"John A. Weeks III" <john[at]johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:john-115370.22080211112007[at]sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...

- quote -


Excellent. Viva the consumer. Also,

"If it is so good, why are you telling me about it?"

And one of my all time favorites:

"In a rising tide all ships rise ".

And my variation: "In a falling tide, all salesmen disappear." (Well, maybe
half of them.)

In article <yRMZi.15862$8S5.4541[at]edtnps82> , "Don" <dwzimm[at]telus.netwrote:

- quote -

Dittos for the consumer...

- nobody every worked as hard to earn your money as you did.

- giving your money to other people is not a wealth building strategy.

- when a salesperson with education meets a client with money, the
salesperson ends up with the money and the client ends up with an
education.

- where are the customer's yachts?

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john[at]johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

"Douglas Johnson" <post[at]classtech.com> wrote in message
news:2c8aj3hpi2b9omlpjmh1lb04ja3agf96em[at]4ax.com...

- quote -

A variation is "People don't deposit averages in the bank."

Somebody should compile a list of one-liners that are used by financial
salespeople. My favorite is "Would you try to do your own brain surgery?"

There probably is not enough material to get it on the Letterman show, but a
longer list might be good for some laughs anyway.

The granddaddy of them all is: "Someone who acts as his own lawyer has a
fool for a client." There could be a grain of truth in that, but when a real
estate agent claims that someone who tries to sell his own house is foolish,
you need to stop and think about it before you bite.

Nowadays all kinds of salespeople are pretending to be professionals. People
go for it. In the future it may come to: "Would you try to tie your own
shoes?"

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:31:32 -0600, Douglas Johnson
<post[at]classtech.com> wrote:

- quote -

N o! I have NOTHING to do with life insurance except as a consumer.
Thumper
- quote -

On Nov 9, 9:31 pm, Douglas Johnson <p...[at]classtech.com> wrote:
- quote -

Like Thumper said, it's not a matter of "the numbers". Some people are
willing to trade the dollars for the peace of mind that they will not
have to worry later (even if it's an unlikely event). When I talk to
young people about buying term insurance, I tell them that its
probably not a winning bet. But IF the security is important to them,
then it is still worth considering.

By the by, your 25 year old above could buy $500k for ~$12,375
(cumulative over the 30 years) while the same 30 yo could purchase a
25 year term for about $12,000. I didn't calculate the opportunity
cost, but you can see that the price of "insuring your health" is not
that high (in my opinion, which reflects the value I put on
"security", which is the point of the last dozen or so post).

Thumper <jaylsmith[at]comcast.net> wrote:

- quote -

Just out of curiosity, do you sell life insurance? That sounds like an agent's
line.

People self insure for all sorts of things. Sometimes they are right, sometimes
wrong. My homeowner's policy does not cover floods, earthquakes, mud slides,
acts of war, and terrorism, so I am self insured for those.

Why is it unreasonable to consider self insuring for the chance that I will both
need life insurance and be too ill to get it? The numbers would help to make
the decision.

-- Doug

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:03:46 -0600, Douglas Johnson
<post[at]classtech.com> wrote:

- quote -


Numbers are meaningless when ill health strikes you.
Thumper

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


- quote -

True. I'm sure there are people that buy life insurance for the same reasons
that they buy Ferraris. "Man, look at that sexy 20 year term life policy."

Slightly less sarcastically, I know there are people that just feel good having
some life insurance. That's fine.

Pick any definition of "need" that you need. But I'd still like to see the
numbers.

-- Doug

- quote -

The key here would be the definition of "NEEDED & NEEDING".
One person's NEED would be anthers desire to own, or want
to feel good or ? ? ? ? ? ?
Cal Lester CLU

eagent <gene[at]alliancetax.com> wrote:

- quote -

Maybe you or somebody else can run the numbers. A reasonable starting might be
a happy, healthy, single 25 year old, who buys a 30 year term policy "just in
case" vs. a happy, healthy, just married 30 year old who buys a 25 year term
policy. What's the total cost in both cases?

How can our single 25 year old make a reasonable estimate of how much insurance
they will need? That seems to require a guess as to how many kids they will
have and when. How do both folks handle inflation? Since a dollar is likely to
buy about $0.50 in 30 years, they need to forecast when they will die.

Another issue: What are the chances that our 25 year in prime health is
uninsurable at 30? Percentages please, not "it happens".

I'm cynical about the "buy now just in case" argument because I see so many
people (my self included) that have never needed life insurance and have no
serious prospects of ever needing it.

-- Doug

On Nov 7, 3:51 pm, Thumper <jaylsm...[at]comcast.net> wrote:
- quote -

I second that! In my (never humble) opinion, I think the greatest
disservice associated with this otherwise fine NG is the constant
position that the ONLY reason to buy life insurance is to provide for
currently known dependents. While in fact most young Americans don't
have a NEED for life insurance today, the cold reality is that many
WILL in the future AND buying when they are young will get them a
rate they would kill for once they get old enough to need it.

Of course, one of the nice things about a moderated NG such as this
one is the free exchange of ideas and opinions. We can agree to
disagree respectfully.

Gene E. Utterback, EA, RFC, ABA

On Nov 7, 3:48 pm, joetaxpayer <joetaxpa...[at]nospam.com> wrote:
- quote -

A quick look came up with http://www.quickquote.com/cgibin/termLifeQuest.pl

They offer multiple companies with no personal information disclosure.
I have never used this site before, however, so investigate with
caution.

BreadWithSpam[at]fractious.net wrote:

- quote -

http://www.sbli.com asks only for state, DOB, height, weight, smoke, use
of cholesterol medicine, high blood pressure, and family death due to
cancer/cardiovascular disease. No name, phone, or unnecessary details.
If someone has another to consider, it would be most welcome. SBLI sells
insurance, it's not an agent bidding out amongst multiple underwriters
(that I can tell).

JOE

On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 21:02:06 -0600, joetaxpayer
<joetaxpayer[at]nospam.com> wrote:

- quote -


I do. I also advocate buying a policy to insure against being
uninsurable at a later age.
Thumper

- quote -

And there is the rub....... "intention"
At age 30, intention does not amount to reality ! ! ! ! !

- quote -


So V E R Y true ! ! !

Cal Lester CLU

- quote -


izaposibilty

Cal Lester CLU

kastnna <kastnna[at]auburnalum.org> writes:

- quote -

Based on that, some of the first responses, my own included,
pointed out that, in general, for the vast majority of folks,
buying life insurance *simply as an investment vehicle* is
a bad idea. Her focus on the return and comparison against a CD
suggests that that's what the intent was.

- quote -

That, too, was suggested by at least a couple of us as a
possibility. If she has none and no intention of having
any in the next decade, it seems unnecessary. If she
thinks she might get married and have some kids in the
future, though, an inexpensive term policy is a fine idea.
For a healthy 30-yr-old, a half-million dollar 30 year
term policy should cost less than $40/mo. Assuming she
stays equally healthy for 10 years, 10 years later, a
20 year half-million policy should cost about the same.
But that's a big assumption. Most folks health at 40
is not the same as it was at 30.

[btw, it's pretty annoying - to get even rough estimates
from any of the online quote systems, they want way too
much information - it's all contact-gathering and I
realize that they do this to get names and contact info,
not out of the kindness of their hearts - but if any of
you know a good site to get simple rough quote estimates,
I'd appreciate it if you'd post! Something along the
lines of the excellent <http://immediateannuities.com> site
for term life insurance would be just great.]



--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

On Nov 6, 9:02 pm, joetaxpayer <joetaxpa...[at]nospam.com> wrote:
- quote -

I still don't know. My original post stated that if she had debts,
unfunded education needs, or dependents that relied on her income then
she may need term insurance. I still haven't seen anything from the OP
that confirmed she does or doesn't have any of these needs. The group
seems to have assumed by her silence that she doesn't.

If it were me (but it's not), I would by the term insurance. Doing so
would cheaply cover the event that I later have dependents. In
addition, I stand by my statement that an investor with her net worth
and at her age is likely to be one of the lucky few that have estate
tax issues. Term insurance could be converted to permanent later if
she realizes that this problem is likely to become a reality. Again,
we don't know where her net worth is derived from (and again many of
us assumed it was "sitting in the bank"). If a significant portion of
her net worth is derived from real estate, the estate tax issue could
be even worse (RE is less liquid than cash).

If any of the above concern her, she may find that cheap term
insurance is worth the "peace of mind". If they don't concern her,
then she should buy nothing.

On Nov 6, 5:09 pm, "Cal" <cal-les...[at]comcast.net> wrote:

- quote -

For the record, I don't truly believe it is a lottery either, but they
share similarities. I merely stated a few posts back that given the
definition of "lottery" that we were loosely slinging around, one
might consider all insurance a lottery. Whether you are killed
prematurely, injured in a car wreck, become permanently disabled, et
cetera... is a minority event often happening by unforseeable chance
(like a lottery). The fact that so few policies actually pay out is
also similar in fashion to lotteries in that so few participants in
lotteries actually receive more than they put it.

I agree with you that life insurance is unlike a lottery in that, if a
policy owner chooses to, they can assure their beneficiaries are paid
by simply keeping the policy inforce. The fact that so few actually do
that is another matter. The law of large numbers also suggest that
someone could assure with a high degree of likelihood (essentially
guarantee) that they would win the lottery, if they were willing to
spend the money.

kastnna wrote:

- quote -

And I'd not question that. OP had no dependent, nor did she make
reference to any loved one. Do you advise buying the policy on the
chance she finds somebody to love?
JOE