[quote=Roger Thornhill] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=stanwbrown]Sorry, but repeating an error doesn't make it so. There IS an advantage to people buying in such low dollar amounts that they never qualify for breakpoints in A shares, and their IS no upfront charge. Fees, obviously should be fully explained, but the total cost is often less to clients who are only going to be buying in small amounts.[/quote]

You must be new to the business. The development you mention is relatively new. When first issued, B Shares had no numerical fee advantage to the A Shares they competed with. It was a concept sale, pure and simple, and I know why they were first created this way (few retail brokers do, including you).

[/quote]

Gee, only been in the biz for 15 years. Please do explain how there ever was a time that B shares DIDN'T have the advantage of no upfront load??????? You sound very, very confused.

[quote=Roger Thornhill][quote=stanwbrown]I'm getting the feeling you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm no fan of funds period, and B shares especially, but to say there's "no difference"??????? Of course there's a difference. Money spent on the front load isn't available for growth. If you're not getting any A share breakpoints and are forced to pay full boat on loads, there's a difference that overcomes the 12b-1 cost of B shares.[/quote]

You must be a liberal. You talk about feelings. I'm talking about facts.

[/quote]

LOL, what "fact" was that? What "feeling" did I mention? Sounds like you have no clue about loads, 12b-1s, etc....

[quote=Roger Thornhill][quote=stanwbrown]sigh... I never said the prospectus was enough. Babblingloony pointed out the illistration she used. That's a fine and full disclosure of fees. Again, I'm not defending B shares, but your attacks are based on incorrect information.[/quote]

I'm not attacking anything. I'm just correcting your errors. I may have to hire help, because you're making so many.

[/quote]

LOL, again, just name that "error" you pointed out. I never mentioned a prospectus, that was you, and it was YOU that claimed they weren't sufficient disclosure, as if I had ever said they were.

[quote=Roger Thornhill][quote=stanwbrown]Once again, you miss the point. I'll bet the ranch you sold, as the indurty does, the vast majority of your A shares with a load. NAV sales (usually $1M ticket minimums) are uncommon. Soooooo, you put a sales load on asset management to someone who COULD have recieved better management, less expensively and with tax situation awareness and NO SALES charge with an SMA. I find it hard to listen to somone doing that trying to make the case that they're pure as the driven snow and that the guy selling B shares is evil incarnate.[/quote]

Anyways...You are a newby.

[/quote]

You keep repeating errors as if that makes them true. Thus far the only person speaking as if they haven’t a clue about loads, 12b-1s and the roles of brokers is you, pal… perhaps you can try to make a point that’s factually correct….

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

 While fee-based management predates the mutual the reality is that until the computer could be used to fractionalize the appearance of ownership in securities that cannot be fractionalized,………. an SMA could never compete with a mutual fund on portfolios of less than $500,000.

[/quote]

Thanks for the unneeded history lesson. Now that you’ve brought us up to, oh, 18 years ago in the history of SMAs, perhaps we can get you your claim that charging a sales charge on putting well heeled clients into mutual funds isn’t an ethical problem when the same money can go into an SMA with no sales load at all…

[quote=Roger Thornhill][

While there's no sales charge on an SMA, there's a toll to enter. It sounds like you don't discuss this with your clients, making you just as guilty as the B Share peddler that says his fund has no load.

[/quote]

You’re deeply, deeply confused. There’s no toll, or anything remotely like it to enter an SMA. I get the feeling you not only don’t hold a series 7 or 63/65 or 66, you don’t even know what they are…

 Here’s the deal Roger, let’s see you explain just how there’s a “toll” to pay on entry into an SMA, and let’s see you do it without childish, and factually incorrect,  “liberal” and “newbie” asides.

[quote=stanwbrown]Gee, only been in the biz for 15 years. Please do explain how there ever was a time that B shares DIDN'T have the advantage of no upfront load??????? You sound very, very confused.[/quote]

So I have a decade more experience than you do, but that's not really fair, because I've grown with mine. You've repeated your freshman year 15 times. *snicker*

I've already explained the facts. You refuse to accept them, making you guilty of confirmation bias and idiocy. You also have a bad memory.

[quote=stanwbrown]LOL, what "fact" was that? What "feeling" did I mention? Sounds like you have no clue about loads, 12b-1s, etc....[/quote]

You like to say "sounds like" when you exhibit a serious lack of knowledge about the world around you. Are you really a broker? I'm having doubts...

[quote=stanwbrown]LOL, again, just name that "error" you pointed out. I never mentioned a prospectus, that was you, and it was YOU that claimed they weren't sufficient disclosure, as if I had ever said they were.[/quote]

I never said there wasn't sufficient disclosure. That was you. Silly boy. Go stand in the corner.

[quote=stanwbrown]You keep repeating errors as if that makes them true. Thus far the only person speaking as if they haven’t a clue about loads, 12b-1s and the roles of brokers is you, pal… perhaps you can try to make a point that’s factually correct….[/quote]

Here's a factually corrrect point: I know more than you do.

Your posts are verifiable evidence against you, in support of my factually correct statement. QED

[quote=stanwbrown]Thanks for the unneeded history lesson. Now that you’ve brought us up to, oh, 18 years ago in the history of SMAs, perhaps we can get you your claim that charging a sales charge on putting well heeled clients into mutual funds isn’t an ethical problem when the same money can go into an SMA with no sales load at all…[/quote]

Actually, you DO need a history lesson, sonny, since you're ignorant of history.

There's a growing population of failed planners in this world, and you are clearly among them. Here's why: You lack the ability to overcome your self-created ethical dilemmas, which is why you spend your days on here, rather than out in the field. At least the pubilc is safer, while you're glued to your PC.

[quote=stanwbrown]You’re deeply, deeply confused. There’s no toll, or anything remotely like it to enter an SMA. I get the feeling you not only don’t hold a series 7 or 63/65 or 66, you don’t even know what they are…[/quote]

ROFLMAO. Okay, so you're bad at math, too. That's sad. You must have attended one of those really poor public schools. Want me to list how many of those silly exams I've passed? Let me put it this way. I stopped with the Series 8 (although not numerically, since that would be the Series 65 -- there was no Series 66 when I was taking them).

[quote=stanwbrown] Here’s the deal Roger, let’s see you explain just how there’s a “toll” to pay on entry into an SMA, and let’s see you do it without childish, and factually incorrect,  “liberal” and “newbie” asides.[/quote]

Get out your checkbook, if you want remedial education, sonny. I charge $375 per hour, in advance. In your case, we'll have to verify funds before I'll let you enroll.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

ROFLMAO.

Okay, so you’re bad at math, too. That’s sad. You must have attended

one of those really poor public schools. Want me to list how many of

those silly exams I’ve passed? Let me put it this way. I stopped with

the Series 8 (although not numerically, since that would be the Series

65 – there was no Series 66 when I was taking them).

Then there’s the children who read this forum.



Most will be selling something else in five years so there’s no reason to consider them at this point.

Considering that you're not selling anything now (and probably never did sell anything), they rank above you, ClerkBoy.

Don't you ever tire of being bitch-slapped?  I must confess that I'm getting bored with besting you.  There's just no challenge to it.

[quote=Starka]

Considering that you’re not selling anything now (and probably never did sell anything), they rank above you, ClerkBoy.

Don't you ever tire of being bitch-slapped?  I must confess that I'm getting bored with besting you.  There's just no challenge to it.

Quite right…by besting you, ClerkBoy, I’m besting no one.

[quote=Put Trader] Isn't it nice how anybody can be anything here in the wonderful world of cyberspace.[/quote]

It doesn't matter whether it' hear, or somewhere else, you're still a failed planner. How does it feel?[quote=Put Trader] I suggest that what happened with this Roger character is this. Mojo was getting his butt kicked with logic and common sense so he ran and got Roger to come over to this forum.[/quote]

Mojo never invited me here. Heck, I was here long before you arrived.

[quote=Put Trader] Both of them, Roger and Mojo, are those insurance types who take pride in the fact that they don't have securities licenses. They will tell you it's because they don't need the tickets because they're making money hand over fist selling insurance.[/quote]

What part of Series 8 did you not get? How can you breath with an IQ so low?[quote=Put Trader] I've met hundreds of their ilk. Hale fellows well met that have a decent, even very good, insurance practice. Yet always haunting them is the fact that they feel oddly inferior to the man or woman who can not only sell a client an array of securities products, but can also capture their insurance business as well.[/quote]

You need to stop smoking crack, Put boy.[quote=Put Trader] The country is filled--absolutely filled--with State Farm agents. They're everywhere, like Kudzu down south. What percentage of them do you suppose has a Series 7?[/quote]

Who cares?[quote=Put Trader] Many, perhaps most, have a Series 6 yet they steer clear of mutual funds and annuities unless the client begs to buy one.[/quote]

So what?[quote=Put Trader] We all have our comfort zones--I'll admit to having passed my insurance exams but never feeling comfortable with the differences between variable universal life and whole life.[/quote]

I bet you're not comfortable with anything, other than posting your lies on this forum. Your crack habit is going to be the death of you.[quote=Put Trader] But the difference is a "real" financial professional such as those found at places like Merrill and Smith Barney wake up everyday licensed to handle whatever a client throws at them. There are hundreds of thousands of men and women out there who can get their client whatever the client wants as long as it's life insurance, or a mutual fund, or an annuity.[/quote]

You really are addicted to crack![quote=Put Trader] Stan Brown, Joedabrkr and Looney wake up every day with a full arsenal--while Roger, Mojo, and Rightway all face the rising sun as second rate warriors.[/quote]

You can wish, but that won't make what you wish for come true. I was selling securities - general securties - long, LONG before you were, Feygele.[quote=Put Trader] I suspect that Starka and Blarstrom are also fully licensed--but they're not bright enough to grasp everything they can do so they too are second rate, or lower.[/quote]

Crack addicts are the lowest, right there with the liberals that defend them.

Were you a crack baby?

[quote=Put Trader] 

Both of them, Roger and Mojo, are those insurance types who take pride
in the fact that they don’t have securities licenses.  They will
tell you it’s because they don’t need the tickets because they’re
making money hand over fist selling insurance.



I’ve met hundreds of their ilk.  Hale fellows well met that have a
decent, even very good, insurance practice.  Yet always haunting
them is the fact that they feel oddly inferior to the man or woman who
can not only sell a client an array of securities products, but can
also capture their insurance business as well.


 



Many, perhaps most, have a Series 6 yet they steer clear of mutual funds and annuities unless the client begs to buy one.



We all have our comfort zones–I’ll admit to having passed my insurance
exams but never feeling comfortable with the differences between
variable universal life and whole life.



But the difference is a “real” financial professional such as those
found at places like Merrill and Smith Barney wake up everyday licensed
to handle whatever a client throws at them.  There are hundreds of
thousands of men and women out there who can get their client whatever
the client wants as long as it’s life insurance, or a mutual fund, or
an annuity.
 

[/quote]



You must be ballooning the meds today…another few years and the med
sups will kick-in, meantime, there’s always the maple-leaf connection
(a geriatric French Connection Redux). I wonder if there’s a market for
catching a sexagenarian on tape moshing alone in his “office” after he
hits the post reply?



I unabashedly write a large amount of premium dollars, Putsy. Most of
it is straight commish insurance (more transparency then a CFD ticket
fee).



On the other hand, one of the products I use my licenses for is called
Corporate Owned Life Insurance (COLI). Privately held companies
especially like the benefits of leveraging phantom stock plans for key
executives. The funding includes general account (fixed
income-oriented) and seperate account (equity-oriented) COLI products.
Call one of your wholesalers and have him transfer you to a specialist
who will sigh when you tell him you’d like a 50K foot look at the
opportunities (mental picture of helmeted Put, HALO’ing while he
performs his personal one-man mosh…I wonder what happens to a used
Depends as it is subject only to the earth’s gravitational field
~Free-Fall~ you know Put…like a rapid uncontrolled decline - maybe if
you place a call on  July 11, we can memoralize it as “Brown
Monday.”)



On our next mission (I may up the missions Major Major), let’s not pull
the rip-cord without an “up-tick rule” on why a SERP (especially
ref  settlement landing in/out of a corp GAAP financial statement)

You're really taking them to task with questions about COLI. As soon as they read that, they'll be doing Google searches trying to figure out what you're talking about.

Personally, I've made a bundle on COLI, but the last few years, BOLI is, well, like robbing a bank. Figuratively and literally.

Some changes in policy at the OCC back in 2000-2001 created a ton of opportunity for those who knew how to get in to see the owners of small to medium sized banks. *Ahem*

Can you imagine a broker from a NY firm asking a banker why they paid a seven figure, or even an eight figure, single life premium?

"Because it's a good investment!" they'd say.

AL Williams would croak, but that would be a good thing.

You guys crack me up. I love it .

I have been working at this profession for 25 years. So that would mean I remember Clark Bartis/COLI/BOLI oh and the 2 billion dollar COLI Walmart issue.

I actually prefer a rather new twist and no it's not 419af6 or 412i or 357 or well I 'm rambling,

3s & 7s it's been nice modulating with ya

You continue to amaze me, ClerkBoy!

I don't think I've ever come across anyone who's as consistently wrong on such a variety of subjects.  Perhaps it's YOU who protests too much!

I just enjoy pointing out your numerous errors.

Oh, and I'm a cracker. My family freed their slaves in 1858, after they completed the construction of the last family plantation home. It's still in the family, and there's a huge iron gate at the entrance. The gate says "Built by slave labor, 1858."

My great-great-grandfather had done the math and realized that field hands on a large cotton operation needed an incentive to work harder than the field hands in the next county, so he freed them, gave each family 40 acres, and a mule, and began sharecropping before the war of Northern Aggression even began.

Now, I know this is tough medicine to take, but your crack habit will sooth your pain.

OK, Roger, you're run far enough from the facts with your free-association posts. Here are my questions to you in a straight forward manner, let’s see you answer them in the same fashion.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

1)     You say B shares originally came out with  “no numerical fee advantage to the A Shares” in terms of upfront sales loads.

2)      You say “While there's no sales charge on an SMA, there's a toll to enter.” Do explain this “toll”.

[quote=stanwbrown]

OK, Roger, you're run far enough from the facts with your free-association posts. Here are my questions to you in a straight forward manner, let’s see you answer them in the same fashion.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

1)     You say B shares originally came out with  “no numerical fee advantage to the A Shares” in terms of upfront sales loads.

2)      You say “While there's no sales charge on an SMA, there's a toll to enter.” Do explain this “toll”.

I’ll be very interested in see you explain yourself out of both of those fictional claims….[/quote]

I threw away all those prospectuses from the 1980s. I remember doing the math, discussing it with the other managers, and thinking the boys in Mecca were not any smarter than....well....someone like you. Well all had a good laugh, and we never sold any B Shares.

Since then, every fund family has monkeyed around with distribution, so even a piker like you can find an exception to just about anything. By that time, the NASD was already belching and bellyaching. 

Maybe you have some old prospectuses stored up in your file cabinets. It's not like you have so many clients that your file cabinets are overflowing like the rest of us. Go do you own research, ya lazy piker.

I've been gathering assets from many sources for a long time. In the last decade, some of those assets have flowed into various separate accounts. Unlike you, who begs for tiny IRA Rollovers, many of my transactions have sources that require a sale to be made, be it a stock or bond portfolio, real property, or a business entity. There's almost always toll involved, and the tolls are often significant. This should be obvious, but you're not smart enough to see the forrest, because all those trees are in your way. You can't imagine anything outside your extremely limited experience, because you aren't worthy of the trust and confidence of whales.

Did anyone ever explain to you what a whale is? *snicker*

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

Did anyone ever explain to you what a whale is? snicker

[quote=Roger Thornhill][quote=stanwbrown]

OK, Roger, you're run far enough from the facts with your free-association posts. Here are my questions to you in a straight forward manner, let’s see you answer them in the same fashion.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

1)     You say B shares originally came out with  “no numerical fee advantage to the A Shares” in terms of upfront sales loads.

2)      You say “While there's no sales charge on an SMA, there's a toll to enter.” Do explain this “toll”.

I’ll be very interested in see you explain yourself out of both of those fictional claims….[/quote]

I threw away all those prospectuses from the 1980s. I remember doing the math, discussing it with the other managers, ......Go do you own research, ya lazy piker.

[/Quote]

As I suspected, you haven't a clue what you're babbling about. B shares never had a the A share front load...

Next issue

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

I've been gathering assets from many sources for a long time....... many of my transactions have sources that require a sale to be made, be it a stock or bond portfolio, real property, or a business entity. ...[/quote]

[stupidity snipped]

Again, as suspected, you haven't a clue what you're babbling about. There's no "toll" on SMAs. An existing stock or bond portfolio is liquidated w/o cost as a part of the management fee the client's already paying. It doesn't matter if they hand you a current portfolio or cash, there's simply no "toll", no cost difference.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Now, given the fact that you’ve embarrassed yourself and every other wearer of loud plaid twice in rapid succession, isn’t it time you run along and buttonhole some poor soul on the street corner about the value of whole life insurance?

[quote=Put Trader]  
Commonly known as “Pauper Insurance” these are the policies that
employer take out on their employees–often without the employee’s
knowledge much less their permission.



All an employer needs is an “insurable interest” in the insured–and they have it, the insured is an employee.



The policy is normally a one-time single premium policy which is
deducted by the employer–tax advantage one.  Then sometime
later–days, weeks, months, years–the employee dies and the employer
receives the death benefit.  It doesn’t even matter if the
individual who dies still works for the company.  In other words,
if you’ve ever had a job there is a chance that your former employer(s)
will receive a check when you die.



As with most–if not all–insurance proceeds the check will be tax free income to the employer.

[/quote]



Putsy, make the call to your wholesaler, I’ll front you the scratch for the Depends.



When you call (google) try “phantom stock funding”  of selective
executive benefits with using a g-e-n-e-r-a-l account (fixed
income-oriented) and a s-e-p-e-r-a-t-e account (equity income-oriented)
COLI products. Bartleby-man, the “pauper insurance” you’re talking
about is a tired strategy…you figure when over 90% of Fortune 500
co’s have some on their books, it’s time to move on.



What you seem to have trouble understanding (googling) is the thread
that will explain how this strategy is used today, right now, to
compensate senior execs at privately held companies. Imagine an ESOP
like vehicle for a private corp doing 5 billion a year in annual sales.
How do you think you could compensate the SVP with 30 years experience
in a NQ environment. I am going to have to break out the fingerpaints
and bean counting sticks. And the babywipes. Ooops, I think I crapped
my pants.

[quote=Put Trader] Roger and Mojo are both proud peddlers of something called COLI or it's equally questionable BOLI cousin.[/quote]

There's nothing questionable about informal funding of nonqualified benefits. Now, you can go look that up, but you won't be able to come back knowing what they are, because this last post of yours was the final nail that sealed your coffin as irrefutable and overwhelming evidence that you are totally out of your depth.

You have drowned in your own wilfull ignroance, crack boy.

[quote=Put Trader] Commonly known as "Pauper Insurance" these are the policies that employer take out on their employees--often without the employee's knowledge much less their permission.[/quote]

Incorrect. The majority of cases require employee permission, and they grant it willingly, because the plans are for their benefit.

The relatively small number of cases that fit your poor description had a bona fide legitimate purpose -- cost recovery of post-retirement health insurance. Companies like IBM and GM have done this over a generation. FYI - We still do it, we just have more paperwork, because of some bozo with an IQ at the same low level as you.

[quote=Put Trader] All an employer needs is an "insurable interest" in the insured--and they have it, the insured is an employee.[/quote]

That does't meet the definition of insurable interest. There's a few more steps involved. These are steps you have never taken, because you are trying to dance on a floor where you have only one left foot.

[quote=Put Trader] The policy is normally a one-time single premium policy which is deducted by the employer--tax advantage one.  Then sometime later--days, weeks, months, years--the employee dies and the employer receives the death benefit.  It doesn't even matter if the individual who dies still works for the company.  In other words, if you've ever had a job there is a chance that your former employer(s) will receive a check when you die.[/quote]

Incorrect. The majority of informal funding of nonqualified benefits is with recurring premium products. There's one exception, which you probably cannot name, and if you could, you still would not know why.

Life insurance is not generally deductible. There are a few exceptions, but this isn't one of them. Can you name those exceptions? Can you name them without having to look? I can.

[quote=Put Trader] As with most--if not all--insurance proceeds the check will be tax free income to the employer.[/quote]

Poor crack boy Put doesn't know much about corporate taxes. Ever hear of AMT? Oh, wait. You don't make enough to know about that. *snicker*

[quote=Put Trader] What this means is that they--the employer--has an investment vehicle that is as secure as the insurance company that wrote the policy.  Often the policies pay a modest income, but one thing is for certain you will die and when you do your former employer(s) make out like bandits.[/quote]

Again, you failed the math test. Did you actually graduate from high school?

Nobody is making out like bandits in the cost recover area. They are merely hedging their risk using a known solution. This is all beyond your grasp.

[quote=Put Trader] If you find this morally offensive, join the club.  Does it surprise you that fools like Mojo and Roger would be deeply involved in something that is morally offensive?[/quote]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a company transferring the risk of loss to an insurance company. That's all that happens.

If you were a key person at your employer, they'd want to insure you. The fact that you find it offensive means that you're NOT a key employee (READ: expendable, very easily replaceble, not a factor in profitability). Now we all know the truth. You are just another drone.

[quote=Put Trader] However, the fact is that they are legal--at least currently.  The IRS has real issues with them and is continually attempting to shut them down--too many tax benefits, in addition to the sense that it's just wrong to bet on the death of your employees.[/quote]

The Service has been fighting the informal funding of nonqualified plans since the first split dollar cases (do you know when that was?).

Some of the rulings and notices were poorly thought out, but since talent goes where it's best rewarded, the end result remains that the informal funding of nonqualified benefits remains dominated by the life insurance industry, because we have solutions that cannot be had anywhere else.

[quote=Put Trader] There is another odd dynamic.  You and I would shop for life insurance seeking the lowest premium for the largest benefit.  Unless you're shopping for COLI, in which case you try to get the highest premium for the lowest benefit.[/quote]

The counter-intuitive approach actually works for both individuals as well as corporations. Why? Simple TVM. You know what TVM is, right?

You shop for the lowest bidder because you cannot afford anything else. People with money generally adopt the counter-intuitive approach, because once the truth is spelled out, it's no longer counter-intuitive, but intuitive.

[quote=Put Trader] I understand that those who specialize in exotic forms of insurance can do very well financially.  Both Mojo and Roger pretend that they are doing very well in this field.[/quote]

You pretend to be in this business, but your posts prove that you cannot be anything other than a rank amateur.

[quote=Put Trader] Personally I doubt it--from where I sit nobody who posts on this message board, including me, has a full plate.  In my case I've spent my life working hard and am finally at a point where I can coast a bit--a reward for countless Sunday night flights and Friday evenings sitting in airports waiting for weather to clear back home.[/quote]

Still waiting in airports, eh? I just cruise over to the nearby FBO and get on board. No waiting. No cattle pens.

[quote=Put Trader] In any case, in my world one is not measured by how much money they make so I couldn't care less about some yo-yo who sells something that the IRS is probably going to shut down--resulting in auidts, charge backs for taxes, penalities and interest and a host of other difficulities.[/quote]

One of the common denominators of failed planners is they always seek for another measure of success, because they don't measure up using the common measure: Money.

[quote=Put Trader] COLI and BOLI seem to be far out there in the "Let the Buyer Beware" world--and from where I sit only slezeballs sell stuff that is that questionable.[/quote]

ROFLMAO. There's nothing questionable about COLI or BOLI. Even the OCC specifically recognizes the uses of BOLI, so it's not just the bankers that recognize appeal of using life insurance as a risk management tool.

All you've proven with your post, in addition to your wilfull ignorance, is that you do not work with:

1. The Top Hat Group
2. Business owners who earn more than $160,000
3. Controlling shareholders of corporations, both public and private
4. Bankers

I know that Mojo works with people way up the ladder like this. So do I.

Apparently, all you do is post on here, and try to use a search engine as a substitute for education, experience and wisdom -- which is why you're just another failed planner.

[quote=Roger The Pretender]
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a company transferring the risk of loss to an insurance company. That's all that happens.

If you were a key person at your employer, they’d want to insure
you. The fact that you find it offensive means that you’re NOT a key
employee (READ: expendable, very easily replaceble, not a factor in
profitability). Now we all know the truth. You are just another drone.

[/quote]



Perhaps you can tell me how having a life insurance policy on an
executive replaces the skills and talents brought to the table by the
executive?



I completely understand the idea of key man insurance when used to
provide a surviving partner with sufficient capital to buy the deceased
partner’s share of the business so as to avoid having a widow assume a
role, or worse sell a role to a third party in order to “cash out” her
share of the business.



I know that my employer has a policy on me, we were asked to
acknowledge that several years ago.  What I cannot buy into is the
idea that getting a check for $2,000,000 if I die is going to replace
what I brought to the table.



Oh I know, I know, it’s used to fund the benefits program and it does make sense from a business point of view.



There’s lots of things that make sense from a business point of view–I
can go on vacation in Europe and get the company to pay for the plane
ticket by stopping into the branch into a branch and visiting with the
branch manager.



That is not right, and neither is insuring my life with a policy that names my employer as the beneficiary.



Even more offensive is the idea that when I leave the employment
situation the insurance remains in effect–whether I retire, get fired
or quit for greener pastures.



Senior people being insured is one thing–but it would be fun to read
how insuring the lowest level employees for hundreds of thousands of
dollars is anything other than using our common tendency to die sooner
or later to fund our employers obligations.



As I said, it’s legal–just like me expensing my plane ride to Europe is legal–but that does not make it right.