“Debunking IBC:” 10 Top Objections Against Becoming Your Own Banker
Rising real-estate podcaster, host of Cash Flow Connections, and fellow free-market fellow traveler Hunter Thompson suggested I address some of the top arguments against the Infinite Banking Concept (IBC). After a short introduction, I take on 10 of them. If you don’t see your objection, let me know.
Thanks to Kaye Lynn Peterson for help editing.
Becoming Your Own Banker, as IBC creator Nelson Nash’s book is called, is a whole new paradigm for most people. Sophisticated entrepreneurs, business people, and investors are understandably skeptical. Complicating matters is the fact that there is very little educational material on the IBC out there in the big wide digital world (apart from the blog you’re reading and the Lara-Murphy Show). Even for the open-minded, well-intended inquirer the obstacles to comprehending the IBC can be overwhelming.
My responses to some of the top objections to the IBC are not meant to totally eliminate your skepticism, but perhaps you’ll see enough to encourage further reevaluation. If something “clicks” here, or if my discussion of a particular objection doesn’t make complete sense to you, let’s talk about it. My point is this: if you’re someone who wants to win in the world of money, the claims of the IBC and the quality of the people who promote it should warrant an open-minded investigation of it. If in the end you discover that the IBC makes sense to you, you’ll have a firm understanding of why. If you don’t, you’ll develop even stronger confidence in your own capital accumulation and cash flow management strategy.
And that is the correct comparison. As you’ll see, many objections to the IBC are the result of apples-to-oranges comparisons. The IBC is not an investment strategy. Whole life insurance is not an investment. This is about capital accumulation, use, and protection for the purpose of optimal cash flow management.
Feel free to jump around to the different objections below to read the ones in which you are most interested. However, keep in mind that I did order these in somewhat sequential fashion, and wrote my responses accordingly. In other words, the objections and my responses to them build on one another, so you may come away with a more complete understanding if you start from the top.
Objection (1) especially contains an important discussion of the essence of whole life insurance, which will inform most of the following responses, especially (2) through (5). Objection (2) addresses a sophisticated objection.
(1) It’s better to “buy term and invest the difference.”
This is the ubiquitous, default reaction by most financial advisers in response to the suggestion that an individual consider purchasing dividend-paying whole life insurance. Suze Orman explains the basics of this argument in the clip below.
The root of why this objection fails is the misunderstanding over the purpose of dividend-paying whole life insurance designed for the Infinite Banking Concept.
When the vast majority of people hear the term “life insurance,” regardless of what comes before or after the term, the immediate reflex is to think of death benefit. This is largely a result of the failure of the life insurance industry that itself does not understand the power of properly-designed dividend paying whole life insurance. With a more comprehensive understanding of this unique financial asset, it should become clear that comparing whole life insurance to term insurance coupled with investments is a major logical error.
It may sound odd, but yes, a whole life insurance policy designed for the IBC is life insurance. There is a sum of money called a death benefit that is meant to replace the loss of an individual’s future income upon his or her passing. Whereas term insurance is a promise by a company to pay this sum in the event of loss during a specific number of years (the term), whole life extends that promise to pay to age 121 or what is effectively an individual’s whole life.
But the difference between term and whole life does not end there; in fact, it’s just the beginning. Here is the fundamental reason why the IBC works the way it does and why only dividend-paying whole life serves as the proper platform with which to implement it: a whole life policy creates the ultimate financial obligation against which you will pay longer than any other obligation.
“What?!” you might say. Why in the world would you want to purchase something (the promise to pay) for which you’ll have to pay over the longest period of time?! After all, compare it to, for example, a fifty-year mortgage. Who would want to be paying a mortgage on a house for 50 years, much less one’s entire life?! And how in the world could doing such a thing be desirable?
Here’s why. Such a long-dated obligation comes with the opportunity to build equity for the same, long-dated time period.
I know. Look, it took me a long time to finally see why dividend-paying whole life is such a powerful asset. This is why: it offers you, the individual, an opportunity to build equity in a single asset over an extremely long, basically incomparable, period of time. It can only offer this unique feature because it is a life insurance contract.
Why is a very long time period of equity (or capital) accumulation a good thing? One word: compounding.
The “Dow Theory Letters was the longest investment letter in the industry continuously written by the same person.” Its author was the late Richard Russell. Russell’s most popular letter was called “Rich Man, Poor Man” in which he outlined “a few items that we must be aware of if we are serious about making money.”
Rule #1 is compounding. He writes, “[c]ompounding is the royal road to riches. Compounding is the safe road, the sure road, and fortunately, anybody can do it.” However, Russell warned, “of course, you need time, time to allow the power of compounding to work for you. Remember, compounding only works through time” [bold added].
Do you see it? Dividend-paying whole life provides an individual the longest possible time frame (namely, his whole life) across which he can dependably compound his capital. All other features of whole life designed for the IBC flow from this fact (many of which we will discuss later in this article).
Therefore, why would someone implement the IBC instead of “buying term, and investing the difference?” Because he who implements the IBC with properly designed, dividend-paying whole life insurance is constructing the optimal mechanism for capital accumulation.
We should start to see the theme I presented in the Introduction. The IBC and whole life are not just about life insurance. Although it is paramound to understand you should implement the IBC with a particular kind of life insurance — in fact it would not be as beneficial otherwise — it is illegitimate to compare it with a death benefit and investment strategy. Building capital is not the same as investing. Furthermore, the individual who builds capital in dividend paying whole life insurance may often find himself in a better position to invest than would the individual who “bought term and invested the difference” from the get-go.
[Insider point: The term “life insurance” is a non-starter for many people, yet the IBC could not legitimately claim to offer the benefits that it does were it not implemented through (whole) life insurance. Therefore, we have the ultimate paradox: one of the greatest stumbling blocks for many people in understanding whole life insurance built for the IBC is the fact that it relies on whole life insurance.]
(2) I can get a (much) higher rate of return by investing through my self-directed IRA.
If you have not read my response to Objection (1), I would encourage you to do so. Also, the folks who care about the present objection are fairly sophisticated in their financial competence, so this response gets fairly sophisticated too.
Most people don’t even think about building capital in the first place. We have been taught to make money (income) and to invest it. In fact, “saving” is often conflated with “investing.” Those who use their self-directed Individual Retirement Account (IRA) are doing this on steroids. They’ve figured out that they can take control of how the money they’ve invested through their tax-qualified plan is allocated among alternative investment opportunities.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not knocking these people at all. In fact, I commend them, because you don’t go through the trouble of taking control of your tax-qualified plan unless you know something isn’t right in the financial world and you’ve done your homework to find a relatively better way.
I will stress this point though: investing through a tax-qualified plan is still an investment strategy and not a capital accumulation strategy. Since we’re starting to dig into the differences between investments and capital, let’s lay out some definitions.
Capital is a pool of financial resources used to acquire wealth. You might think of liquidating (diminishing) capital or leveraging (employing without liquidating) capital [for my advanced readers, you will find this definition in 19th century economist Carl Menger’s Principles of Economics, not at Investopedia]. An investment is an asset that increases in value (appreciates), pays a stream of income to the investment owner (cash-flows), or both. You might think of it this way: one could leverage capital in order to acquire an investment; that investment may have a positive cash-flow, which you might use to accumulate (more) capital.
What often happens, and what may be happening for those channeling cash-flow into a self-directed IRA is the conflation of the asset value of investments with capital value. For example, if the value of an individual’s self-directed IRA portfolio is $1,000,000, it’s most likely incorrect to conclude that the individual has $1,000,000 in capital. Rather, this individual’s investments may be worth $1,000,000 (if, in fact, there were one or more buyers willing to pay that much for them).
Why is it important to build capital instead of just investing income? Recall our definitions: the basic distinguishing point between an investment and capital is the purpose of the given asset. These two separate purposes produce differing characteristics in the acquired asset. An asset in which you build capital will tend to confer greater control to the owner, since the purpose of capital is to acquire wealth at the discretion of the owner (all else equal). An asset that is intended to be an investment will tend to confer less control since the purpose of investment is to provide appreciation or a cash-flow (all else equal).
I have one more conjecture before wrapping this all together: before we lose money, we often lose control of money. Yet, in order to gain money, the first thing we tend to do is cede control of money. Consider, for example, what happens when you desire to secure a loan from a commercial bank. To get access to money (credit) from the bank, you often must forfeit control over other assets through collateral assignments and to future streams of income through commitments to repayment schedules that the bankers dictate. Each instance of forfeiture of control over financial value nudges an individual one step farther into the territory of risk.
Therefore, an individual who invests but does not build capital has reduced his control of financial value and exposes himself to relatively greater loss. An individual who builds capital but does not invest has retained his control of financial value and is relatively more safeguarded from loss. An individual who builds capital and who invests retains control of financial value, adds financial value through investment profit, and reduces risk of loss.
My point is this: the individual who concentrates on funneling income into a self-directed IRA isn’t necessarily doing it wrong, but he could be doing it better if he intentionally built capital.
Furthermore, if this individual used properly-designed dividend paying whole life as the warehouse for his capital, he would likely find that he need not use the self-directed IRA in order to make his investments. And that’s fundamentally the rub with the financial strategy centered around the self-directed IRA. As I alluded to at the beginning of this response, the self-directed IRA is most likely the manifestation of investors’ desire to have more control over their assets. Put differently: the self-directed IRA is a tax-qualified investment plan that wants to be both a vehicle for investment accumulation and for capital accumulation.
The result is this regulation-riddled Frankenstein beast that wants to have its cake and eat it too. The fact of the matter is that capital and investment are fundamentally and importantly different. Thus, whereas in Objection (1) we saw an inappropriate comparison between the IBC and a death-benefit/investment strategy, what we have in Objection (2) is an inappropriate comparison between the IBC and a star-crossed, hybrid investment/capital strategy.
This isn’t to say that concentrating one’s financial strategy on acquiring investments through a self-directed IRA can’t “work” over time, but there are trade-offs. On the one hand, you forfeit the capital accumulation power in which whole life insurance built for the IBC specializes. On the other hand you expose yourself to mounting government regulation and relatively diminished control over financial value. Conversely, if the sophisticated investor built capital in IBC policies, he would probably find himself in a much more liquid, less-restricted, dexterous position with a high degree of control over financial value. As Nelson Nash puts it, “opportunity will you hunt you down” if you are so situated.
(3) I can get a (much) higher rate of return by investing in real estate.
This is also a relatively sophisticated objection, but fortunately we have laid the groundwork to tackle it quickly. If the reader followed me through my responses to Objections (1) and (2), he should be able to predict my response.
This is basically an apples-to-oranges comparison. Here, we are asking which is better: to invest in real estate or to build capital in whole life insurance according to the IBC. The thing is, these are not mutually exclusive options. In fact, my mentor James Neathery puts it this way (I paraphrase): “there is no better way to build wealth than with IBC and real estate” (my bold).
I don’t want anyone to get the wrong impression from my earlier responses. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t invest, and I’m certainly not saying that people shouldn’t invest in real estate. In fact, since real estate is a hard asset that you can see and touch and that both appreciates (or at least tends to on average) and produces a cash flow, I fully understand why it would be desirable.
However, due mostly to the unprecedented rates of money creation (inflation) by the Fed and the commercial banking system, rising real estate values, e.g. in residential real estate, have convinced many Americans that the best place to build capital is in their homes. Some real estate investors use this idea as the engine that propels their entire business strategy. Unsurprisingly, this exposes these homeowners and investors to the deep downturns of modern economic recessions.
Furthermore, I want to suggest to you that the entity that practically owns real estate in this country is whichever state in which your property happens to be located. This is due, of course, to property taxes, which are real estate taxes — or a special type of wealth tax. In contrast, there is no life insurance tax required for an individual to maintain ownership of his IBC policies. I go back to the notion of control and my earlier conjecture that well-designed, dividend paying whole life insurance is the optimal warehouse for your capital. The issue of property (real estate) tax is another instance in which we see that the individual has greater control over his life insurance than he does over his real estate. Unfortunately, this is not what many are conditioned to believe thanks, in part, to rising home values bolstered by unprecedented inflation.
(4) I can get a higher, safe rate of return with diversified investments through a standard tax-qualified plan.
This is the more common version of Objections (2) and (3) above and is the default strategy that the vast majority of financial agents recommend to their clients.
Let’s take a 30,000-foot view and play with a thought experiment. Suppose you and I are going to start a business. I inform you that you will put up all the start-up money; you will be responsible for all maintenance fees and costs of the business; you will be financially responsible for all risks associated with running the business; I will determine when you may sell your share of the business; and I will determine how great your share of the business is when I do allow you to sell; and I get to keep the rest. Sound like a good deal?
I would encourage you to consider how closely that thought experiment mimics the tax-treatment and regulation of tax-qualified plans.
We know that not every individual is an investor. From this thought experiment, we know that tax-qualified plans may not be for everyone either. At this point, the average employee or small business owner may be feeling discouraged. Well, if that individual were open to learning about a new asset and implementing new disciplines, then the IBC may be a good alternative.
Many Americans have treated their tax-qualified plans as I suggested some do in my response to Objection (2). They treat them like capital accounts. The problem with this is the lack of control that characterizes tax-qualified plans; namely, they all have a severe penalty of 10% if you draw on them before age 59.5. What’re the odds that you might have some sort of need for capital before age 59.5 (e.g. vacations, medical emergencies, college educations, weddings, etc.)? Should Americans just accept the notion that they’ll pay a 10% tax to access their savings for the majority of their lives? I propose that they should not.
[I am aware that you can borrow from funds invested through a tax-qualified plan, as opposed to outright withdrawing them. I will cover this in my response to Objection (6).]
(5) I don’t like dollar-denominated assets (like whole life insurance).
Many who follow economic news are aware that the Fed (the central bank in the US) has increased the quantity of dollars in existence by trillions more in the last ten years than have ever been created in history. These individuals may be concerned that this inflation of the money supply may lead to a further accelerated devaluation of the US dollar. Consequently, they may be skeptical of the idea of building capital in a US dollar-denominated asset. This is a justifiable concern that I myself share.
However, in the world of finance everything is relative. For the time being, and for an unknown length of time into the future, the US Dollar is the reserve currency of the world (meaning that the vast majority of international trade is denominated in dollars). Furthermore, the climate of property rights in the US is still highly favorable compared to that of other nations. This means that the US continues to be a, if not the, top destination for investment funds in the world. To acquire property here, folks must still use dollars. We might also note the non-quantifiable yet relatively vast structure of production that exists in the US, from the infrastructural to the technological to the financial, and so on.
We also must contend with the fact earned income must reside somewhere. In other words, we have the same problem we addressed in Objection (2): should that dollar income be allocated first to investment or to capital? As I argued earlier, the most robust strategy is to first accumulate capital and then to leverage that capital to acquire investments. So long as this logic holds, the question of where and how to best build capital will persist, despite souring developments in monetary policy. So long as this question persists, well-designed life insurance built for the IBC remains the answer.
This is not to say that I don’t advocate having an exit strategy. As students of the IBC may know, the capital you build in IBC policies, called cash value, is highly liquid. This is because your policy states — by contract — that the insurance company is required to pay you a sum equal to your cash value (less any outstanding loan balances and unpaid premium) at your discretion in exchange for relieving the company of its promise to pay the death benefit. Therefore, if world events really took a turn for the worse and you decided to liquidate your policy and reestablish your finances internationally, you have the right to do exactly that. In fact, I encourage you to find any other asset that comes with a lifetime, contractual guarantee of relatively immediate payout at a pre-formulated price. In terms of liquidity, I think you may find you are at the mercy of the market with other assets that you might use to build capital.
(6) I’m not going to pay interest to use my own money.
One aspect we have yet to discuss is the method by which you might leverage the capital you build in IBC policies. It’s called a “policy loan.” An owner of a whole life policy built for the IBC has the right, as stated in his policy, to initiate a separate transaction and request a loan from the insurance company in the amount (approximately) equal to the cash value of his policy.
As far as acquiring credit (taking out a loan) goes, this is an incomparably simple, low-cost process. There is no lengthy application; there are no restrictions on the use of the loaned funds; the company does not issue a repayment schedule for the loan; there are no additional physical collateral assignments; and there are no nasty collections calls. In fact, you don’t even have to pay the loan back (though it’s in your best interest to do so). The transaction basically comes down to signing a piece of paper and telling the company where to send the check. You, the policy owner, have full control.
There is an occasional misconception at this point; namely, that the individual policy owner is withdrawing money from the policy. This is not what is happening. The money you receive when you take out a policy loan is money that the insurance company is lending to you from its general account. It is not “your” money, nor is any money being “taken out” of your policy. Instead, you are borrowing against the cash value of your policy. Put differently, you are collateralizing your cash value, just as you would collateralize the equity in your home when you take out a home-equity line of credit (HELOC) — with the major exception that the terms on a policy loan are extraordinarily better.
[In my response to Objection (4), I noted that it is possible to borrow money from a tax-qualified account. Borrowing from the value of an asset will interrupt any compounding growth, which requires uninterrupted increases. Conversely, borrowing against an IBC policy’s cash value does not interrupt its compounding growth.]
From the insurance company’s perspective, the policy loan the company gives you is an asset. The company expects a return on its assets so that it can pay death benefit claims. Therefore, the insurance company charges an interest rate. In other words, the interest rate you pay on policy loans is an investment return to the insurance company. In exchange for this contractual arrangement in which you pay interest on policy loans, you receive almost total control over the capital (cash value) you accumulate in the policy.
Furthermore, IBC policies should be purchased from agents who work with mutual companies. A mutual company is owned by its policyholders. Therefore, by paying interest to the insurance company that sold you your policy, you are contributing to the financial performance of a company of which you are a part-owner. I’ve mentioned above numerous times that these policies are “dividend-paying.” A dividend is a payment to the owners of the company in the event of (net) positive financial performance. Thus, in a roundabout way, you might consider that your interest payments on policy loans indirectly support the dividend you’re likely to receive at year’s end.
To wrap up this objection response, no, it is not the case that money you receive in a policy loan is “yours.” And there’s no free lunch! The absolutely incomparable terms (or lack thereof, really) on policy loans and the control you have over the compounding cash value — which will continue to grow even while you have an outstanding policy loan (!!!) — must have some price.
(7) I can get lower interest rates than those charged on policy loans.
The interest rate on policy loans is typically variable and the bond index to which your particular policy loan interest rate is pegged will be stated up front in your policy documents. Because of the way they are typically calculated, these rates will tend to lag behind current market rates. This means that when current market rates are relatively low, policy loan interest rates may be higher, and when current market rates are relatively high, policy loan interest rates may be lower.
No one can control policy loan interest rates. And if you think about it, no one can control current market rates, either. While it may be the case that current rates are lower than policy loan rates (which, as of this writing, they are), we should make sure to account for all credit acquisition costs in order to make a comprehensive comparison.
First, most people discount the value of their own time. For a straight-up comparison, you should take into account the net present value of, say, a given hour of your time, and apply that to the total number of hours it may take to get access to credit in a traditional credit transaction. In contrast, recall from my response to Objection (6) that there are basically no time-intensive obstacles to accessing policy loans.
Second, don’t let low “sticker” interest rates fool you. It should be puzzling to you that, for example, an auto-financier can loan money at 0% for two years. Is the company really lending you “free” money for those two years? Probably not. What’s probably happening is that if you choose to finance the purchase of the vehicle through the car company then you’ll be charged a higher price on the vehicle. This is how clever financing marketers smuggle the cost of financing into the transaction while advertising to the customer the availability of a “no interest” loan. This is basically a lie. There is an interest cost, it’s just coming in the form of an increased total price. To demonstrate this, simply ask the car salesman what the “cash price” of the vehicle is. It will be lower, and now you know why.
Third, the difficulty of access to credit in other forms, relative to that of a policy loan, can often be outright prohibitive. This is especially true in transactions where the first to cough up the money gets the deal, e.g. in real estate. What is the difference in interest rate on a policy loan for a deal you actually get compared to that on a loan you don’t even take because someone with cash got to the seller first? Does it even matter?
Fourth, it may in fact be the case that for some specific scenario you can get quick access to credit at a relatively lower cost using something other than a policy loan — even with all elements of the transaction considered. Fair enough, but there is no reason you can’t both build capital in an IBC policy for when you’ll need it and use, e.g., a 0% interest credit card for a given purchase. However, you will more than likely encounter opportunities for purchases in which “paying cash” (with funds borrowed through a policy loan) will be preferable or potentially the only possibility. In the end, an individual is in a more robust position if he’s accumulated capital in one or more IBC policies first.
(8) Managing cash flow through IBC policies still requires interaction with (and therefore depends on) the banking system.
One of the big “selling points” of the IBC is that you can effectively “become your own banker” and cease relying on the commercial banking system for access to capital (credit). This can be taken too far, to the point where people are led to believe that by implementing the IBC they will never see the plush interior of a bona fide bank again. This is not the case.
Individuals will still have a need for basic financial inter-mediation, e.g. checking accounts. Plus, it may, and likely will, take several years for some individuals to build up sufficient cash values in IBC policies to finance all of their various big-ticket purchases in life with policy loans.
Again, the power of the IBC is that it reduces your reliance on the commercial banking system for access to capital and eliminates it on any particular bank for basic financial services (since if you can open a checking account in one bank, you can likely open one at others). Everything in finance is relative, and there is no absolute, perfect, nirvana solution. However, by implementing the IBC with properly designed whole life and reducing your reliance on the overall system, you do gain/reclaim control over the functions of accumulation, protection, and use of capital in your life in an unparalleled manner.
(9) I pay my financial adviser to take care of my money; I’m not going to learn about the IBC.
When I first encountered this objection, I was not prepared for it. I didn’t have an answer. However, since I’ve had some time to reflect on it, I do have more than nothing to say.
Unfortunately, in this financial environment, intentional ignorance is probably the only thing more likely to lead to loss of financial value than loss of control. Since I’m trained as an economist, I fully understand (and love) the idea of the division of labor and specialization. I agree, it should be the case that you can just trust a specialist to “take care of your money.” I’m not even arguing that the financial world is rife with nefarious manipulators (that may be the case — I’m being charitable). What I am arguing is that the system itself is unstable to the core.
This insight comes from what’s called Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT). This is not the place to go into detail on ABCT, but the basic gist of the Theory is that the financial system within which the vast majority of financial advisers operate is based on something called “fractional reserve banking.” This means that banks, the entities through which almost every financial transaction flows in Western countries, are legally permitted to lend money that previously did not exist. (If you or I did this, it would be called counterfeiting.) The moral status of this practice aside, it is technically, economically unstable. It causes something called “the boom-bust cycle” or what many know as economic booms and recessions or depressions. These booms and busts happen because the (counterfeit) money that is lent out into the economy causes “malinvestments.” These are investments that would not have been made had no (counterfeit) money — or what you can call fiduciary media if you want to be perfectly amoral — been issued to acquire them. Ultimately, changes in interest rates can cause these malinvesments to be liquidated and these liquidations can have severe effects on the value of investment portfolios of regular people.
The problem here is that the entities that control the mechanisms that lead to the changes in interest rates, that cause the malinvestments and their liquidations, that lead to the unfavorable fluctuations in investments are not you and me. Somebody else controls all of that — namely, very high level central and commercial bankers. Therefore, exposing your money to people who only know how to operate in that system (as opposed to the world of the IBC) comes with a disproportionate level of risk. We’re back to the relationship between control and personal financial performance that we discussed above.
The solution to this is to reclaim control of your finances, and yes, that will come with learning an alternative view of money, cash flow, and capital. I wish I had a better, easier answer to this objection, but I don’t. I suppose that is why I write and work with people to implement the IBC in the first place.
(10) Austrian Business Cycle Theory is wrong, modern western banks are safe, and I’ve never had a problem getting access to capital.
In contrast to my response on Objection (9), I can imagine individuals — in fact I have clients — who have never even heard of the ABCT and do not share the same view I have on the trajectory of the economy given recent monetary policy. If they do, I’m not aware of it. Is the IBC still a good thing to do in that case?
I chose to end with this objection, because we have basically arrived where we began. Yes, the IBC is still a good thing to do, because it is, in my view and for some of the reasons I’ve discussed above (there’s more!), the best method for managing cash flow and building, protecting, and using capital. You don’t have to be convinced of any particular economic or political view to understand why.
For folks who have never had trouble getting access to capital, I would congratulate them. People who don’t have problems getting access to capital are who they are because they’re highly skilled in using capital to generate profit. However, there are two money problems in the world: not enough, and too much. Money must reside somewhere. The profits my highly productive clientele generate need a home too, and there is no better warehouse for capital than an IBC policy.
If you’ve made it through all 10 objections, good job! There was some pretty high level discussion. If you had trouble with one or more of the objections, and if you want to clear it up, please comment — I’ll get in touch. At the very least, I hope this helped clarify, broaden, or deepen your understanding of the Infinite Banking Concept.
If you would like to work with me to implement the Infinite Banking Concept in your own life, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.