for. Your death benefit is effectively a combination of cash value and NAR. This is why your death benefit is reduced by the amount of any outstanding loans at your death. The carrier pays off the loan with the secured CSV which, in turn, reduces the death benefit $1:$1. That’s really the only time the carrier is taking your cash value when you die. There are no surrender charges in whole life.
@@MonegenixTV Thanks for clarification. So just when someone dies with a whole life insurance, they will get the stated insured amount (e.g. $500,000) plus accumulated cash value (e.g. $600,000) for a total of $1.1M (assuming no loans)?
@@MichaelCarpio-vd1dh Let’s use industry standard terms just for clarity. They get whatever the net death benefit is.
If they bought a face amount of $500,000 and it grew to $1million by the time they died, their heirs get $1 million.
Of the $1 million, $500,000 of the death benefit might be pure insurance, which makes the remaining amount cash value. If they somehow live to age 121, the cash value equals the death benefit (it literally is the death benefit-no insurance) and the insurer will hand them a big pile of cash.