Jayson Lowe explains why Indexed Universal Life insurance and Infinite Banking are different strategies. IUL puts all investment risk on the policyholder with no share of the insurer's surplus, and Lowe says it doesn't work for implementing Infinite Banking, though he hasn't sold one himself.
I'm with AmeriCo. I have an IUL with them. How is this different than what we're learning about tonight? Nelson describes it best in his book where he offers you some thoughts on universal life. But what I would say to you is that it's just two completely different tools. Each tool has its own set of characteristics. And so it's not that one tool is better than the other or that either tool is good, bad, or otherwise. Each tool has its own set of characteristics. And so when you're working with a tool like IUL, it's much like basically term insurance wrapped around an an investment. So you're having to control investment decisions. All of the risk associated with the contract is transferred away from the life insurance company to you, and there's no equity there. You don't have any co-ownership of the life insurance company. You're not participating in the divisible surplus generated by the life insurance company. They're just two completely different tools designed for different purposes. But what I would tell you is that I've never illustrated an IUL. I've never purchased one. I've never sold one, and I would certainly never recommend it for the implementation of this concept. Because IUL is bad. I'm not suggesting that it's bad. I'm just saying that I would never recommend it for the implementation of this concept. Want to learn more? Just visit watchibc.com. That's watchibc.com.
