gradyhowes[at]earthlink.net (Butch) wrote in
news:6fa92e66.0308252144.40ba36c7[at]posting.google.com:

- quote -

I may be a bit conservative, but I like the idea of buying a low cost
guaranteed renewable term policy now to avoid the chance of being
uninsurable later.

- quote -

Good plan, but I would also pay back the student loan as soon as I
could.

- quote -

Not uncommon, unfortunately.

- quote -

Maybe they are "suckers", but maybe not. If the home is in a good
neighborhood that appreciates well, it could end up being a good move.
Here in Tennessee you could by a house that size in most areas for
about $70-100k, but depending on market factors the house that couple
bought could actually be a better investment.

- quote -


CAUTION.....CAUTION......does not compute....does not compute.
(you may be too young to remmeber the robot that said that).

As I mentioned before, the ability to access the funds is
available ina regular U/L as well, with MUCH LOWER overall
costs involved. In addition, interest IS paid consistently, and the
Cash Value Account is NOT affected by the vagaries of the market.

- quote -

GREAT idea ! ! ! ! ! ! !


- quote -


- quote -

Also as I mentioned earlier, IF you do as you stated above,
even though there is NO immediate NEED for insurance, you
might want to look into the purchase a $100K or $200 K
Annual Renewable Term policy ( the LOWEST cost policy
to buy) to PROTECT your future INSURABILITY (right to buy).

Cal Lester CLU

First, thanks for this great information. This is absolutely the
information I was looking for. Awesome.

My assets? Not much. Some company stock through an EPP and options
with last employer. But stock price tanked so I would lose mucho money
on the EPP shares, and not make anything on the options. 401k I'm
rolling over into an IRA from last employer. I just paid off my truck,
not much of an asset, but its all mine.

I'm in the biotech field, make 50K working in a lab. I have a
molecular biology degree. Working on a second degree in programming.
Hopefully the combination will result in higher salaries in the
future.

I agree that I do not have a need for insurance yet. In the future of
course. So why would I want the VUL? I like the recommendation to use
a VUL after exhausting all other avenues. Thanks for this tip.

Student loan I'm not worried about, but credit card debt I am. I have
the opportunity to pay almost most off it off by March 2004. Sooner if
I add in that $300 for the VUL.

Some interesting information about the advisor that was selling me on
the VUL idea. He actually is one of the insurance companies reps for
this region. No wonder he made a hard pitch.

So I think I will concentrate on getting rid of the credit card debt,
then opening a Roth AND a house fund. Although I probably won't buy
here in Southern California. The prices are laughable. A couple just
bought a 1000 sq ft house for $583,000 near the beach. Suckers.

Thanks everyone.

goodness... i get a lot of investment questions sent my way and i find
that most of 'em R lacking the key ingredients, or the information that
they just don't care ta disclose, thus the questions appear rather
"loaded"... thus how can one respond without appearing rather general,
or assuming too much?... now of course, the typical financial planner's
response is to ask fer more information and a chance to sit with 'em to
discuss it further, yet then, a question posed on the internet is hardly
an invitation fer a meeting... sooo, we try our best to respond with
what has been presented... thus, imho, Y waste our time to argue with
each other of whether our responses R as complete as possible, or
perhaps we're assuming too much, not that i'm defending the other
poster, just that, Y don't ya present y'all's answer and if ya wish,
give the assumptions that ya presume, then let the response stand on its
own... i find that, in discussions with other financial planners,
certified folk, cpa's and wall street banker types that once this post
gets read, then they all add their two cents worth and let it go...

Laura (a.k.a. l.hutton[at]aemail4u.com (L Hutton)) you wrote:

<< <i> Not all VULs are bad. In most cases, they are a poor choice for
retirement savings due to the high fees.</i> >
. . . . agreed.

<<<i> The original poster is single, no dependents, has student loan debts,
has credit card debts. Based on these facts, does a VUL look like a
good choice for this person? If yes, why? If no, then why would this
product be recommended? </i> >
Is that really all the information you need to make a determination? I might
have suspicions that it's not appropriate. All we know for sure is what has
been written. That fact that he has credit card debts doesn't mean he doesn't
have sizeable assets to work with. But I would want a lot more information
rather than make assumptions only based on probability. He might be a business
owner/partner or be a partner in a professional practice of some kind; maybe
real-estate assets or family farm assets; inheritances that my soon come about
.. . .etc., etc. I'm just trying to make the point that I'd want to see much
more of the picture before drawing conclusions.

<< <i> Too bad these companies <b> prey on</b> the financially naive and/or
uneducated. </i> >
An interesting choice of words. It seems to say more than just what is
written. ;-)


<< <i> These VULs are complicated and these companies hand the
client a 200 page prospectus knowing they won't be able to decipher
the prospectus. This makes for easy pickings to increase the bottom
line at the unsuspecting client's expense.</i> >
I feel you'd better point the finger more at the NASD and even the SEC for the
size of these prospectuses. From comments I've heard from company executives,
they don't like the size of prospectuses either. As you suggest . . . .who
the heck is actually going to read one of these monsters? But if they want
the information, it's all there. And the idea, isn't it . . . to help give Joe
Public information and to reduce the exposure of becoming an "unsuspecting
client?"

ttroberts[at]aol.com (TTRoberts) wrote in message news:<20030825122502.01762.00000707[at]mb-m22.aol.com> ...
Laura (a.k.a. l.hutton[at]aemail4u.com (L Hutton)) writes:
<< <I> Butch,

VULs aren't recommended; they're sold. </I> >
[[. . . . .an often stated axiom. However, I happen to know several
fee-only
financial advisors who have "recommended" VUL's from time to time.
And so, I
have experienced that this is not always the case.]]

Not all VULs are bad. In most cases, they are a poor choice for
retirement savings due to the high fees.

<< <I> If you're using a financial advisor, IMO, you should not be
using this
person for financial advice since they're not looking out for your
best
interest.</I> >
[[Hmmmm??? It seems one has drawn some conclusion based only an some
assumptions? While such assumptions may be correct (as a broken
clock can be
correct twice a day), they're still unsubstantiated "assumptions."]]

The original poster is single, no dependents, has student loan debts,
has credit card debts. Based on these facts, does a VUL look like a
good choice for this person? If yes, why? If no, then why would this
product be recommended?

<< <I> You should paydown any outstanding debt like student loans and
credit
cards before you think about going above and beyond your 401K. On top
of this,
IMO,
you don't have any dependents so you do not need any life insurance
at this
point in your life.</I> >
[[Good points!]]

Thanks

<< <I> Some of these financial advice companies are unscrupulous when
it
comes to what they recommend and more often than not they're looking
to increase their bottom line. For example, American Express
Financial
Advisors read http://www.amexsux.com .</I> >
[[ Interesting??? I don't know of ANY for-profit businesses that
aren't looking
to increase their "bottom line" . . . . even those services that are
only
fee-only based. While one should indeed be cautious and avoid those
who are
"unscrupulous", the activity of " increasing their bottom line" does
not make
one so. ;-)]]

Too bad these companies prey on the financially naive and/or
uneducated. These VULs are complicated and these companies hand the
client a 200 page prospectus knowing they won't be able to decipher
the prospectus. This makes for easy pickings to increase the bottom
line at the unsuspecting client's expense.

Laura (a.k.a. l.hutton[at]aemail4u.com (L Hutton)) writes:

<< <I> Butch,

VULs aren't recommended; they're sold. </I> >
.. . . . .an often stated axiom. However, I happen to know several fee-only
financial advisors who have "recommended" VUL's from time to time. And so, I
have experienced that this is not always the case.

<< <I> If you're using a financial advisor, IMO, you should not be using this
person for financial advice since they're not looking out for your best
interest.</I> >
Hmmmm??? It seems one has drawn some conclusion based only an some
assumptions? While such assumptions may be correct (as a broken clock can be
correct twice a day), they're still unsubstantiated "assumptions."

<< <I> You should paydown any outstanding debt like student loans and credit
cards before you think about going above and beyond your 401K. On top of this,
IMO,
you don't have any dependents so you do not need any life insurance at this
point in your life.</I> >
Good points!

<< <I> Some of these financial advice companies are unscrupulous when it
comes to what they recommend and more often than not they're looking
to increase their bottom line. For example, American Express Financial
Advisors read http://www.amexsux.com .</I> >
Interesting??? I don't know of ANY for-profit businesses that aren't looking
to increase their "bottom line" . . . . even those services that are only
fee-only based. While one should indeed be cautious and avoid those who are
"unscrupulous", the activity of " increasing their bottom line" does not make
one so. ;-)