Good post, Ed.

Cal Lester wrote:

- quote -

As a practical matter, this is the basic economics of all permanent
insurance that doesn't offer a death benefit *plus* the cash value.
What you are doing, essentially, is insuring that by the date you
die you will have a pot equal to $X (the death benefit). If you
live long enough and have paid sufficient premiums in a universal
policy, that pot may consist virtually entirely of your cash value
(the amount you could walk away from the policy with).

So, from a practical standpoint, you have a "paired" savings program
and annual term insurance policy. The savings pairs well with the
insurance, because the cost of providing a death benefit is lowest
in the early years of the policy--so you can buy a relatively
"large" death benefit for a low premium. The savings component (the
building of the CSV) serves to reduce the amount of annual insurance
(death benefit) over time--and that's just as the cost of that
insurance per dollar is rising.

As noted, you can buy policies that provide for a death benefit *in
addition* to the cash value. As would be expected, all things being
equal, such a policy would cost more than a policy that was
otherwise equivalent that did not offer that payout.

I don't see the first policy as "cheating" anyone, at least so long
as you understand what you are buying--which is the assurance that
$X will be available at your death. That's true if you die one year
later or 40 years later.

Now, you *could* try and create a similar structure by combing term
policies with a savings plan outside a policy, but there are some
glitches. That's the theory of "buy term and invest the difference"
as an option. But there are a couple of issues you have to control for.

First, savings outside the insurance wrapper are subject to income
tax should they generate taxable income. So you have to factor in
the expected tax cost over time into your equation.

Second, in many cases insurance policies are treated differently
under state law for creditor protection and other purposes--so your
"stand alone" investments may be more exposed.

Third, you also need to assure that you will be able to retain the
term coverage for the entire period that you will need to build the
investment value to a sufficient level to fund the death benefit.
That may require you to go out and attempt to pick up a term policy
that has an extremely long period of coverage and/or being forced to
convert a term policy (if you got the conversion feature) to
permanent insurance down the line at rates that won't be nearly as
favorable as you would have gotten had you signed up initially if
some health problem arises in the interim.

Fourth, you are assuming that you will do at least as well or better
than the insurance company in picking your investments. Aside from
variable universal polices, you would instead be "riding along" with
the insurer's investment performance. Reality is that while a lot
of people *think* they can beat the investment performance of the
insurer, a lot fewer do <grin> . As noted, a VUL policy can be
abused in the same function, so it is possible to have a permanent
policy and still run into this issue, but the poster wasn't talking
about a variable policy.

Fifth, and maybe the most important--you have to actually invest the
difference. People have a tendency to "skip" funding the investment
portion, creating the problem of "buy term and blow the difference"
<grin> . Note that, to be honest, if you have a universal policy the
same problem can arise (a temptation to "low ball" fund the policy).
Frankly, this issue (which affects a *lot* of people) may be the
most compelling case for a "traditional" whole life policy with its
inflexible funding--you have no choice but to pay in at the agreed
premium to keep the policy in force <grin> .

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

- quote -


The ORIGINAL poster was completely incorrect, in that
you do NOT borrow your own money. IF you apply for
a loan, you borrow money from the COMPANY, using
the Cash Value Account as collateral, in the same manner
as when you make a car loan.........

Brent's comment is 100% on point.......................
- quote -


Even in those contracts that do NOT offer a Death Benefit
that will include the Face Amount PLUS the current Cash Value
as mentioned above, the company does NOT keep anything.
In fact, (especialy in U/L) the Current Death Value (the part
that
you pay for) is the amount between the Cash Value & the Face
amount. ie:

If the policy has a Face value of 100K, and the CVA is 40K, then
the COI for THAT MONTH is the cost of 60K of protection, NOT
100K (the COI typicaly is reduced each month even though you
are getting OLDER)

Cal Lester CLU

- quote -

Unfortunately most of us do NOT have a crystal ball.
An old adage is to "err on the conservative side"


It's probably good to have a little bit of
- quote -

Actually, that is EXACTLY what Universal Life is, a combination
of Decreasing Term Insurance AND an increasing Cash Value
Account. The C.V.A. is designed to pay the increased C.O.I.,
as we age, so that we can utilize a Level Premium for as long
as we need the policy. There is also a form of U/L, wherein the
Term Insurance remains LEVEL, and the C.V.A. is then ADDED
to the Face Amount at Death...............

Therefore, a properly designed U/L policy can fulfill ALL of the
above, have a level premium, and be there when you die.
(or when no longer needed, a source of Income Tax Free,
up to basis, money.............)


Cal Lester CLU

"me" <ha[at]look.nospam> wrote in message
news:gkpbg0dq44u5b56bnum11act62urghbmv3[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

False. UL, like any other LONGER term, or permanent policy, costs more
because it provides protection for a longer period of time. This is
fundamental.

- quote -

False. Modern permanent policies can have surrender values in the first
month, and some can be in a profit situation at the end of year one.

- quote -

False. Actual returns depend on the company, for general account products,
and the sub-accounts, for variable products. Returns run the gamut, just
like any other investment.

- quote -

False. Historically, the net cost of borrowing was 200 basis points or
less. Today, it is often Zero.

- quote -

False. The above paragraphs is a myth -- always has been, always will be.
Many policies can be designed to pay BOTH face amout PLUS the accumulated
values.

- quote -

Term is only cheaper in the short term, so the aforementioned argument is
only half-true, and far from a panacea.

- quote -

False. The above assumes many varriables that are not guaranteed, including
the single most important variable -- WHEN will someone die.

- quote -

False. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of people need MORE
insurance as they age than they did when they were young. The ONLY way one
can realize this irrefutable truth is to examine thousands of individaul
situations, just like I have. The likes of Orman, Quinn, Dacey, et al.,
haven't examined a tiny fraction of the number I have, which is why I can
EASILY discredit most of the myths and urban legends they promulgate.

Brent D. Gardner, ChFC
Chartered Financial Consultant
http://members.cox.net/brentdgardner1378/

"Be ever questioning. Ignorance is not bliss. It is oblivion. You don't go
to heaven if you die dumb. Become better informed. Learn from other's
mistakes. You could not live long enough to make them all yourself." - Hyman
George Rickover (1900-86), Admiral, US Navy, advocated development of
nuclear subs & ships

The Chartered Life Underwriter (CLU) and Chartered Financial Consultant
(ChFC), designations owned and exclusively offered by The American College,
signify the highest standards of academic study and professional excellence
in the financial services industry.

Cal Lester <cal-lester[at]comcast.net> wrote:

- quote -

True, but the total cost of insurance over the same period might not be
any greater, if you assume a reasonably invested set-aside of the cost
differential in the early years (i.e. buy term and invest the
difference).

If you will actually need insurance right through till an expected old
age death, or very close, the permanent policy is likely to be a better
deal because of the tax advantages of the investments in the cash value
account of a permanent policy.

The problem with permanent life shows up when you live a fairly long
time without needing insurance. If you let it lapse, the tax advantages
go away, and if you don't you are paying mortality charges for little
reason. Admittedly, if you are planning to leave some money to heirs
this downside isn't terribly bad since at any time the mortality charge
is only a bit greater than the expected value of the extra DB which will
go to said heirs.

OTOH, if you *don't* want to leave money, or really need the money
yourself while alive for various unexpected reasons, having it tied up
in a permanent policy could be a negative.

The hard part of buying insurance is predicting while you are in the
20s/30s how much insurance you are likely to want when you are 65+,
because that's when the differences between permanent and term start
really kicking in. Basically, 30 years from now is when you'll know for
sure whether buying term or UL was the right idea. You can't know now,
you can only guess. It's probably good to have a little bit of
permanent insurance and cover the rest with term. That way, if you
don't need the permanent later, it's not a huge chunk and didn't cost
you much, but if you do decide 20 years down the road that permanent is
the right idea, you'll be glad you bought the small amount when you did.

I would not generally recommend financing one's whole insurance need
with permanent insurance, unless one is fairly sure that the need is
actually going to be permanent (frex: you have disabled children or
younger relatives to support indefinitely and expect to rely on
pensions/ss for most of your retirement income, or you expect and want
to amass and leave to heirs so much wealth that a large amount of
insurance will be a part of your estate plan).

But it all amounts to an educated guess, and what a lot of agents won't
tell you is that most people should not buy purely permanent life
insurance, but rather a mix, and a fairly significant minority of people
will never need any life insurance at all.



Michael

Cal Lester wrote:

- quote -

Possible, but there will also be *current* demands on resources that
may end up forcing a choice between keeping the policy funded *OR*
meeting those current demands--and I suspect most will drop the
policy at that point. At that point, you might end up with having
just paid for an expensive term policy.

Remember, at this point the poster has no children, so this special
needs child is only a possible outcome--and not a terribly likely
one. Now if a couple already *has* a special needs child, is
providing for the child today and can afford the insurance, then I
agree that it likely makes sense *if* the rest of their long term
finances are in order.

Remember, we have to make sure they can provide for the child while
they live since the policy will only kick in when they die. So that
suggests a stream of income from a source that will terminate at
death we would need to replace--such as a generous defined benefit
pension plan from an employer.

- quote -

Not sure exactly what you are aiming at here (have a couple of
ideas), but arguably had the premiums paid been used against the
debt, the problem could have been rendered moot at death. Now it
may not happen, but then that's primarily an argument for the forced
savings component of the policy--but that still doesn't make taking
on excess debt a "good" financial strategy <grin> .

- quote -

A less likely problem for a couple of reasons. First, like the
special needs offspring, this situation is likely to put pressure on
current expenditures, which could put the insurance policy at risk
for being dropped. That is, the policy only "solves" the problem if
you die.

You also have the issue now of the parents outliving the child, not
the most likely scenario, and one with the highest risk in the
earlier years--when term would buy significantly more bang for the buck.

- quote -

An issue going forward, although we now may not have policy
ownership where we want it or need it. Generally from a buy/sell
perspective, I'm mainly concerned with having insurance on the other
members of my firm since it is effectively my liability to buy them
out.

And if we start moving policies around, we have to be careful not to
accidentally trip over the transfer for value rules that can
eliminate that "tax free" death benefit. TFV issues are solvable in
most cases, but only if someone recognizes the issue up front.

- quote -

A real problem with policy ownership here--because if I own the
policy, it becomes subject to estate tax itself, adding to my woes.
Generally if a policy is aimed to be used to fund estate taxes, I
want it held by an irrevocable life insurance trust where I have no
incidents of ownership on the policy.

- quote -

If that was your goal going in. However, in most cases I see the
charitable angle used primarily as a location to send "excess" death
benefits from permanent policies for which the client sees no need
for at death, but from which the client doesn't currently need the
funds (so they don't want to trigger the income tax) and which is
now a policy that needs very little or no additional funding.

In essence, my gut reaction is that, in most cases the charity get
used primarily because, arguably, the permanent policy turned out to
be unnecessary--what the client had was a *term* need for a time
period that has now expired.

But back to the original question--I think that if there is a
reasonable probability of a specific long term need that can be
reasonably estimated, then it's good to plan for it due to the risk
of uninsurability down the line. The longer out the risk runs and
the better we are able to come up with an estimate of the amount of
funds needed at death to cover that situation, the more likely it is
that a permanent product of some sort is going to be the best choice.

However, I don't think it's a good move to purchase that product
based on pure speculation about events that do not meet the probable
test *and* for which a level of need cannot be reasonably estimated.
The problem is that as the future unfolds, we will likely find
that we planned for the "wrong" unlikely outcome, and that we are
facing a very different outcome that has now become probable, and
for which our current solution doesn't work.

That is, instead of investing heavily in life insurance, maybe I
should have invested in a long term care policy providing a higher
level of benefit. Or perhaps I needed a disability policy with
better terms than the one I bought. Or perhaps I bought neither
because I was so focused on the universal policy which I now can no
longer afford to keep in force.

That is, unexpected things will happen in the future--that I know.
But knowing that doesn't mean that I should therefore buy every
product that offers protection against every possible future outcome
that might be adverse. In reality, I *can't* afford to insure
against every possible negative--rather, I have to make a rational
choice about what it makes sense to insure against, given the
limitations of my resources.

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

"HW "Skip" Weldon" <skip5700removethis[at]hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:257cg0tldpbnc70306nbfcnv0mjdi3016j[at]4ax.com...
- quote -


I can not answer for the poster "Nat", but I can offer a few
examples:

An offspring that requires "special Attention" for it's
lifetime
Assumed Debt
Ageing parents who insist on living but did NOT provide
for it
Business needs (buy/sell, pension max, etc.)
Possible State & Federal Estate Tax's
Charitable Bequests


For most or all of the above, the Income Tax Free proceeds from an
in-force Life Insurance policy can produce the needed funds at the
lowest cost.
Cal Lester CLU

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:08:35 CST, nathoag[at]telus.net (nat) wrote:


- quote -

While there's little doubt that you have a life insurance need now,
and that it increases as you have children, 30 years out is more
problematic. What do you foresee causing that need in 30 years?

-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

"nat" <nathoag[at]telus.net> wrote in message
news:34545476.0407261541.929fdb4[at]posting.google.com...
- quote -


A minor error here (common misuse of terminology), in that
is NOT a requirement that one "BORROW" money from a
U/L policy. As I mentioned before, U/L features
"flexibility".

One of those features is the ability to "WITHDRAW" funds
from the Cash Value account. Sounds similar, but there is a
unique difference. Borrowed money is required to be RE-PAID,
and until it is (either in cash during the life of the
contract, deducted
from the proceeds at Death or Surrender), IRS requires that
there
must be an INTEREST charge *either paid or added to the
loan).
It is true, that some contracts offer a "wash loan", in that
they credit
an amount equal to the interest, but it is still charged.
Whereas, if you WITHDRAW money from the account, it will
reduce
the Death benefit by the same amount (can't get paid twice),
however
there is NO requirement to repay NOR is there any Interest
charged.....

Any funds either borrowed or withdrawn (up to your basis) is
currently considered Income Tax Free, since it was paid in
with "after tax dollars".



- quote -

almost
ANY permanent policy. However a Permanent policy would
offer a LEVEL premium for Life, whereas Term Insurance,
as the name implies, is for a limited period of time. In
addition, the cost of Term INCREASES each and every year.
You can purchase a Level 10 yr/, 20 yr. or even 30 yr. Term
policy, however, IF the NEED for some form of protection
continues BEYOND that time, ANY Life Insurance would be
much more expensive (if you can even get it) than the U/L
policy over the same period of time................

Cal Lester CLU

Nat-

If you're comparing the universal life policy to a term policy (30 year, I
assume) you do see a big bottom-line cost difference in what you need to pay
out each month / quarter. I think you suggested that you were concerned
about buying term in the future instead of just biting the bullet today and
buying the universal product. True, the expense of a 30 year term poilicy
does increase as you age because you are statistically more likely to "bite
it" within the period of the policy. That does not mean, however, that if
you place a 30 year term policy in force today that the premiums you pay
will increase as time goes by. They could under some policies, but if you
are looking at level term policies the premium will be level throughout the
policy term.

And speaking of statistics, at your age you and your wife are more likely to
miss a significant amount of work due to injury than die prematurely. In
considering life insurance you should think also about insuring your wife.
In the situation wehere you have kids and she provides the care you need to
evaluate what the care of those kids may cost you in her absence. You may
find that looking into two separate level term policies may make better
financial sense. Check with your mutual employers to see if they offer any
group term life policies you could use to supplement what you are looking
for. You'll get it on the cheap and its also paid in pre-tax dollars. You
may then want to ask your agent about disability insurance to cover the
contingency that you may be unable to work due to injury.

JSR

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 18:57:21 CST, nathoag[at]telus.net (nat) wrote:

Universal Life Insurance is expensive since it requires you put
"savings" into it.

The balance on your "savings" will add up to a big fat "0" for quite a
few years.

The return on your "saviings" will typically be 2-4% per year after
there is any balance at all.

If you choose to "borrow" (YOUR OWN) money, you will be charged a rate
higher than your return interest. (4 - 8+ %)

If you die at ANY time, the face value of the policy goes to your
benficiary and they KEEP your savings.

If you are young you are better off to get cheaper "term" insurance
and investing your money om your own and get much better rates of
return. By cheaper, I mean, term insurance has a much lower premium
and you can get much more coverage for the same dollar.

If you die the beneficiary gets more money or the same for much mess
premium, PLUS they get the investments.

If you live long enough, you will make enough on the investments to
eliminate the need for insurance altogether and you can use YOUR own
money, in your OWN investments and not pay a penny of interest for
borrowing your own money.

nat wrote:

- quote -

That would indicate there is likely some need for life insurance,
either because your spouse would have difficulty if your income was
lost (and you better consider the same issue if your spouse's income
was lost) or because of commitments for the future children.

These issues need to be considered when looking at how much
insurance you need.

- quote -

Well, that may impact the insurance angle (your earning ability is
all you have) but that also likely indicates you should wonder about
how you would handle disability.

The major hitch with the insurance as an "investment" is the
relative inflexibility you are buying into. If it turns out
something else would work better, you've already cast your die with
the insurance product.

- quote -

You need to figure out how that fits into your overall plan. First,
as you "borrow out" the cash value, you are reducing the eventual
death benefit. It may or may not matter, but there's an implicit
assumption here that the need for funds at your death will decrease
as you draw down the funds.

Second, this "tax free" idea only works so long as you can keep the
policy in force. If the policy expires before you do (you put too
much pressure on the policy), you could be faced with a major
problem. You will either need to put funds into the policy to keep
it in force (and likely need to continue to do so annually until you
die) or you will pay tax on the excess of what you have taken out
over what you paid in premiums--even though the money is long gone.

It requires careful and regular monitoring of the policy to assure
it will be able to provide this cash flow *without* risking a
collapse of the policy. The illustrations you are shown are almost
certainly *not* guaranteed--that's not bad (if you want to buy only
guarantees, buy nonparticipating whole life <grin> ) but it also
means that the policy's actual performance will almost certainly be
different from what you are seeing. And *that* means its important
to consider how sensitive the policy is to changes in the various
items that aren't guaranteed *AND* to be sure that in force
illustrations are run on a regular basis (annually would be good) to
be sure any performance problems are caught early.

- quote -

Well, it also depends on whether you can "guess right" at this point
on how much insurance you will need/want--and, as well, with
universal at what level you fund it. If you "low ball" fund the
policy, what you will end up with may just end up being a rather
expensive term policy <grin> --that is, a policy that eventually you
end up unable to afford to continue to fund.

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

For further details.
I am married and having children is the plans for the future.
I also have limited other investments.

One of the selling features i like was the ability to take money out
of the plan (ie once retired). The money would be borrowed from the
plan so my income would increase by nothing as i borrowed the money
and thus this would have tax savings.

Life insurance is something I want to get-just in case anything does
happen. But unsure if universal is a better choice than term.
Right now term is really cheap- im young. But im trying to figure out
if in 30 years term will be highly expensive and thus regreting not
getting universal.

Insights?

"nat" <nathoag[at]telus.net> wrote in message
news:34545476.0407241501.1f0de720[at]posting.google.com...
- quote -

The most important advice anyone on here can give, without a complete set of
facts, is this:

This single most important aspect of buying life insurance that you can
control is the SELECTION of a good agent or broker. If you SELECT well, you
can build a lifelong relationship with a professional that can take
excellent care of you and your family.

Be EXTREMELY careful in soliciting advice from strangers, especially those
who are NOT experienced professional agents or brokers. Most of them do not
know what they are talking about, often repeating urban legend and mythology
that is not based on verifiable evidence or actual fact.

Brent D. Gardner, ChFC
Chartered Financial Consultant
http://members.cox.net/brentdgardner1378/

"Be ever questioning. Ignorance is not bliss. It is oblivion. You don't go
to heaven if you die dumb. Become better informed. Learn from other's
mistakes. You could not live long enough to make them all yourself." - Hyman
George Rickover (1900-86), Admiral, US Navy, advocated development of
nuclear subs & ships

The Chartered Life Underwriter (CLU) and Chartered Financial Consultant
(ChFC), designations owned and exclusively offered by The American College,
signify the highest standards of academic study and professional excellence
in the financial services industry.

"Ron Peterson" <ron[at]shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:10gad9gcol9f736[at]corp.supernews.com...
- quote -

Sorry Ron, but I must disagree with you. It IS a fair
comparison.

The comparison is that the compensation of the Professional has
little or nothing to do with the end result.
I do not understand your reference "financial value of
Insurance".
As I stated, the value of ANY Life Insurance contract is the
GUARANTEE
of a specific number of dollars at a specific time, usually
DEATH.

If you are referring to the "cost" of Life Insurance, then I
re-iterate, that
the compensation of the Agent (and Agency/agencies) is NOT a
direct
cost to the Insured. They are compensated from the General Funds
of the carrier.

The "rational decision" would be made in determining IF there IS
a NEED, and which of the many forms of Life Insurance would best
serve THAT particular NEED.

Cal Lester CLU

"BMS" <mcfarland[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1A5Nc.31534$eM2.2193[at]attbi_s51...
- quote -


Allow me to correct BOTH errors (1 major & 1 minor).

It would be conceivable that an agent & the agency could
receive commissions in EXCESS of the first annual premium,
(AND this happens even MORE OFTEN with TERM Ins.) but
that does NOT directly affect the operation of the contract.
ALL
premiums are allocated to the Cash Value Account, from which
they deduct the C.O.I. and current expenses. Commissions are
paid to the Agent & Agency from the GENERAL ACCOUNT of
the company. If you look at the illustration, you WILL note
that
there IS money in the C/V/A even after that HORRIBLY high
commission that was paid out.

Having said that, I do not wish to imply that commission's
do
not affect the overall return, they do. However, as stated
above,
you have to look at the overall picture, not so much at what
I may
or may not earn for my labors. Would you NOT have an
operation,
if you KNEW that the surgeon was getting a lot of money for
just
10 minutes of work, and that they remainder of the operation
was
being completed by hired help ? ? ? ? ?
Cal Lester CLU

Cal Lester <cal-lester[at]comcast.net> wrote:

- quote -

That's an unfair comparison.

People buying insurance need to have some idea of what the financial
value of insurance is so that a rational decision can be made.

--
Ron

Because (a) that is probably all he sells, and (b) he gets a monster
- quote -

It would be except that's not what happens. If the annual premium is $500,
the broker could get paid that first $500, the remaining stream of the
payments goes to the insurer. The same as if it was a car being financed and
the and the first month's payment was $250 and the salesman got that as his
commission.

Nobody manages your money for free, you have to look net of expenses and
make sure the return makes sense.

nat wrote:

- quote -

One key issue that I think pretty much everyone would agree with is
that you should only sign up for any insurance contract if you both
understand it *and* believe it's a good *long term* financial option
for you. Permanent insurance will generally prove to be an
extremely poor choice if you dump the policy after only a few years
for any reason other than dying <grin> .

In the right situation, the right universal policy works very well.
But it's important both have an appropriate situation *and* the
appropriate specific policy. As others have noted, universal
policies are very flexible--but that flexibility impacts the design
of the policy as well. A universal policy may be designed to build
cash value, or it may be designed to provide a long term guaranteed
death benefit so long as certain minimum payments are made, even if
the policy otherwise is not sufficiently funded (in many ways, a
long term term policy that has the possibility of building cash value).

The key feature of a universal policy is that it "unbundles" the
various pieces that make up the "more traditional" whole life
policy. A universal policy essentially is a pool into which your
premiums are placed. That "pool" is charged for administrative
costs and mortality charges--or, effectively, a term policy that
pays off the death benefit if you die in the current year--and has
added to it a share of earnings on the funds. In general, so long
as that "pool" retains a positive balance, the policy remains in force.

In the "more traditional" design, the death benefit is partially
funded by the cash value in the policy--so the larger the amount of
value, the lower the amount of "term insurance" the policy has to
pay for in each year. Assuming you build cash value over time, the
amount of funds the insurer would have to take out of its own pocket
would decrease.

Is it a good investment? Well, it's tough to say since, as I note,
it depends on the exact policy in question. But, generally, unless
there is a need for life insurance (which is a need for funds
available at your death) it will be difficult for the insurance to
look good as an "investment" simply because you are paying for
something that other investments wouldn't have you pay for (the
mortality charge). As well, if there *is* a need, you also need to
examine the reasons for that need and determine if the policy meets
that need effectively--otherwise you might end up having to buy yet
another policy due to the poor fit for this one. And, I would
suggest, given the relatively high costs incurred on the front end
getting into a policy (and it's not just commissions--there are a
number of other costs that take place with a new policy), you don't
want to have to do that multiple times.

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona