I am getting bored of the forum
39 RepliesJump to last post
Does this mean I am starting to become a real broker?
Just seems like the same posts over and over. What happened to all the Jones haters?
This forum had/has a lot of potential, but a handful of members keep it from really taking off.
[quote=ChrisB]This forum had/has a lot of potential, but a handful of members keep it from really taking off.
[/quote]
Like you?
[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=ChrisB]This forum had/has a lot of potential, but a handful of members keep it from really taking off.
[/quote]
Like you?
[/quote]
Yea, like me, jackass.
Chris, you need to watch that ridiculous anger–it will eat at you and make you appear to be crazy.
Poor Chris, still only one post on his pathetic little website.
Too bad, so sad.
[quote=ChrisB]
[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=ChrisB]This forum had/has a lot of potential, but a handful of members keep it from really taking off.
[/quote]
Like you?
[/quote]
Yea, like me, jackass.
[/quote]Maybe if you weren't so hostile bank brokers would flock to your website and post about selling variable annuities to all who walk through their desk in the lobby?
[quote=NASD Newbie]Walking through the desk is something I saw David Copperfield do on TV.[/quote]
oops.
[quote=NASD Newbie]
Poor Chris, still only one post on his pathetic little website.
Too bad, so sad.
[/quote]
Imagine if Incredble (no 'i') Hulk got that web address and started going off on his tangents...
I admit I have no idea how to properly promote a forum. I've got over 20 personal websites, which include two forums and the traffic to the forums is the lowest.
My personal blog and my highest performing site (which earn $800 per month) both average over 500 unique visits per day though.
I wonder how long it will take NASD to claim I am lying...
I am going to attempt post around NASD as someone suggested and do away with the hostility. The reason for the hostility is because there isn't another FA community that I am aware and I had high hopes for this one, however this forum is so poorly moderated (read: non-existent) and littered with pointless fluff that it is no where near the community it could/should be.
Sorry for the hostility though.
The problem with wasting time on a forum that is controlled by an individual such as Chris is that if you say something he doesn't want to hear--and he's one angry dude--what you say will simply disappear.
It's like wasting time on that ridiculous board where everybody is called Sergent or Colonel or Humphrey Bogart. If you're not foul mouthed and insulting enough you get flamed, and if you comment back they simply delete what you say.
Life is too short to have enough time to prospect and post on more than one forum.
This is as fair a forum as you'll find--and it's not set up for any given channel.
If I was King I'd try to reserve it for those who are on the investment side only--insurance types don't understand that the entire culture is different. They take orders, investment professionals sell.
When they sell--say whole life--what they sell is rarely appropriate. Whole life is a great product for the salesman, but not for the policy holder.
The purpose of insurance is to provide money to your heirs--whole life develops cash value and eventually begins to pay the premiums, but your death benefit is SIGNIFICANTLY less.
What is significantly more is the salesman's commission.
There comes a time when the client's best interest should be more important that the commission--and that time is on day one.
Peanutbroker, I'd strongly advise that you take CLU classes and learn for yourself about the ins and outs of life insurance.
If your practice develops to the point where you are working with investors of a very high net worth, you'll find that many of them own whole life insurance. Take the time to understand why they do this and then you can decide for yourself if it is a good idea or a bad one.
I've also noticed that successful life insurance salespeople tend to own a lot of whole life insurance. They are the ones who understand the product the most. Do you think that they would buy it on themselves if it was such a bad product?
Let's suppose that someone is in a financial position where they have no need to take financial risk. They also want to leave substantial money to their heirs. How does whole life compare? Using an illustration from a major carrier shows that if a healthy male bought a policy at age 50 and died at age 80, the death benefit ROR would be over 6%. Is there an investment which carries the same degree of safety that will generate this rate of return AFTER TAX? If he dies sooner, the ROR will be much greater. If later, it won't make a big difference.
Whole life insurance is either appropriate or inappropriate. It is not a good or bad product. The wealthier the individual, the greater the chance that they will own it.
The greatest advantage of WL is the Death Benefit…unless you can cheat death, you have to die to get that 6%
Who wants high premium payments for 20/30 years until it can pay for itself, a pitiful return, and really low amount of death benefit compared to the amount of money you put in.
Here are some things that produce better and you have a lot more flexibility and less obligations/commitments (since you asked):
1) 6.5% Gov Agency Bond in Roth IRA
2) Overfunded VUL with balanced portfolio of high quality sub accounts.
3) INSURED TAX FREE BONDS…duh!!!
The people I see that have WL are people that are 60ish that bought in the 70s or 80s and worked at a labor job for most of their life. By no means wealthy. They put $ in for 30 years and it has grown at a low return (like 3% or so). Those WL policies usually grow the most after like 35 years or so, just takes too long to start to grow.