“Compared to What?”: A Better Way Forward for Life Insurance Sales

When I was 15, my dad passed away unexpectedly. In the years that followed, I became extremely introverted. At the time, I didn’t understand why. Looking back, I realize it was because I was constantly comparing myself to the other kids who still had their dads. I felt like I was less—less whole, less secure, less prepared for the future.

That experience taught me a powerful lesson: Comparison isn’t just about numbers or facts—it’s about context, understanding, and making informed choices.

Today, as a life insurance professional, I see a similar dynamic playing out in our industry. Too often, we’re asking clients to make decisions without giving them the tools to answer the most important question: “Compared to what?”

The PAR Product Selection Crisis

In last week’s Math.Logic.Wealth? class, we had a humbling moment that forced us to rethink how we approach PAR (Participating Whole Life) product selection. For years, I’ve given lapse rates a 50% weighting in my product rankings, believing that higher lapse rates from smaller policies would improve long-term performance for those who remain.

Then a former Manulife insider challenged this thinking. They explained that Manulife maintains a $100K minimum on their PAR policies because smaller policies aren’t profitable—regardless of lapse rates. This revelation forced me to confront the complexity of PAR product mechanics and the limitations of my own assumptions.

But this isn’t just about lapse rates or Manulife. It’s about a broader issue in our industry: We’re asking clients to make 40+ year financial commitments without giving them the tools to compare their options effectively.

The Problem with “Trust Me” Sales

For too long, the life insurance industry has relied on “trust me” sales tactics and generalizations to drive decisions. Advisors often recommend PAR products based on:

- The highest illustrated values (which are projections, not guarantees).

- Familiarity with one carrier (because it’s easier than doing the hard work of comparison).

- Industry trends (without questioning the underlying assumptions).

This approach doesn’t just fail our clients—it puts us at risk. Regulators are increasingly scrutinizing our recommendations, and clients are demanding more transparency.

A Better Way Forward: Math.Logic.Wealth?

At Math.Logic.Wealth?, we’re challenging the status quo. Our approach is built on three core principles:

1. “Compared to What?”

Every recommendation must answer this question. Why this product? Compared to what? What are the risks, benefits, and alternatives?

2. Evidence-Based Analysis

We dive deep into policy contracts, product mechanics, and mathematical evidence to build a defendable framework for product selection.

3. Client-Focused Transparency

We document our assumptions, explain our methodology, and regularly review our recommendations to ensure they align with our clients’ needs.

Your Personal Story: A Call to Action

When my dad passed away, I didn’t have the tools to understand what I was comparing myself to. I felt lost, uncertain, and unprepared for the future.

Today, as life insurance professionals, we have a responsibility to ensure our clients never feel that way. We owe it to them to provide clear, evidence-based advice that helps them make informed decisions about their financial future.

Join Us in Building a Better Industry

The stakes couldn’t be higher. When we recommend a 40+ year financial commitment without robust selection criteria, we’re not just failing our professional obligations—we’re putting ourselves and our clients at risk.

That’s why we’re building the Math.Logic.Wealth? network—a community of advisors committed to transparency, rigour, and client-focused advice.

If you’re ready to challenge the status quo and elevate your practice, join us. Let’s work together to build a better way forward for life insurance sales.

#LifeInsurance #EvidenceBasedPlanning #RiskManagement #MathLogicWealth #ClientFirst