Northwestern Mutual...

wossa, term is term. The biggest thing is make sure they are highly rated but other than that, just shop price. I, and another family member, use West Coast Life and have had a good experience with them. I happen to like Zander.com as they are an insurance broker and will send you quotes from a whole bunch of different companies and I believe they provide you the ratings for each so it's really easy to compare.

 

Yes, there is a reason to buy NML term.

If you are healthy and in good shape, it is within 5% of anything else on the market (good companies that is, such as New York Life and Mass Mutual).

You only want to go with a mutual company. Stock companies are going out of business, and you want to go with a company that is going to be in business if it had to pay a claim.

1) With NML term, you have a window to convert it to some type of permanent insurance, if you want. This is a great option in the event that your health changes and you need insurance in force past the "term".

2) With NML's disability waiver, if you become disabled, not only will they start paying your premium's, but they will convert ALL of your term to permanent for you. This is an unbelievable option that could help you out in this situation.

NML term gives you the most planning options of any insurance company. If you want to save money on insurance, get cheaper car insurance or save money on your home owner's. When it comes to life insurance, you want planning options in the future.... b/c you never know when your health is going to change -- I hope that helps

 

First of all let me address a few things:

Wolfpac - I agree that most whole life contracts suck. NML's has been over a 9% return over the last 30 years, a little higher than the 2-3%

I don't manage my Father's 401(k) so I had nothing to do with him loosing money (by the way I'm pretty sure everybody has lost money). Yes you are right and that it is a good time to buy, but NOT in his situation. If you had a securities license you would have been tested over a topic called suitability, and for a 60 year old male that has a time horizon of 5 years, equities are TOO RISKY. Sure, he might gamble with a little bit of money, but not with his whole retirement.

You are right in that most agents are not around in one year. Neither are brokers, because this is a difficult business. And if someone sells a client whole life that doesn't cover their needs, then they have not done a good job. I believe that the only time it should be placed is in a situation where the proper amount of term has already been allocated.

And as for your article on Forbes, try this one out.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/1222/036.html

Oh, and by the way, Steve Forbes owns Northwestern Mutual, so I guess he is an idiot as well (he spoke at our annual meeting).

I am not saying that NML Whole life is the right product for every person in the US. All I am saying is that it is a great value for the higher end client, that could have estate tax problems, that is looking for a tax advantaged program that offers protection from the claims of creditors as well as self-completes in the event of a death or disability.

And once again, I have never had to apologize to someone who has started this type of program. That goes a long way in today's world.

But I guess you will come back with some great point that will prove all of the following wrong:

Our clients -- 60% of physicians in the US, 50% of attorneys, 400 of the 500 CEO's of the Fortune 500, Bill Gates, Oprah, Steve & Malcom Forbes, Magic Johnson, Papa Johns Founder, and the list could go on....

I guess these are all idiots who are getting ripped off by "crooked insurance agents"...

 

If you had an education rather than sales training, you would know that 60 year old males are living longer than ever. There is an ever growing likelihood (based on Actuarial tables that I have studied) that he might live to 90 or 100 and here you have him invested in something barely beating inflation for 30/40 years. Can you say bye-bye buying power at an age when he can't earn anymore money!? Again, if it is money he will need in the next 5 years, he shouldn't be in the market with that money anyways but that isn't due to fear, it's due to simple historical market analysis.

Considering 70% of what is sold is Whole Life, there are a lot of scum in your business which is a darn good reason for people to avoid your business all together as much as possible.

Smart people can sometimes do stupid things. To be fair to NW Mutual, they are one of the better Mutual companies but that is like saying you are the smartest 'tard around. Congrats.

For those who aren't Whole Life salesmen, read that quote again and let's look at the actual Rate of Return for NML's policies from 1987-2007.

http://www.producersweb.com/r/WPI/p/pweb/articlePrint?adcID=909d79ea69da4da5a40ce43f38ba7ebc

Illustrated rate Actual rate of return
Northwestern Mutual 7.39% 5.43%

So, his 9% isn't quite right at all and that is based on numbers from National Underwriter and not a salesman. This is the problem and I am guessing they used a Universal Life for this projection as no one is stupid enough to take a basic Whole Life and project 7.39% nor do they return 5.43% based on studies by others. It probably isn't a VUL (Variable Universal Life) either as that illustration would have likely been higher. Also, the Actual Rate of Return is more closely aligned with what Consumer Reports and the Consumer Federation of America found with Universal Life policies (the average for those was around 4.2% or so and the VUL was 7.4% and of course, the average for true Whole Life was 2-3% based on unbiased research).


Course, the problem with ULs and VULs is that they are more expensive fee-wise than Whole Life policies so it takes longer to really get going and you need to really fund them heavily which is why he is using really rich people to show off their clients. These policies do make tax sense if you are really rich but of course, he is talking about people who are in the top 400 of the richest US Americans which pretty much means the rest of us should stay the heck away. Thanks for using your client list to make my freaking point. LOLLER

For the record, I don't sell insurance though I have studied it. I lose no money for telling the truth but this dude loses a ton if you buy term instead of Whole, UL, or VUL from him. The actual RORs are on my side and his only argument is for when you become one of the richest 400 Americans. Stay away from this stuff as it is pretty much horrible for the vast majority of America. The irony of this is that I have a family member who sells for another respected Mutual company (won't glorify them either by mentioning their name as I disagree with them) and I was able to get their own projection tools to prove buying term and investing the difference would always beat the Whole Life products. Very loller moment. But again, you can believe unbiased research or believe a NML TRAINED SALESMAN. Doesn't matter to me either way but I want to at least present the truth from someone not trained to make NML a lot of money.

 

As long as the policy has what you need just shop price. No reason to pay more for the same thing. I got a 20 year term policy just last year. There are better places to put your money than a whole life policy.

 

Bingo!!!

 

Wolfpac you are obviously a know it all so I appologize for even entering into an argument with you.

Yes people are living longer, but your rationale for putting a client that is 5 years away from retirement into equites is crazy, which is why you are not obviously a financial advisor. You don't know that the market will come back in five years, and even if the 60 year old lives to 90, he doesn't care as much about growing his wealth as he does preserving it at this point. For compliance and suitability reasons, I would never adivse this, but I guess you know more than me.

Your entire argument has been based on rate of return, which is not the only driving force of an investment decision. If it was, then a retirement portfolio would be 100% invested in equity, there would be no need for bond funds, REITS and cash. My point was that a higher income investor is more concerned about having some cash in a predictable, diversified, stable vehicle that is protected from the claims of creditors and would actually self complete if the client became disabled, which is something that the lower income earner doesn't give two shits about. If you became sick or hurt and could not work, how would you fund this "invest the difference account?"

"smart people can sometimes do stupid things"? So all of those CEO's, business owners, doctors and lawyers must be "tards" I am not going to even argue this, because I think your response is too funny... wow...

You are preaching by term and invest the difference in a year where people have lost 30%. Can you project how long it will take for that to come back??? years????

I have clients that don't own whole life and that own term and have IRA's. I am not saying that it is the right product for everyone, but I think your argument is good only for the average "dave ramsey" follower that doesn't have any money. For the higher income earner, it is pretty weak, because you assume that rate of return is the only factor that those individuals use in making investment decisions.

You obviously gather all of your information from thrid party sources, which may or may not be true. I gather mine from first hand experience, talking to people about their retirment issues and their personal planning. And until you work in the industry, you will probably never understand, just like a college professor only believes in theory, which often doesn't apply in the real world.

Here is an article to illustrate that

http://www.physicianspractice.com/index/fuseaction/articles.details/articleID/944.htm

 

Furthermore, your article is a lie. Our dividend rate is higher than the "actual", because I could show you a policy that truly earned the dividend rate we post. I also said 9% over THIRTY YEARS. Your article illustrates TWENTY. You claim that I am uneducated, but who is the one that looks like an idiot?

 

Have you met 49erputz yet?

 

Maybe if you had gotten a degree you wouldn't be a secratary working for nothing.