Watch part one, where I speak with Attorney, Roccy DeFrancesco, about the misleading and dangerous practices of Curtis Ray and the MPI product - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dnpWUCOHALI.html
Props to you Caleb for allowing all these comments to stick and for not shadow banning the ones critical of you. While you have your own biases (we all do), I truly feel you’re trying to be intellectually honest with yourself and your audience and that is greatly appreciated! There are too many RU-vid channels that will just shadow ban or delete any commenters or comments that challenges the beliefs of the channel host.
Caleb you made it clear that you do not believe in this. Thank you for not being combative. We need more people like you to bridge the gap between people who disagree. We do need better conversations. Thank you for posting this.
Interesting interview! I liked it. A lot of comments saying you were too soft, which may be true, but you did voice your concerns. You did push back. I was suprised to see that it's not a "set it up, cross our fingers, and hope it works." I was pleased to hear that they stress annual reviews, making policy adjustments, having a potential exit plan, etc. I also liked to hear that there are leverage guidelines. At least this interview made me realize that he's not flying by the seat of his pants. He's thought it through. That doesn't negate the fact that caps have come down, loan rates have come up, arbitrage is more difficult, there are better IUL products, etc. The risks still exist, but this made me think it wasn't as certainly doomed to fail as I previously thought. It's definitely more risky. I'm nervous if this fails. But, at least they can 1035x or surrender policies if it doesn't end up working. They're not going to let them simply lapse, which gives me more peace of mind..
Love the perspective and comment. I agree that if you stay on top of these things you can adjust and pivot if and when needed. I would be curious on how many of their clients do annual reviews.
It’s approaches like MPI that unfortunately get extrapolated into providing support behind Dave Ramsey’s distorted message about whole life insurance. So, Curtis Ray isn’t a detractor, rather he’s a destroyer of what is possible. Dave Ramsey is a lying enemy of how life insurance should benefit people; Curtis Ray is worse in that he is “in the camp” destroying from within at his own gain.
I think that is a really deep thought and really appreciate your message. That is exactly why I didn't post for a awhile but then decided to post part 1 and part 2.
@@BetterWealth I apologize for going so negative, but I really see MPI as a threat to the perception of the industry… and to the approach that should be a significant part of the solution for far more people than are being reached.
A life insurance general fund is mostly bonds with a bit of extra credit risk to boost return. A cash secured loan is short term low risk debt. Borrow short, lend long is the very definition of banking. I’d say banking is a rather proven business model. Heck don’t we all talk about “Be your own bank”. IUL just generates extra return by absorbing someone else’s excess volatility. Of course to an extent return and volatility don’t mix, but Curtis seems to be keeping risk around at max where it would be 70% stock, 30% bond portfolio during they pay in years. That’s not an unreasonable portfolio for an investor. And like he mentioned during the later years you have a parachute. IMHO Curtis won the argument here. If he was going to get challenged I’d like to hear a much more detailed decomposition of what failure rates are under an alternative theory.
At the 30:50 mark, why did you bleep out the insurance company name that was sued and did some ‘scammy’ stuff? Was it Minnesota Life? Are there any articles written about what transpired with that company?
@@BetterWealth I asked because I just had an offline conversation with Roccy about them as I recently purchased some IUL’s from them for me and my family. My experience with them so far has been excellent and I’m very happy with my newer IUL’s. So hopefully their prior mix ups with questionable insurance agents is behind them.
Instead of waiting to post this video, I think you should've had him agree to another collab and posted the video then. The next video could have been him showing numbers from actual policies, and challening him on how unfavorable years will reflect on his policies. This video doesn't prove anything 1 way or the other; it just shows what one person believes with good explanations vs the other also with good explanations. Now we need see numbers, if you'd be so kind/interested in working it out.
Interesting watch, Caleb! I’d be happy to bridge the gap between the two of you if there’s a part 3. (My group does premium finance, and I think Im a nice guy but I’m also compelled to be confrontational if it’s around things I’m passionate about) The problem that I can see with MPI and Curtis Ray is primarily about the misleading way he’s marketing it. . . As if there’s little to no risk. It’s a premium finance design. Premium finance, because of the leverage, absolutely carries more risk (of losing principal) than he’s suggesting. My concern is that people who don’t necessarily have a lot of money to invest, will put all their eggs in this basket and not be prepared to make the necessary adjustments if/when things go wrong. I wouldn’t sell the concept to anyone without making sure they have a strong income, a strong existing financial foundation, and they have taken the time to understand the strategy itself and are comfortable with the risk/reward proposition. Thanks for posting, my friend! It was good to get to know you a little in HI.
Hey thanks for your comment! My name is Joel, the content manager for BetterWealth. Would you be open to helping us bridge the gap to set up a part 3? Feel free to email myself at Joel@BetterWealth.com or if you’re comfortable you can leave an email here and I can reach out to you.
You're a very nice guy Caleb which probably makes you fall short in this format. Curtis absolutely RIPS Whole Life all day long 24/7 on tiktok and you didn't make him steel man it or dig into those critiques. Everything else is just noise since we all know Whole Life/Infinite Banking is the best kept secret if used properly.
You are right that this format is not natural for me. I appreciate you taking the time to watch and comment! I am committed to being a student and growing this channel and my communication ability across formats.
There were a lot legal accusations on the first video, but you don’t mention any in this interview. What this tells the viewer is that you did exactly the opposite of what you claim was your goal with sharing this, and why you waited. Sounds like you actually want to explore better options for retirement income, and understand the crisis that is unfolding, but might care too much what other people think and smiled in his face while accusing him of doing something illegal in the first video 🤔 Why edit bits of this for the first video to be click bait if there was nothing to “expose” since that’s the claim of your first video? What did you expose? I think he was right in asking what naysayers have done to create new solutions to a crisis that has been forced to use old ideologies and products built by people who benefit regardless if the user does. I appreciate that you didn’t edit this and allowed us to learn more about what and who is behind this. I keep seeing videos about MPI and Curtis and it’s my opinion that most people are criticizing HIM more than they are the strategy. That's unfortunate and quite ignorant. If you would have kept the same energy from the first video, I’d have respected you more. It's concerning that even the first comment is YOUR claim that his practices are "misleading and dangerous". It would be crazy for one of your clients to see you be like this in someone's face and then flip. If it went against your moral compass, you'd not have done it, and never would have posted it. Why wait 2 years? For youtube views? Everything he said proves the last guy didn’t know what he was talking about and accused it of being something it wasn’t. Ex: hyper funding & only one company would work with him. Your last guest also said someone else founded this, said he liked it when his friend "discovered it", but now all of a sudden it's a scam. You said “the calculator is amazing” in this video, but spoke against it as possibly illegal in the last video. These contradictions hold more weight with you losing respect and credibility than this MPI. I hope there aren’t any legal repercussions that come from the claims in the last video. Not sure why you did this “series”, but hope more people expose the actual problem, and it has more to do with bias opinions on products and strategies, culture hype religions like IBC, and holy grail "financial gospels" without actual research or transparency to who benefits from most of the products that are sold. Expose mutual fund brokers. Expose financial advisors. Expose predatory lending. Expose Dave Ramsey for keeping people broke and telling people with epilepsy to get a 2nd job. Expose why financial pharmacists only sell the pills they get paid the most for. Expose legal professionals you hosted on your channel that made claims that aren’t true because I called to ask if I had to sign an NDA to get an MPI plan like your last guest claimed and learned it wasn’t true at all. (That's actually disgusting that you proudly posted that). Expose the real reason you posted this "series". Expose something worth “exposing”.
I'm not taking sides here. There are quite a few moving parts that have to work well for MPI to perform like Curtis says. But I agree the last guest made a lot of strong statements but was very short on specific criticism of MPI. What's the risk specifically? Long-term higher interest rates? The stock market having a lot of losing years? Cap rates? The policy imploding due to rising cost or poor design?
I understand why you feel that way. Being in the industry I share Caleb’s concern on posting this. I think there is an opportunity for a part three. I think Caleb will take your feedback to heart. I think he’s doing his best to do the right thing. I agree that keeping communication open is a better way to learn. I believe this video was made for that purpose. I have said this for years but as a fan, it would be very cool for someone to host an all out debate with the data.
I appreciate you taking the time to write this. A lot to take in and reflect on. My hope going forward is that I have more conversations, not less, across the board. I would gladly invite Curtis back at any time to share his perspective or correct anything that he wants to correct. The reason I posted this now is recently, I have been asked a lot about MPI and Curtis Ray, and so I thought posting part 1 and part 2 would be my answer to all the questions I have been getting. I will always be a student and committed to continuing to learn and get better 🙏
I think you were too gentle with Curtis, why not show him his calculation (excel) and run a scenario that the market is doing bad for a few years to show how this became a horrible method (I have done that with the policy he suggested in the past) , also the same with lower caps, or explain that basically, his method is to shift the risk from the insurance company to the customer as if the market do 0, the insurance company does not lose anything but the loan needed to be paid (interest is growing) , also you talked to him about using a loan to invest (infinite banking style) and he avoided the topic, and you did not push, as with his method you can't do IB as there is no money that is not under risk (all cash money is loaned and reinvested)
@@Unicorn-BlackCaleb is clearly trying not to attack someone for what they believe in. Rather, he is trying to understand and create a dialogue so we can all learn from it. It’s a very delicate balancing act. He’s the only one that I see doing this. If more people took this approach we could have less divide and better communication. This is the problem with politics right now. You have two deeply divided sides who can’t even hold a conversation. Neither side seeks understanding. They just want to point fingers. I’m more interested in solutions than trying to prove someone is wrong. I don’t use MPI and after watching this I still will not. However, I feel like I gained insight from watching this.
@@DanielRondberg I disagree, and dont understand why you raise "attacking what you believe" its not about that at all , itis about finance and finance is about data, and the accuracy of data, and as such the discussion needs to be (IMHO) about data, people need to make a decision if to invest or put your money in product X vs Product Y, is about data - what the risk, what the potential reward etc, My comments were about show the data, and ask tough questions, not about personal attack about believes, I could not care less about what he belive in or not.
41:08 options A pays 3 times more? Where is your factual data to prove this? If the policy is built off an asset transfer where a client perhaps has $500,000 and their MEC is $100,000… please explain how that pays 3x more than option B… such an ignorant statement.
I appreciate the comment! Although I am not a fan of IUL, I wouldn't say that all IUL will go to zero. However, the likelihood of that happening is greater than it is for whole life. My biggest problem with IUL is people selling it too aggressively and then not supporting the clients in the future.
