Cash value life insurance policies can be very complicated, making it difficult for the newcomer to evaluate claims made about these mysterious creatures. One of the chief ambiguities concerns the distinction between the “guaranteed interest rate” and/or “credited interest rate” on a cash value policy, versus the very familiar concept of “internal rate of return” on more traditional financial products.

There is no other way to put it. Americans have been tricked! The hidden process of money creation that artificially manipulates interest rates and creates economic booms has misguided society’s views of money and credit. This has been especially noticeable in our modern view of savings. Once considered the bedrock of a household’s financial strategy, traditional savings plans lost favor with the public because they were seen as too slow and boring in an economy that was flush with money and low interest rates.

Some commentators consider fractional reserve banking as a major vehicle for the expansion in the money supply growth rate. What is the nature of this vehicle? Fractional reserve banking arises because banks legally are permitted to use money placed with them in demand deposits. Banks treat this type of money as if it was loaned to them. However, is this really the case? When John places $100 in a safe deposit box with Bank One he does not relinquish his claim over the $100.

Subscribers To The Lara-Murphy Report have come to understand that our publication is unique in the market place in the sense that it features within its pages expert coverage of financial markets, Nelson Nash’s Infinite Banking Concept (IBC), and Austrian Economics. In rendering this service our readership receives monthly in-depth articles, interviews, and current news reporting regarding these three subjects that helps them navigate a constantly changing economic environment. As always our number one goal is education.

Back in the September 2012 issue of the Lara-Murphy Report, I tackled an older blog post by financial guru Dave Ramsey where he strongly attacked the idea of using permanent life insurance as a savings vehicle.1 Predictably, Ramsey urged his readers to “buy term and invest the difference,” and sought to show how much wiser that course of action would be. If you trusted that Ramsey was indeed doing an apples-to-apples comparison, it sure looked like only an idiot would buy a permanent life insurance policy.

Last month, I began this series, which tackles the question: Does IBC “work” for people who are older and/or in poor health? Many people are concerned that the “pure cost of insurance” will be so high in such cases, that practicing IBC will be too expensive, or will have “too much drag,” to be sensible.

One Of the most common questions we get from the public is whether IBC “works” or “makes sense” for someone who is older and/or in relatively poor wealth. People naturally worry whether the “pure cost of life insurance”— which is more expensive for older and/or sicker individuals, of course— at some point could make IBC impractical. If so, would it be better for people in this situation to take out IBC
policies on others who are
younger and/or in better health?

A Business Credit survey conducted and published in March 2016 by the Federal Reserve Banks of New York, Atlanta, Boston, Cleveland,
Philadelphia, Richmond, and St. Louis reports that “cash flow” is the number one problem facing small businesses with fewer than 500 employees. At the same time a Financial Stability Report dated November 2018 by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve cites that business-sector debt relative to GDP is historically high and “debt has been growing fastest at firms with weaker earnings and higher leverage.” In essence this report insinuates that the very same cash flow difficulty also exists among the larger companies, that is, those businesses with more than 500 employees.

In Memory: R. Nelson Nash.
The following is adapted from the Eulogy David gave at Nelson Nash’s funeral on March 30, 2019 in Birmingham, Alabama.