Free Ebook.


Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

« Two Simple Equations that Lead to Financial Success | Main | Best of Money Carnival »

February 22, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

thumb

Bags
Truth

game 31 : life
game 32 : truth

Bags
Truth

Life
Thumb

Life
Truth

truth
life

bags
truth

life
truth

I recommend reconsidering the inclusion of the life article for game 31. This article was posted by someone who is promoting life insurance on their website and promoting a means to help you do an assessment of your life insurance needs. As such this article advocates for buying the maximum life insurance that a company will let you buy. This is horrible advice and I submit that it's content is based on the personal interest the author has in the life insurance industry. I consider it a conflict of interest and think it should disqualify the content of the article entirely.

As such I vote for the bags article and recommend the life article be disqualified for conflict of interest.

Bags
Thumb

Truth

Apex --

We'll let the voters decide what they think is appropriate or not.

@Apex
I am definitely a huge fan of freedom of speech. That being said there are numerous personal finance bloggers that promote their own businesses on their websites. The assessment that I promote is designed purely from an understanding standpoint. What you will see on my website is that I believe insurance people are some of the most miseducated people in the financial industry. What this leads to is people being sold a bunch of crap that doesn't do what it's suppose to. When in fact, it could do what it's suppose to the person that sold it had a clue what they were doing. There are various situations that human life value come into play the most well known are buy-sell, key person and estate planning. Just as with most financial strategies it is not right for everyone.

life
thumb

@Evolution of Wealth

Easy with the blanket statements. There are some miseducated bloggers out there too.

Game 31

Bags

Game 32

Truth

@FMF,

That's fine. I didn't know if you were aware of the author's own efforts on his website. For that reason, I find the content compromised but obviously thats your call.

@Evolution of Wealth

I have no problem with you promoting your business on your website. I think you should promote it as much as possible. What I was objecting to was you submitting an article as basic and general financial advice that is actually a promotion of a financial philosophy that is beneficial to your personal business as promoted on your website.

What you submitted will be assumed by some to be basic and general financial advice. And your article was written in a context that encourages that kind of thinking.


You said:

"There are various situations that human life value come into play the most well known are buy-sell, key person and estate planning. Just as with most financial strategies it is not right for everyone."

Yet your article says:

"If you want to maximize your human life value then you would get the most insurance you could."

"If you are looking to maximize the efficiency of your life insurance why not use the maximum funding allowed by the insurance company to properly fund as much life insurance as possible?"

"The reason for that is because no one ever thought to put a value on their own life. Well no one except for the insurance companies. Why not maximize their scale? Don’t sell yourself short."


Those statements don't sound like you were saying "it is not right for everyone" or that its most appropriate in cases of "buy-sell, key person and estate planning." In fact you never even mention those cases. You simply promote the idea that everyone should get the maximum insurance the insurance company will allow them to get.

Am I to presume that this advice is better than the advice I would get from the "most miseducated people in the financial industry?"

BTW, I notice you have responded to me here but have not approved my comment on your site where I state the reasons I disagree with your point and where you could defend your view appropriately. Perhaps you just haven't gotten to it yet.

Truth

truth

Truth

LIFE
TRUTH

@Apex
I don't know who you are or anything about you for that matter. I am however, glad to that you presume to know so much about me and what I do just from reading a blog post.
I, in fact, own as much life insurance as I possibly can. I cannot currently buy any more life insurance on myself. One of my future posts will be about buying life insurance on your parents as a retirement plan. You can argue with the morality of that but in fact there is an up and coming segment of the investment world devoted to buying and selling life insurance policies. There's a reason for this, you can definitely profit of them if done correctly.
There is a reason why one of the largest fixed asset on the most financially sound banks in the world is life insurance. It's also the backbone to funding most of the deferred compensation plans (i.e. golden parachute) in the corporate world. Why are these strategies so widely used by companies and big business but overlooked by most Americans?
I'm not selling anything anywhere on my website...what I am doing is presenting another point of view. My goal is to provide information for open-minded people to learn, take in and make their owns decisions. I do my best to make myself available to answer any questions they may have as well. I realize that I cannot please everyone, that is what is beautiful about blogging and reading blogs. You can choose what you want to read and I'm okay with you not reading my site for whatever reason you choose.

I love it when people make a post, you respond with specific points of disagreement excerpted from their comments, and they ignore those to go on and talk about things like why banks and corporations have life insurance on their books which has nothing to do with the original debate.

Should Corporations buy the maximum life insurance that a company will sell them on everyone of the people they take a policy out on. I bet they buy only the insurance they need to fund the purpose for which they are buying it. (golden parachute, etc.) You are simply not being coherent.

Life

@Apex
Sorry I thought my statements were clear...how would you like me to explain them?
Yes, if you want to maximize your human life value you should buy as much life insurance as possible.
Yes, if you want to maximize the efficiency of your life insurance you should fund it with the maximum allowable by the life insurance companies.
Yes, you shouldn't sell yourself short.
There is also a disclaimer on my website...it is located at the bottom of the right hand sidebar. I will save everyone from quoting it here but please feel free to read it.
You are expressing your opinion and are free to do so.

LOL,

This is a bit frustrating but I will spell it out.

I pointed out your contradiction between your comment and your post. In your comment you said that this strategy like most financial strategies is not right for everyone, and that its only most appropriate in certain situations and you listed 3 examples of those situations. You were back tracking and trying to imply that you were just giving people one option but not one you would advocate as something that most people should employ.

I then pointed out 3 specific excerpts from your post where you make strong statements that advise that people should do this. Not some people, not in some situations but that anyone who wants to appropriately value their life should be buying the maximum life insurance possible. These two statements are incongruent with each other.

I never argued that you didn't believe your position. I don't know what you believe. If you truly believe this then you should have defended it rather than back tracking and trying to claim that you were not saying this is something that is appropriate for everyone. Your article gives no hint that this may not be appropriate for all people in all cases so I don't know why you back tracked to that position in your first comment here.

I don't think there is a good defence of that position for all people but if you believe that as strongly as your post implied then you should have defended it rather than claiming your position was weaker than that which was made in your post.

Game 31 - Bags
Game 32 - Truth

truth

@Apex
On my blog there is a disclaimer, have you read it?
I don't have to believe what I am saying works, I know it works. I'm happy to have detailed conversations about how and when it works and about people's situations and how it can work for them. But, just as with any financial strategy it doesn't work for everyone and in every situation, thus the disclaimer. I have no disclaimer when I write here so I gave a few examples in hope that you might be a bit more open-minded. You don't have to be open-minded that is your own choice. In the financial world as in life there is no exact way that will work 100% of the time under any and every situation.

Truth

Truth

Truth

Life
Thumb

Truth

Truth

Truth

Bags
Truth

These games are now over. The winners are:

Game 31: Life
Game 32: Truth

Thanks to everyone for voting. Another set of games is out today -- be sure to vote!

Truth

31 - Bags
32 - Truth

Truth

Truth

Bags and Truth.

I liked all, but prefer the above two more.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Start a Blog


Disclaimer


  • Any information shared on Free Money Finance does not constitute financial advice. The Website is intended to provide general information only and does not attempt to give you advice that relates to your specific circumstances. You are advised to discuss your specific requirements with an independent financial adviser. Per FTC guidelines, this website may be compensated by companies mentioned through advertising, affiliate programs or otherwise. All posts are © 2005-2012, Free Money Finance.

Stats