In this episode, Nate debunks the idea that infinite banking is some magical arbitrage situation. He explains that infinite banking is about managing capital efficiently and using whole life insurance policies as a capital warehouse.
He breaks down the misconceptions surrounding arbitrage in infinite banking and emphasizes that borrowing from policies is not dependent on the policy’s growth rate. Nate also highlights the potential for tax deductions when using policy loans for investments or business purposes.
He highly recommends taking the time to research and have a thorough understanding before diving into infinite banking.
Key Takeaways:
- Infinite banking is not about magical arbitrage, but about managing capital efficiently.
- Borrowing from policies is not dependent on the policy’s growth rate.
- Tax deductions can be a potential benefit when using policy loans for investments or business purposes.
- Approach infinite banking with a thorough understanding and take the time to educate yourself before getting started.
Episode Resources:
Gain FREE access to our Infinite Banking Course here
——————————————————————————————————————————
LIVING WEALTH PODCAST
DOLLARS AND NONSENSE: EPISODE 229 TRANSCRIPTION
Nate Scott [00:00]:
Does infinite banking work because of some sort of magical arbitrage situation? Do policies grow internally by more interest than what is being charged for policy loans? The answer is no on both fronts. And I want to dive into all the reasons why infinite banking is not about arbitrage, but is about managing capital in the most efficient way possible. I pull up one of my own policies to show you exactly how it works. Let’s dive in. I’m Nate. I make sense out of money. This is Dollars and Nonsense. If you follow the herd, you will be slaughtered.
Nate Scott [00:38]:
Guys, thanks so much for being here on the show again with me. It’s so awesome to have you here. We’re going to dive into another episode that really I’m here to combat some things I’ve heard in the infinite banking space lately by some of the big infinite banking influencers that have much bigger channels than I do and are way better marketers than I’ll ever be.
And I’ve just heard some things in this space that I’m going to stamp out today. And it mainly has to do with how infinite banking is. It’s all the magic talk about whole life insurance policies and infinite banking. The magical “hey, if you borrow money from them, you’ll get wealthy somehow. If you borrow money from policies, that’s the secret to success.”
Nate Scott [01:16]:
There’s some sort of magical arbitrage existing, by the way, arbitrage, for those of you who have never even heard that term, is essentially arbitrage is when you borrow against something to go do something that makes you more money than the cost of borrowing. That’s a typical, easy definition of arbitrage, which, by the way, remember that definition for when we dive into why infant banking is not about arbitrage, because just by the fact what I just said should hopefully imply that infinite bank is not about that, just simply just real quick.
But what I’ve heard some people talk about this whole arbitrage thing where they’re saying the policy, you can borrow, but you’re actually earning more inside the policy than what it’s costing you to borrow. And that’s why there’s some sort of magic around it. And I’m just saying, please get rid of that in this space, it’s damaging. It’s causing problems. People come in believing they’re going to receive something that they’re not going to receive. Their expectations are flawed.
Nate Scott [02:06]:
And this is why you have all these people out there that talk about how infinite banking is a scam. It’s not a scam. Scams exist whenever your expectations are not met. Whenever someone makes a promise and says, this is what this product is going to do for you, and it doesn’t do that, that is a scam.
And the issue is, whenever people promote infinite banking, something that I really think is a powerful financial concept that is extremely beneficial for people. How to use whole life insurance policies to become your own banker and build a banking system. I think this is going to be really great. And it doesn’t need to be embellished.
Nate Scott [02:39]:
It doesn’t need to be exaggerated. It doesn’t need to be manipulated, and neither do you as a listener. So I’m going to dive into this. I’m also going to pull up one of my own policies, actually, the same one I pulled up a few episodes ago where I talked about how I used it to make investments.
I’m going to pull up that same policy to kind of show you what I mean again about this whole arbitrage scenario, to stamp it out. And by the way, if this content means something to you, if you followed us for a long time, it would mean the world to us. If you would, like, subscribe wherever you’re getting this content, leave us a rating or review on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Leave comments on the YouTube page if this is good content. Just let the algorithms know that this stuff is worth listening to.
Nate Scott [03:11]:
Let’s go ahead and dive in. So the first thing to note about arbitrage and what I’ve heard from people out there communicating about infinite banking is that essentially they’re making these weird claims that whole life insurance policies are growing by more internally than the cost to borrow from the policy.
So, like the policy loan interest is going to be less than the growth internally in the policy. So you’re having some sort of magical arbitrage. And I’m here to say that’s not true at face value, that’s not actually what’s going to happen. And I want to kind of prove it to you. But first off, some people may be involved in infinite banking and think that’s what’s going to happen.
Nate Scott [03:52]:
And they essentially would say, well, infinite banking only makes sense if that’s the case. If that’s not the case, then it doesn’t make sense at all. Like, why would I pay more interest to borrow against this policy than what it’s earning? It doesn’t even make any sense. And I’m here to say, well, that point of view is also incorrect. So both are incorrect.
The fact that the policies are growing by more than the loan interest rates is not correct. So is the idea that if the policies are not growing by more than the interest, then it doesn’t make sense to do infinite banking at all. Both of these are at two opposite ends of the spectrum, and they’re both wrong, and the truth is in the middle.
Nate Scott [04:22]:
And that’s what I’m here to try to uncover. So here’s essentially what’s actually going on, and I would like to bring up, and I’ve got a whiteboard here on the YouTube page, just so I can make some notes as I go along. But the whole idea of arbitrage in the conventional sense is that, hey, by the way, real estate is pretty much the whole thing is about arbitrage in a lot of ways, using other people’s money to make more money. That’s the whole idea of arbitrage.
So, the idea is like, hey, if I was to go buy a piece of property and it’s going to cost me 4%, I’m actually going to make that in red. It’s going to cost me 4% interest cost to borrow money, but then I’m going to move it into a piece of property that’s going to make me 10% interest in actual income. Essentially, I’ve created arbitrage, where the income I’m going to make in my investment is greater than the cost to borrow. So I’m actually using other people’s money to become wealthy.
Nate Scott [05:17]:
And of course, this is banking 101, just in general. Banks are the lords of arbitrage. Their entire business is only about arbitrage. It’s just simply saying they’re going to buy our money at one price, the interest they pay us, and they’re going to lend it to other people, they’re going to sell the money at higher prices and they’re going to keep the difference. And so they’re just lords of arbitrage. Most businesses are this way, though. Like you go to a grocery store, they’re in the business of arbitrage. They buy food at one price and they sell it to you at a higher price.
Nate Scott [05:42]:
This is just business 101. And so a lot of people would say that we create arbitrage when we put money to work. What I have an issue with is that people are forgetting the truth about what arbitrage really means. And here’s what I mean by that. If you had a home, and let’s say your home appreciates in value, just your primary residence, and you have equity building up in your home, and you want to borrow against that equity to make an investment.
You want to borrow against the equity that’s accumulating in your home to go make an investment. The equation to you, like whether or not it makes sense to maybe go open up a home equity line of credit, a HELOC at the bank to pull out some of your equity, or maybe just refinance your mortgage completely to pull out some equity and go make some investments with it. Whether or not that makes sense to do actually has–
Nate Scott [06:36]:
The arbitrage scenario is not the question you’re asking yourself is not, hey, is my home going to appreciate by more than the cost of borrowing against it? Is my home going to appreciate by more than the cost for me to borrow against it?
Because maybe if the home appreciates at 3% over time, but it’s actually, let’s say I’m going to borrow against my home, and I’m going to erase this, and I’m going to say it’s actually like, these days, maybe it’s 6% to borrow against your home, probably even more on like a home equity line of credit and different things.
But let’s just say my home is going to appreciate by more than 6%. Some of you may say yes, some of you may say no. But what I’m trying to bring up is that it actually has nothing to do with whether or not it makes sense to borrow against the home. I hope you guys are following me with this.
Whether or not the home is going to appreciate by more than the cost of borrowing is not even a part of the equation. It makes sense to borrow against that asset, the home, in this case, your home equity, to make an investment based on whether or not the investment is going to produce a higher return than the cost of borrowing. That’s how you’re going to create arbitrage.
Nate Scott [07:39]:
So in other words, borrowing against the home. The home doesn’t have to appreciate by more than the cost of borrowing for it to ever make sense to borrow money to go do something against the capital that’s built up in your house. And that’s essentially what I’m trying to bring to the forefront of infinite banking.
Just to begin with, by the way, is that the idea that the policy has to generate more return inside of itself than the cost of borrowing in order for it to ever make sense to borrow money is actually kind of ridiculous because it’s not a fair analysis based on everywhere else that you could borrow money or pull money from to go do anything else in the world.
And what that means is whenever I borrow money to go do something with the policy. It’s not about whether or not the policy loan rate is lower than the growth rate, by the way. Normally it’s not just, I thought, let’s throw that out there again. Normally the loan rate is going to be bigger than what the policy is growing by. That’s normal.
Nate Scott [08:34]:
There are special circumstances randomly that will occur based on the interest rate environment and the dividends being paid to policies in any given year where maybe that will take place. I mean, that has happened where the growth of your policies are greater than the cost of borrowing.
But that’s not why we’re doing it. And that’s not a normal thing. That’s not just what happens everywhere, all the time. That’s not how it works. So what I’m saying is, whenever I go use my policy to go do something, I’m hoping that the impact of using my policy to achieve whatever it is I’m trying to achieve is going to be greater than the cost of borrowing the money from the policy.
Nate Scott [09:11]:
The impact is going to be greater than the cost of borrowing from the policy. So if I’m going to go make an investment, or I’m going to pay down debt, or maybe I’m going to use it to buy something that’s not quite an investment, but the policy offers cheaper money than I could get elsewhere. All of these are reasons to pull from policies to achieve objectives.
Infinite banking is all about storing capital in a place that has no volatility, in a place that’s not risky in and of itself, that’s growing competitively in a tax free environment, that you have complete access to leverage that money to go achieve things in life. Essentially, it’s capital. That’s what we call it. It’s capital. It’s not an investment that’s meant to stay there.
Nate Scott [09:53]:
The policies serve a specific purpose. They are an awesome capital warehouse to achieve objectives. And the fact that you can borrow against the policies in an interest only scenario that essentially acts as what we’ve called it many times on this show. And the only place in the universe that offers an interest only line of credit for life. Meaning that you never actually have to repay the loan.
You just have an interest bill each year, which you can either pay from the policy itself or you can send money from your bank account to pay for the interest bill. And so you never have to pay the principal back. And it’s a line of credit, which means you can pull money as much as you want, you can repay as much as you want, whenever you want to, you can operate like a line of credit for life, which means that there’s never a renewal date.
Nate Scott [10:40]:
It’s not like a five year interest only period that then you have to try to renew after five years with the bank, or that it’s going to start amortizing at some point down the road. It’s an interest only line of credit for life. What we’re trying to say is the only place that exists, that this exists in this way happens to be inside of whole life insurance policies.
And all of these factors put together produce a reality that says this is an awesome place to build up capital to be deployed. Outside of that scenario, the cost of borrowing from the policy is not whether or not that’s greater than the return of the policy itself or not is not what we’re exactly after.
Of course, I would say to some extreme, if it cost you 12% to borrow from it and it’s growing by four or 5%, yeah, we’d say this is a bit weird. It probably doesn’t make sense. So of course the cost of borrowing and the growth of policy have to be somewhat in line.
Nate Scott [11:29]:
But it’s not like we’re saying that the whole reason it works is because the cost of borrowing is going to be less than the internal rate of return of the policy. And that’s why we borrow. No, we borrow to achieve things. We use the money to– We build capital in policies and leverage that capital to achieve things. It is nice to know though of course, that the money inside the policy is growing compounded for the rest of our lives without any risk of interruption or anything of that sort.
So, if we were to go back into this scenario, if I was going to use my policy, there’s so many reasons why you might want to use a policy loan as opposed to other source of capital resources, other such of loans, because of the parameters and characteristics of a policy loan being the most free transaction in a borrowing transaction that exists. By free I mean you have the most freedom within it.
Nate Scott [12:17]:
There’s not a whole bunch of rules and regulations about how you can repay when you have to start repaying, and all sorts of things. There’s a lot of benefit to that transaction. But that transaction is independent of the growth of the policy. It’s not reliant on it. They’re totally separate things. Whether or not you should pull money from the policy is independent of whether the policy is growing by more than–
It’s independent of whether the policy is earning more interest. The same type of thing would be the case borrowing against any other asset, as I already mentioned, like if you have a home that has home equity and you’re going to borrow against it, it doesn’t make sense to borrow against the home just because the appreciation is going to be greater than the cost of borrowing. At the end of the day, the appreciation is going to exist in the home the whole time, whether you borrow against it or not. Same thing goes with policy.
Nate Scott [13:04]:
And you borrow against a home to achieve something that you hope is going to have a greater impact than the cost of borrowing. And that’s the exact same thing that’s happening within a policy. And I wanted to pull my own policy up to essentially describe what I’m talking about, maybe in a way that we can all kind of understand with real numbers, really just simply describing where I’m at.
Let me pull this up. So let me pull up my own illustration right now just to kind of describe what I mean when I’m talking about using policies and the arbitrage situation that exists within it, and how it’s not exactly all about arbitrage. So let’s go ahead and dive into this. I pulled this policy up, by the way, in an episode, I don’t know, maybe a month or two ago to discuss how I use it to make investments.
Nate Scott [14:32]:
And I’m going to talk along those lines right now. So this is a policy I’ve had for six years. We’re in year six right now. The year seven premiums coming up here in July, I’m going to put in $30,000. This is one of my twelve policies that I own, and the cash value growth in this policy is going to be from 182 to 223.
So, it’s just a shade under $41,000. So essentially what this means is that come July, I’m going to write a check for $30,000 and the cash value is going to increase this coming year by 41,000. Which, if you can do third grade arithmetic, you can find out that that’s an $11,000 growth within the policy.
Nate Scott [15:14]:
And what I’m trying to bring up is that the reason why we discussed that it’s not about arbitrage. Is that if I was to borrow the max loan, if I was to borrow $223,000. And I’m going to pull up a calculator here on my phone, and if I was to take out a max loan of $223,000.
The interest rate right now is 6%. So it would be approximately about $13,000 of interest. That’s 6% of 223 of interest cost to me to take out a max loan against the policy. But you’ll notice that the growth of the cash value that year was, let’s say, $11,000. So if I was to take a max loan, I technically would have paid a little bit more in interest than what it cost me to borrow.
Nate Scott [15:59]:
And so, just at face value, if you were to come to me and say, “hey, Nate, are you about to borrow from this policy to go blow money at the casino or to go do something because the policy is growing by more than the cost of borrowing”, I would say, “no, that’s not what I’m actually going to do. That’s not the goal here”.
Whether or not I decide to borrow against this cash value. Has nothing to do with whether or not the cost of borrowing is greater than the growth of the policy. It all has to do with when I do make this loan, when I do pull this money out, is it going to achieve objectives for me that are going to produce more value in my life than the cost of borrowing? So it could be like making an investment that’s going to produce more than the cost of borrowing.
Nate Scott [16:47]:
It could be paying off debt that is bad debt, that’s amortized, that I don’t want to deal with right now. Or that’s costing me a lot of money. Or it could be like achieving something. Whether maybe I want to have a strategic loan balance.
Because I’m expecting windfalls. There’s many things I talk about that I don’t have time to talk about now, of why it makes sense to borrow. But the same thing would occur if I had a $200,000 home equity line of credit against my house. I wouldn’t only borrow from my house. As long as the appreciation of the house is greater than the cost of borrowing.
Nate Scott [17:18]:
I would borrow against my house to achieve something that I assume would produce more value to me than the cost of borrowing against the house. And that’s the same type of thinking. There’s nothing magical about this, I would say, after I just beat down the idea of some sort of arbitrage scenario of like, every time you borrow from the policy, you’re going to earn more interest than it’s going to cost you to do whatever it is you’re going to do.
I say all this to say, actually, though, and this is where it gets a little bit fun, actually, because if I use the policy loan to go make an investment or for business purpose, because the interest that you would pay is tax deductible, you can have some arbitrage, not because the policy is growing by more than the loan interest, but because the IRS will give you a tax deduction for paying interest back to the insurance company on a loan you used to fund your business or to make an investment.
Whereas the growth of the policy is all happening tax free, you can actually, there is an arbitrage play, but it has nothing to do with the fact that the interest is greater than the growth rate. It has to do with the fact that the IRS will give you a deduction on the $13,000 of interest I’m about to pay if I use it to make an investment. So let’s keep running the scenario out down the line. Let’s keep going.
Nate Scott [18:35]:
Let’s just say that we’re in year seven, and just to make the numbers easier, and I did this in that previous episode as well, and I’m going to pull out $200,000 of my cash value to go make an investment or something like that. Once again, I use my policy for not just making investments, but yeah, that’s a common thing. I’ll go use it to do–
And that’s going to be a 6% loan from the insurance company at this time. As we talk about right now, approximately 6%, which means $200,000 at 6% means I’m going to have to pay the insurance company $12,000 of interest for the year. The growth of the policy during the course of the year is going to be 182 to 223. And I put in 30 grand, by the way, I put in 30 grand.
Nate Scott [19:23]:
So that means I’m going to make $11,000 of interest profit in the policy. That’s 182 to 223, minus the $30,000 premium that I contribute. Remember, I put in 30, the policy grew by 41. That means I made 11,000 of profit, 11,000 of interest. And what I’m saying is just right off the bat you say? Yeah, twelve bigger than eleven.
I didn’t create some sort of arbitrage scenario, but it is true that I’m in the 40% tax bracket. As far as my federal income tax plus the state income tax based on my income, not everyone’s in that tax bracket. But for me that means that I’m actually only having to pay essentially 60% of that $12,000 of interest that I had to pay to the insurance company.
Nate Scott [20:02]:
It’s only actually costing me 60% of that because I got to save a 40% tax rate. So maybe I’ll just do the math for you on that front. Let’s say I’m going to save 40% in taxes, which is $4,800. So if you do 12,000 minus $4,800, the real cost to borrow wasn’t actually the full twelve, it was actually 7200. So the cost of on a 7200 after tax, the growth of policy is $11,000 tax free. We would say, yeah, I actually was able. And by the way, I’m not here to give tax advice. Please do not think I’m here to give tax advice.
Nate Scott [20:33]:
I’m just saying this is what we’ve been told from the accounts that we’ve worked with. You have to go talk to your own tax advisor. I don’t want to talk to your tax advisor. You can talk to him, to that person yourself. And if they give you the green light to use your policy to make investments and in business and write off the interest, awesome. If they don’t give you the green light, don’t come asking me for my account. I don’t want to get involved in that. I don’t want to be forcing–
Nate Scott [20:59]:
Here’s what I’m trying to bring up. So I was able to create opportunities because I got a tax deduction on the interest I paid, but I didn’t have to get a taxable income on the growth of the policy. But what I’m trying to say is this, even if I wasn’t going to get any deductions on this, I still think it would make sense and here is why.
So, whenever we talk about the fact that the policy growth is not going to just be greater than the loan rate by design and that’s not why we’re borrowing, all of that can be true. Whereas even without the tax deduction I shouldn’t have even brought that up honestly, because I still would think that the policies are a better place to leverage, to go use, to build capital and deploy capital, regardless of the tax deduction.
So, here’s why. So whenever I was able to use this policy to go achieve something in life, I was able to use this policy to go make an investment, and I pulled $200,000 out, and I’m just going to kind of reset. I pulled $200,000 out.
Nate Scott [21:59]:
I had 223,000 in cash value. After I paid this next premium, that was my cash value, and I pulled 200,000 of it out at 6%. That’s going to be $12,000 of interest, as we already said. But here’s the idea.
What if I pulled this money to go make an investment at 12%, and so I pulled $200,000 out, and I’m earning 12%, but I’m paying 6%. That means that I’m going to earn $24,000 of interest during the course of this coming year. And when you’re practicing infinite banking, remember, the policy itself is not the investment. The policy is the capital warehouse.
Nate Scott [22:41]:
And so whenever this investment return comes in, of course, 12,000 of it is going to be used to pay the policy loan interest. But the other 12,000 of it could be used to just repay some towards the principal of the $200,000 policy loan that we took out.
So, this year, I would have paid $12,000 in interest, but I would have made $11,000 in profit. So it’s not really costing me much to borrow the money, you could say. But what I’m saying is that it doesn’t end there. It doesn’t end in one year. The policy continues, the growth of the policy continues, and it keeps compounding. It keeps getting bigger and bigger.
Nate Scott [23:19]:
Whereas the interest on this policy loan that I used to make this investment is going to technically get smaller and smaller, because as the investment proceeds come in, I’m not only paying the interest, but I’m also reducing the principal balance of the loan, of the interest only line of credit for life, the loan balance that exists inside the policy. So you’ll notice the next year we put in a premium of $30,000.
Again, that’s July of 2025. But this year, the cash value grew from 223 to 266. So it’s a little over $43,000 of cash value growth that occurred within the policy. So this year, I’m actually going to make $13,000 of profit this next year. And I have this loan balance still outstanding. But the loan balance is only.
Nate Scott [24:07]:
Now it’s not 200. Now it’s 188. If you can remember, from our math, because I had a $200,000 loan, it produced 24 grand of income because I used it to make an investment. I used twelve grand of it to pay the interest. And I put twelve grand in as principal, which means now I don’t owe 6% interest on $200,000. Now I owe 6% interest on 188,000. And so that’s actually only $11,000 at that point. Approximately, it’s $11,000 of interest owed at that point.
Nate Scott [24:38]:
So now I’m compounding inside the policy while I’m reducing the interest cost over time. And so if you did this for a period of time, if you let the investment pay itself completely back and just funnel money into the policy, the idea is that you’re earning interest on the full amount of cash value at all times, while you’re only, of course, being charged interest for the amount that’s outstanding, even without a tax deduction, because we use it for investment in this case.
I could have used this to go, this $200,000 could be to remodel my own house, because maybe I buy a house to live in for $500,000. I put a whole bunch of work into it, and I put 200 grand of my own cash value into it, and I’m not going to get a deduction. It’s the house I live in. I don’t get a deduction to do home remodels, per se. I mean, by the way, I guess we could work it out if I opened a finance company that offered a mortgage against the house. But I’m not going to go through all that.
Nate Scott [25:36]:
It doesn’t matter. Let’s pretend that I’m not going to go through all of this craziness. I’m just going to borrow the money and fix up the house. Maybe the house is going to be worth 900,000 or a million once all these renovations occur.
What I’m trying to bring up is that even if I was to have done that, as opposed to doing something where I could deduct the interest per se, I have all this capital that, as I repay this policy loan over time, on my own fruition, however I want to, I’m going to create more and more interest income because of the growth of the compounding interest inside the policy, compared to the fact that I’m going to be paying on this policy loan, just like I would have paid if I’d borrowed the money from a bank to do it, or a home equity line of credit to do it, or something like that to make this change.
I’m going to treat my money just like I would treat the bank’s money, and I’m going to pay it down. And as time goes on, I’m going to lower the interest as the principal balance goes down to the policy. So the policy loan interest is going to get less and less as I repay the policy loan, whereas the cash value is going to be compounding, growing by more and more.
Nate Scott [26:42]:
And what I’m saying is, I like being in this environment. The only other solution is just to build up your liquid capital. Really, if you want it to be safe and liquid, you have to use bank accounts. And I’m just simply saying, if you run the numbers, which I didn’t have time to do before this, but if you run the numbers, you can trust me on this. Or you could just not do infinite banking.
But if you run the numbers, even if the loan interest rate is going to be greater than the growth rate internally of the policy, which it normally is, if you build your life where the policies are, your capital warehouse growing tax free for the rest of your life, and being able to have unlimited access to it in the most generous loan line of credit style terms you can create, you’re going to build more wealth than if you built your capital in other safe places.
That would be more like banking instruments, like bank accounts, high yield savings accounts, CDs, or even bond yields, and pay taxes on all the gains and have a net amount. All I’m trying to say is that’s the whole premise of infinite banking.
Nate Scott [27:40]:
The whole premise is that using policies is going to produce, as your capital warehouse, is going to produce better results over time. And it doesn’t have to do with creating some sort of arbitrage between the cost of borrowing and the growth of the policy.
Anybody who’s saying that the growth of the policy is greater than the policy loan rate, and that’s why infinite banking makes sense. And they’re saying that as an agent, I would suggest you say, “thanks for your time, it was good meeting you. Thanks for all the education. But I’ll have to see you later”, because that’s a very deceptive thing to say.
Some people will bring in dividend rates and they’ll say the dividend rate is 6% and the cost of borrowing is only 5.75 right now. So I got bigger dividends.
Nate Scott [28:27]:
That’s nonsense. It’s ignorant, it’s naïve, it’s just not true. Even if, in other words, the dividend rate is not actually indicative of the internal rate of return of a life insurance policy. And so please understand that infinite banking is awesome. It produces real value to real people.
People are using this all the time to create wealth in cool ways. It may not be for everybody, but it’s for quite a few of us, especially the more entrepreneurial and active you are with money, infinite making becomes much more, much more compelling. But the reason we’re doing it is not because it has some sort of magical borrowing scenario where I can just make money every time I borrow.
Nate Scott [29:04]:
And if I borrow a whole bunch, I’ve got some arbitrage. And I know that a lot of people in the universal life market, like index, universal life, IUL policies, they love talking about this. Once again, there’s so much more that’s going on that it’s a very naïve approach to it and it can be dangerous, especially if you’re using IUL policies and expecting arbitrage. You could lose all your money. You might not. You might lose all your money. So I’m just saying there’s more to it than this. Don’t go and just believe infinite banking for what it’s trying to say that it is.
Nate Scott [29:39]:
Don’t go trying to find some sort of quick trick or tip or quick or little reason why it makes sense. It’s such a broad system. It’s a big system with a lot of parts and a lot of characteristics that help it be fleshed out and make sense. That’s why I don’t believe in watching a video and doing some sort of quick sales process to actually get started with infinite banking.
Like if someone told you about it, you got plugged into a quick video with a slick salesman right afterwards that you signed up and he sold you. Oh man, I get nervous about that. It needs to be a longer cycle. It needs to be far more educational.
Nate Scott [30:19]:
By the time you actually sit down and talk to somebody, you should already have a month at least of just investigating and learning about it before you dive in. Don’t dive in because of all these marketing slogans out there in the world of infinite banking, I’ve done enough damage now. I’ve gone far along enough. Thank you guys so much for being here. It’s so awesome to have you here. We love it. Like subscribe, leave us a comment. If you like this content.
Nate Scott [30:45]:
I’d love to have you. I’d love to hear from you. Just in general, it’s so fun to do these and I love that they’re so well received. But it’s time for us to close, this has been Dollars and Nonsense. If you follow the herd, you will be slaughtered.
Also, if you’re looking to get up to speed on what infinite banking really is all about, our free course on infinite banking that you can find at www.livingwealth.com/escapethebank.
The free course that you’ll find there, I really do believe does a better job than pretty much any other course out there at helping people get from a to z on what infinite banking is all about and how it makes sense. By the way, real quick, you’ll never find the word arbitrage inside of that course. So, go enjoy the course. We’ll see you there. Thanks.
