THINKING ABOUT JOINING PRIMERICA? YOU NEED PFSWATCH!
Ross Beaulne
Please visit my site at http://sites.netscape.net/pfswatch
It contains a number of questions you would be well-advised to ask
before you consider "jumping in" to something that you may not
understand completely.
It also contains links to other information resources.
It will be updated regularly with new questions, and I am currently in
the stages of adding other pages to the site with different content.
I think you will find it helpful in making the "right" decision.
Derek Strauss
and active in every town and city?
Brent D. Gardner ChFC
>If Primerica is so "evil" and corrupt, why are they still so prolific
>and active in every town and city?
They aren't prolific and active in every town and city. The opposite of what
you assert is true.
A more important question: Which company has the largest number of former
agents and representatives?
A clue: They have changed their names more than once.
Brent D. Gardner, ChFC
Chartered Financial Consultant
http://www.gardnerfinancialgroup.com/newsgroups.html
Growing old is mandatory. Growing rich is optional.
cal-lester
either "evil" or "corrupt".
It is just that in the past, that some of the "sales tactics"
that they promoted, beginning with
"the coach", were not what most of us considered to be quite
proper.
Their approach "one size fits all" is what bothered most of us.
I for one do not have any
problem with "BTID" for the right client, but not for all.
Cal Lester CLU
--
Sex is hereditary. If your parents never had it,
chances are you won't either.
"Derek Strauss" <Dreami...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8d93ee6a.01061...@posting.google.com...
Bob Thomas
> and active in every town and city?
>
were.
Primerica does serve a purpose. They sell term insurance. Sometimes they
sell mutual funds. Since they stopped selling their own underperforming
mutual funds, some of the funds they sell are quite good.
Buying term and a mutual fund, most likely in a qualified plan, is not a bad
way to go, especially for those with limited means. It isn't the only way
to go, especially for those with less limited funds.
My problem with Primerica, and AFAIK, the problem most of us on the ng have
with it, is it's structure. Inevitably,. the emphasis on recruitment and
the limited training new people get results in poorly trained "agents"
preaching the benefits of BTID and, all too often, misinforming everyone
about the dangers of dealing with the "evil insurance industry".
In short, it is not the traditional insurance industry that claims that
Primerica is "evil". It is Primerica's inadequately informed agents that
claim the traditional insurance industry is "evil". Given that, I'm
surprised that you don't understand why you're resented.
Don't worry so much about the fact that most traditional agents hold you in
contempt. Most of the working people you sell to ARE better off with BTID.
Just lose the misperception that you are the one on the white horse.
bob
LarryStiver
>I don't think they're "evil". I don't even remember anyone saying they
>were.
>
>Primerica does serve a purpose. They sell term insurance.
Although it is VERY VERY expensive term insurance.
Sometimes they
>sell mutual funds. Since they stopped selling their own underperforming
>mutual funds, some of the funds they sell are quite good.
>
>Buying term and a mutual fund, most likely in a qualified plan, is not a bad
>way to go, especially for those with limited means. It isn't the only way
>to go, especially for those with less limited funds.
>
>My problem with Primerica, and AFAIK, the problem most of us on the ng have
>with it, is it's structure. Inevitably,. the emphasis on recruitment and
>the limited training new people get results in poorly trained "agents"
>preaching the benefits of BTID and, all too often, misinforming everyone
>about the dangers of dealing with the "evil insurance industry".
>
>In short, it is not the traditional insurance industry that claims that
>Primerica is "evil". It is Primerica's inadequately informed agents that
>claim the traditional insurance industry is "evil". Given that, I'm
>surprised that you don't understand why you're resented.
>
>Don't worry so much about the fact that most traditional agents hold you in
>contempt. Most of the working people you sell to ARE better off with BTID.
>Just lose the misperception that you are the one on the white horse.
Adding to this...BTID does not work. Nobody does invest the difference.
People who should buy into this concept and often do are not BTID they are BTIS
("S" being something)
BTID would have you believe that you can purchase a block of insurance....and
invest so you are "self insured" in 20 years and no longer need the insurance.
Assume 2% inflation over 20 years (much to low, but I will give it to the
PFSers)
Assume 12% ROR (entirely too high when you consider actual realized ROR vs.
average ROR)
Assume someone purchases $500,000 of life insurance
Assume the term insurance cost is $0
If someone purchased $500,000 today to protect current needs. Inflation would
have that same 500,000 worth over $740,000 in 20 years. That means, when the
Level term for 20 years expires, that you must have no less than $740,000 just
to keep pace with what you wanted to originally protect!!! This of course
assumes your lifestyle hasn't changed in 20 years (reflect back 20years to see
if your financial picture is identical to what it was 20 years ago).
So lets BTID. To get $740,000 in 20 years just invest $751 a month. Do $751
every month no matter how hard it gets, what vacation you want, what college
you choose to send the kids to, or what emergency comes up and you will have
$740,000 and NO MORE LIFE INSURANCE.
Also, just so we are clear $740,000 is gross ROR. Dividends and unrealized
gain (ie 1099 income) on mutual funds will reduce that $740,000 to around
$500,000 if you believe the Wall Street Journel. That $500,000 is now
available only after you pay your capital gains tax. Still not a bad scenario.
Or you could do the evil thing (according to PFS) and purchase permanent
insurance. $751 a month would get you a 500,000 death benefit. If you used a
variable policy and paid all those high insurance costs instead of tax costs of
a mutual fund...you may end up with just over $515,000 after 20 years and STILL
HAVE A LIFE INSURANCE BENEFIT.
So the "Weakest Link" question is would you rather have a smaller pile of money
available to you TAXABLE, or would you rather have a bigger pile of money
available to you with NO TAX CONSEQUENCES?
This opens up another PFS other brilliant saying..."THAT is borrowing your own
money" in order to have access to it with no tax consequences. And they are
100% right. You can pay captial gains of 20% on an investment or use your cash
value as collateral and take a loan against it.
You can choose a loan rate of 5% on your cash value or taxes of 20% or more on
your investments. Take a moment to think about that one which may be the
better deal.
PFS strategies are sound, but are not applicable across the board. Just like
permanent insurance is good in some situations, but is not applicable accross
the board. IMHO PFS tactics are the things that professionals and institution
alike do not care for.
Insurance reps and companies have created their own bad reputations and a small
handfull may still perpetuate it, but PFS teaches its tactics over and over.
That is wrong. One shoe does not fit all and one bad apple does not make all
bad.
Larry
USMCPFS
<>They have changed their names more than once.<>
In 24 years of existence there has been exactly one name change. I know that
YOU know that because the two of us have discussed this at length. I always
wonder why on different boards you pass along information which you know has
been discredited. The company was ALW and became PFS when Primerica (now
Citigroup) became the parent company under Sandy Weill's leadership.
Derek Strauss
questionable recruiting approaches. That and the lack of industry
training that was in by base shop are what bothered me most.
Personnaly, I put very little emphasis on recruiting, and more than
once, I refered a client to a broker/dealer, who I felt had better
products for that situation.
I just made my comment, because I felt that their was alot of bashing
against PFS and their sales people.
In regards to the "prolific" nature of PFS, I seem to recall tht in
the Denver Metro area (including Clorado Springs and Boulder, there
are about 10-12 offices, if memory serves me correctly.
USMCPFS
> Since they stopped selling their own underperforming
mutual funds, some of the funds they sell are quite good.>
Yes, they are. What you do not seem to be aware of is that all of Citigroup
units funds have been rebranded under the Smith Barney name for obvious
reasons. In many of our funds the management has not changed. Same fund, same
manager, same performance.....new name.
PaulMaf
>Date: 6/17/01 9:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010617124855...@ng-fx1.aol.com>
>Yes, they are. What you do not seem to be aware of is that all of Citigroup
>units funds have been rebranded under the Smith Barney name for obvious
>reasons. In many of our funds the management has not changed. Same fund, same
>manager, same performance.....new name.>
Not exactly a correct portrayal of what happened. Not only were all the names
changed to SB funds, but in the process some fiunds were merged with other
funds. and they do not all have the same managers.
The old Common Sense Equity Funds were managed by American Capital out of Texas
for ALW then PFS.
The management of the funds was moved to SB only after Primerica bought The
Travelers and before the merger with CitiCorp.
USMCPFS
>Not exactly a correct portrayal of what happened.>
Yes, it was a correct portrayal of what happened although I did not go into
detail as it did not alter my point.
>Not only were all the names
>changed to SB funds, but in the process some fiunds were merged with other
>funds. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True. Some were. Many were not.
> and they do not all have the same managers.>>>>
Virtually all the funds kept the same manager when rebranded earlier this year.
Which funds changed managers at that time?
>The old Common Sense Equity Funds were managed by American Capital out of
>Texas
>for ALW then PFS.>>>>>>>>>
True. And several years ago American Capital (VanKampen) turned over all
management to Smith Barney.
>The management of the funds was moved to SB only after Primerica bought The
>Travelers and before the merger with CitiCorp.>
True. And when the funds were rebranded earlier this year (which is the topic
of this thread) very little, if anything, changed other than the name. That was
my point. Any changes to the funds or management was done several years ago.
BTW, all Citigroup units were rebranding their funds under the SB name as well.
PaulMaf
>Date: 6/21/01 5:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010621084857...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>Yes, it was a correct portrayal of what happened although I did not go into
>detail as it did not alter my point.
Nonsense!
>>Not only were all the names
>>changed to SB funds, but in the process some fiunds were merged with other
>>funds. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>True. Some were. Many were not.>
ALL, as in every single PFS Fund was merged into one or another existing Smith
Barney Funds. Not a single one of them survived as a sepearate entity. They did
not just have their name changed.
>> and they do not all have the same managers.>>>>>
>Virtually all the funds kept the same manager when rebranded earlier this
>year.
>Which funds changed managers at that time?>
Proving you don't know the history of the PFS funds. Not a single one of the
PFS funds are managed by the original group that managed them.
The common Sense Funds disappeared long before this year.
>>The old Common Sense Equity Funds were managed by American Capital out of
>>Texas
>>for ALW then PFS.>>>>>>>>>
>
>True. And several years ago American Capital (VanKampen) turned over all
>management to Smith Barney.>
Wich is what I said.
>>The management of the funds was moved to SB only after Primerica bought The
>>Travelers and before the merger with CitiCorp.>
>
>True. And when the funds were rebranded earlier this year
The common Sense funds were rebranded several years ago.
> (which is the topic
>of this thread)
The topic of this thread is the PFS (Common Sense Funds), not the Smith Barney
Funds nor the Citicorp Funds.
>very little, if anything, changed other than the name.
When the Common Sense funds disappeared several years ago, a lot changed, which
is my point and hisorically accurate.
> That was my point.
And is was wrong! I will point out again, the original question asked was about
the PFS proprietary funds (The Common Sense Family of funds) so your answer and
point was wrong and misleading in so far as the question asked was concerend.
> Any changes to the funds or management was done several years ago.
>BTW, all Citigroup units were rebranding their funds under the SB name as
>well.>
The question asked had nothing had nothing to do with the Citigroup funds. The
quesrion asked was about the PFS funds. Th only PFS funds were the Common Sense
Funds. They were the only funds PFSers were even allowed to sell.
When they disappeared by being folded into the SB funds several years ago, well
before Citgroup even entered the picture, Licensened PFSers then became able to
sell not only the SB funds but many others.
You obviously do not know the history of your company.
Dakota Slim 2001
with PFS. I wholeheartedly believe in the concept of BTID, but will agree that
concept may not be for everyone. I also did not approve on the major
importance of recruiting. But in all, I did learn about the insurance industry
and running a business. There were some really fantastic people I worked with
and the foundation of business ethics were unsurpassed, but I now believe some
areas of tax benefits and penalties were foreign to me. PFS should educate
their agents more with that.
USMCPFS
>ALL, as in every single PFS Fund was merged into one or another existing Smith
Barney Funds.>>>>>>
Not all funds were merged. The allocation series changed their name but did not
change anything else. I think you are speaking only of the old Common Sense
Trust funds.... not all the funds we were selling at the time these mergers
took place.
>Proving you don't know the history of the PFS funds. Not a single one of the
PFS funds are managed by the original group that managed them.>>>
Paul, I said that at the time of the rebranding very few funds changed
managers. Most did not. Look at last years prospectus and then look at a
current one and you will see in the overwhelming majority of the cases the
manager is the same. The Common Sense funds were started in 1987. The managers
today did not manage them in 1987. I think that is your point. But we are
talking about the recent rebranding of funds. You are wrong if you think the
managers were changed on all funds.
>The common Sense funds were rebranded several years ago.>>>>>
Yes. For example, the Common Sense Trust Growth fund was rebranded the Concert
Investment Series Growth fund and managed by Larry Weissman. This year's
rebranding (the topic at hand) changed the name to Smith Barney Large Cap Core
fund and is STILL managed by Larry Weissman.
>And is was wrong! I will point out again, the original question asked wasabout
the PFS proprietary funds (The Common Sense Family of funds)>>>>>
No, you are wrong. I responded to a statement about the recent rebranding of
funds. I never addressed nor even read a post which named Common Sense Trust
funds as that brand has been changed for years. I only alluded to this
rebranding.
<<<<The quesrion asked was about the PFS funds.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right. This is where you are very confused. The old CST funds were now the CIS
funds. So when someone asks about "PFS" funds you should have replied with info
about CIS not CST.
>They were the only funds PFSers were even allowed to sell.>>>>>>>>
When? We sold the hell out of Pioneer before CST was even formed and continued
to ever since. For the past decade we have been selling AIM, Putnam, Alliance
Capital, MFS, Oppenheimer, Templeton/Franklin, VanKampen (American Capital).
>Licensened PFSers then became able to
sell not only the SB funds but many others. >>>>>>>>>>
You are out of your mind. I've never spent one single day in this company where
I was restricted to selling only CST. When I got here a decade ago my very
first sale was an AIM fund. We owned AC at the time and sold tons of that. FYI,
the changes to CST were brought about because the field force was NOT selling
CST as much as the company would have liked. Changes were made as a result of
field surveys of what it would take to sell more.
>You obviously do not know the history of your company.>>>>>
I like reading your posts generally speaking. But every time you comment on
this company (particularly its history) you post wildly inaccurate information
which is so easily documented. Here you are correct in comments concerning CST
but could not be more wrong in providing info for a question about current PFS
funds (CIS). And to suggest that prior to CIS we were restricted to selling
only CST proves it is you who apparently has no clue as to the history of the
company. Why you try to make believe you do escapes me.
PaulMaf
>Date: 6/25/01 9:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010625122803...@ng-bg1.aol.com>
I know you are trying to save face, but you are sinmply wrong. The original
question dealt solely with the Common Sense Funds.
>Not all funds were merged. The allocation series changed their name but did
not
>change anything else. I think you are speaking only of the old Common Sense
>Trust funds.... not all the funds we were selling at the time these mergers
>took place.
Again, the original question asked dealt solely with the Common Sense funds
and with no otehrs sold before the merger with Citicorp.
>Paul, I said that at the time of the rebranding very few funds changed
>managers.
When the Common Sense Funds were rebranded, the manager was changed to Smith
Barney. And those are the only funds the person asked about.
> Most did not.
Every single one of the Common Sense Fund managers were changed.
> Look at last years prospectus
Wjhy should I look at last year's propectus, the Common Sense funds did not
exist last year.
> and then look at a current one and you will see in the overwhelming majority
of the cases the manager is the same.
A current prospectus as well as last yeart's have nothing to do with the Common
Sense Funds.
> The Common Sense funds were started in 1987. The managers
>today did not manage them in 1987.
Well Duh! What do you think I have been telling you?
> I think that is your point. But we are
>talking about the recent rebranding of funds.
The question asked dealt solely with the common Sense Funds. Not even a hoint
was made to the recent rebranding. Onoly YOU referred to that, whichn is why I
corrected you.
Since the original question dealth solely with the Common Sense funds, talking
about the recent rebranding was misleading and nonsense.
> You are wrong if you think the
>managers were changed on all funds.
All the managers of the common Sense funds changed long before the recent
rebranding, which has nothig to do with the question asked.
>>The common Sense funds were rebranded several years ago.>>>>>>
>Yes. For example, the Common Sense Trust Growth fund was rebranded the
>Concert
>Investment Series Growth fund and managed by Larry Weissman. This year's
>rebranding (the topic at hand) changed the name to Smith Barney Large Cap
>Core
>fund and is STILL managed by Larry Weissman.
Yawn! This year's rebranding WAS NOT THE TOPIC AT HAND. The question asked
dealt solel with the common Sense funds.
You changed th subject from the question asked to the recent rebranding.
>>And is was wrong! I will point out again, the original question asked
>wasabout
>the PFS proprietary funds (The Common Sense Family of funds)>>>>>
>No, you are wrong. I responded to a statement about the recent rebranding of
>funds.
No you weren't. The question asked was about the common Sense Funds, not the
recent rebranding. You respopnded by talking about the recent rebranding which
had nothing to do with th question asked.
> I never addressed nor even read a post which named Common Sense Trust
>funds as that brand has been changed for years. I only alluded to this
>rebranding.
I know you only alluded to the recent rebranding. What do you thing I have been
talking about?
><<<<The quesrion asked was about the PFS funds.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Right. This is where you are very confused. The old CST funds were now the
>CIS
>funds. So when someone asks about "PFS" funds you should have replied with
>info
>about CIS not CST.>
AAAARGH! But that is not responsive to the qurestion. YOU SHOULD HAVE MERELY
SAID THE THOSE OLD FUNDS (which was the term used by the person who asked the
question) are now known as the The CIS Funds.
>>They were the only funds PFSers were even allowed to sell.>>>>>>>>>
>When? We sold the hell out of Pioneer before CST was even formed and
>continued
>to ever since. For the past decade we have been selling AIM, Putnam, Alliance
>Capital, MFS, Oppenheimer, Templeton/Franklin, VanKampen (American Capital).>
>>Licensened PFSers then became able to
>sell not only the SB funds but many others. >>>>>>>>>>
>
>You are out of your mind. I've never spent one single day in this company
>where
>I was restricted to selling only CST. When I got here a decade ago my very
>first sale was an AIM fund. We owned AC at the time and sold tons of that.
>FYI,
>the changes to CST were brought about because the field force was NOT selling
>CST as much as the company would have liked. Changes were made as a result of
>field surveys of what it would take to sell more.
>
>>You obviously do not know the history of your company.>>>>>
>
>I like reading your posts generally speaking. But every time you comment on
>this company (particularly its history) you post wildly inaccurate
>information
>which is so easily documented. Here you are correct in comments concerning
>CST
>but could not be more wrong in providing info for a question about current
>PFS
>funds (CIS).
I neve tried to make a single comment about the CIS Funds since that was not
perttinent to the question asked. And I stand corrected about the fact that
PFSers were selling a limited number of other funds besides Common sense.
> And to suggest that prior to CIS we were restricted to selling
>only CST proves it is you who apparently has no clue as to the history of the
>company. Why you try to make believe you do escapes me.>
Aside from mistakenly saying that CS were the only funds PFSers sold, name one
historical fact about the Company I got wrong.
Every statement I have ever made about PFS history comes from documented
articles about the company.
USMCPFS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The top quote is the EXACT statement I responded to.
The second quote is my EXACT response.
You will clearly see I AGREED with him and then suggested that he may not be
aware of the rebranding and I pointed out that very little changes were made.
This statement is 100% accurate and you know it is.
You came back with some response about how I was not entirely accurate and
introduced some history. I agreed with most of your history ( you were wrong
about fund availability....which was no minor point) and said so publicly. But
it does not alter one bit the accuracy of my statement. You seem to be alluding
to some previous posters comment about "old funds". I have clearly shown what
I was responding to by posting that EXACT quote.
USMCPFS
>I know you are trying to save face, but you are sinmply wrong.>>>>>>>>>
No need to save face. You are simply wrong. This discussion (argument) stems
from your response to MY comment about the recent rebranding of funds. You came
back with how my "portrayal" was not entirely accurate. I proved how it was
accurate. At no point was CST ever mentioned until you got into the history
discussion. My very original point was that very little, if anything, changed
with the rebranding and you know I am correct. Your argument that the
management today is different from the old CST funds is valid but irrevelent to
my original statement which you attempted to correct.
>The original question dealt solely with the Common Sense Funds.>>>>
CST was never brought up until you brought up the history. Again, my original
comment, which you erroneously attempted to correct, dealt with the rebranding
of the funds this year and exactly what changes took place. You apparently were
not aware of this rebranding and took my comments as referring to CST when in
fact I was referring to CIS.
>Again, the original question asked dealt solely with the Common Sense funds
>and with no otehrs sold before the>>>
Paul, you are losing it. You responded to my comment and you were wrong. I
never mentioned CST because they did not exist.
>When the Common Sense Funds were rebranded, the manager was changed to Smith
>Barney. And those are the only funds the person asked about.>>>
You responded to MY comment about the rebranding and I never mentioned CST.
They did not exist. I stated that very little, if anything, changed with the
rebranding this year. CIS funds were renamed Smith Barney funds but the
managers stayed the same. Just look it up.
>Every single one of the Common Sense Fund managers were changed.>>
Agreed. But CST ceased to exist several years ago. You were not aware that they
became the CIS funds at that time. The topic at hand, this years rebranding,
changed the name to SB.
>Wjhy should I look at last year's propectus, the Common Sense funds did not
exist last year.>>>
Finally. Which is the proof that my original comment was accurate.
<<A current prospectus as well as last yeart's have nothing to do with the
Common
Sense Funds.>>>>>>>>
Exactly.
<<Well Duh! What do you think I have been telling you?>>>
It's true but irrelevant to the discussion. This rebranding did not change
managers. Look it up.
>Onoly YOU referred to that, whichn is why Icorrected you.>>>>>
Exactly. I made a comment about what changed with the rebranding which was
entirely accurate. You attempted to correct that with information about
something I never even commented on. I have acknowledged repeatedly that CST
management has changed but because you apparently do not understand what
happened with CIS and SB we are having this discussion.
The bottom line is this. The funds were known as CIS for several years now.
This year they were rebranded. Now they are SB. Very little has changed.
PaulMaf
>Date: 6/28/01 8:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010628112743...@ng-fq1.aol.com>
I said:
>>I know you are trying to save face, but you are sinmply wrong.>>>>>>>>>
>
>No need to save face. You are simply wrong. This discussion (argument) stems
>from your response to MY comment about the recent rebranding of funds. You
>came
>back with how my "portrayal" was not entirely accurate. I proved how it was
>accurate. At no point was CST ever mentioned until you got into the history
>discussion.
Here is the original statement which you so kindly posted.
">> Since they stopped selling their own underperforming mutual funds, some of
the funds they sell are quite good.>>>>>>>
The only funds that can possible fill the dfined statement of, "... their own
underpeforming mutual funds ... ." (actually a couple of their bond funds did
very well, better than their equity funds) were the Common Sense Funds. Neither
the Citi Funds nor the Smith Barney Funds couold possibly fit that given
defintion.
> My very original point was that very little, if anything, changed
>with the rebranding and you know I am correct. Your argument that the
>management today is different from the old CST funds is valid but irrevelent
>to
>my original statement which you attempted to correct. >
But your response was irrelevent to the person's original comment since it had
absolutly nothing to do with the rebranding of funds this past year or so..
>>The original question dealt solely with the Common Sense Funds.>>>>>
>CST was never brought up until you brought up the history. Again, my original
>comment, which you erroneously attempted to correct, dealt with the
>rebranding
>of the funds this year and exactly what changes took place. You apparently
>were
>not aware of this rebranding and took my comments as referring to CST when in
>fact I was referring to CIS. >
Read the original statment again and again until you understand it. It does not
refer to rebrading in any shape, manner or form. It dealt with PFS own funds
and the only funds "of its own" that PFS sold were the Common Sense funds..
>>Again, the original question asked dealt solely with the Common Sense funds
>>and with no otehrs sold before the>>>
>
>Paul, you are losing it. You responded to my comment and you were wrong. I
>never mentioned CST because they did not exist. >
I agree you never mentioned the CS funds, biut those were the funds referred to
since only they fit the description of PFS's own funds.
>>When the Common Sense Funds were rebranded, the manager was changed to Smith
>>Barney. And those are the only funds the person asked about.>>>
>
>You responded to MY comment about the rebranding and I never mentioned CST.
>They did not exist. I stated that very little, if anything, changed with the
>rebranding this year. CIS funds were renamed Smith Barney funds but the
>managers stayed the same. Just look it up.>
>>Every single one of the Common Sense Fund managers were changed.>>
>
>Agreed. But CST ceased to exist several years ago. You were not aware that
>they
>became the CIS funds at that time.
That is now twice you have made the erroneous statement that I was not aware
that CS became CIS. And you disd so based on no facts presented in any of my
notes.
> The topic at hand, this years rebranding,
>changed the name to SB. >
It was not the topic at hand unless you want to stretch the defintion of PFS's
"own funds" to include both smith Barney funds and Citi funds.
>>Wjhy should I look at last year's propectus, the Common Sense funds did not
>exist last year.>>>
>Finally. Which is the proof that my original comment was accurate.>
Actually it proves just the opposite. The only "own funds" PFS ever sold were
the Common Sense Funds. Your comments had nothing to do with them. You were,
therefore, by defintion, not responsive to the person's comments.
><<A current prospectus as well as last yeart's have nothing to do with the
>Common
>Sense Funds.>>>>>>>>
>
>Exactly.
>
><<Well Duh! What do you think I have been telling you?>>>
>
>It's true but irrelevant to the discussion. This rebranding did not change
>managers. Look it up.>
>>Only YOU referred to that, which is why I corrected you.>>>>>
>
>Exactly. I made a comment about what changed with the rebranding which was
>entirely accurate.
Which had nothing to do with the original comment which had nothing to do with
the recent rebranding.
> You attempted to correct that with information about
>something I never even commented on. I have acknowledged repeatedly that CST
>management has changed but because you apparently do not understand what
>happened with CIS and SB we are having this discussion.
Believe me, I am far more aware about what happened with the CIS and SB funds
than you are.>
>The bottom line is this. The funds were known as CIS for several years now.
>This year they were rebranded. Now they are SB. Very little has changed.>
Yawn!!
PaulMaf
>Date: 6/28/01 8:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010628114201...@ng-fq1.aol.com>
>>> Since they stopped selling their own underperforming mutual funds, some of
>the funds they sell are quite good.>>>>>>>
The ONLY FUNDS OF THEIR OWN WHICH PFS SOLD WERE THE COMMON SENSE FUNDS.
The Citi Group Funds and the Smith Barney Funds WERE NOT EVER CONSIDERED PFS's
own funds. Only the Common Sense Funds fit that bill.
Obviously you were not responsive, as accurate as you may have been about the
last year's history.
USMCPFS
>Obviously you were not responsive, as accurate as you may have been about the
last year's history.>>>>>>
That's what I was looking for....your admission that my statement was accurate.
I have previously stated that Bob's statement was true AND that your
statements concerning CST were true. I did not need to be any more responsive
to Bob than I was....which was my acknowledgement of his statement. I offered
my own information as to the current status of the funds we offer. It was 100%
accurate and clearly made my point.
USMCPFS
>But your response was irrelevent to the person's original comment since it
had
absolutly nothing to do with the rebranding of funds this past year or so..>>>
I agreed with the posters statement. There can be no argument. I then
introduced my own comment. YOU began your bickering at that point. Bob's
comment is correct. My comment is correct. You are wrong.
>Believe me, I am far more aware about what happened with the CIS and SB funds
>than you are.>>>>>>>>>
You do not appear to be.
<Yawn>
Agreed.
Derek Strauss
confirming it for me guys.
JT
information about Primerica. I have been very skeptical of Primerica
since I first had contact with them. But I am a skeptical person by
nature, and have never trusted any insurance salesman.
At any rate, I just wanted to inform anybody who visits your site, and
who reads this message, that one of the links on your web page leads
to a message board that also uses deceptive practices.
The board in question is Ken Young's Primerica-ALW-Citigroup Message
Board at http://members.boardhost.com/kenyoung4/, I have discovered a
secret about that board. The secret is the board administrator (Mark),
makes up some of the posts to look like they are anti-Primerica posts
from other people.
I have resisted the Primerica recruiting scam for 5 years now. I have
read a lot of bad things about them, and for the most part I believe
it. There are still some things that I am not sure who to believe,
Primaerica or their foes. I have always been skeptical of Primerica,
and still am. When I discovered the above message board, I was happy
that I finally found a place where the "truths" about Primerica were
finally laid on the table. I was glad to find a site that supposedley
was "looking out for the interests of the consumer" and championing
their rights. I read every post with great interest.
About 3 or 4 days ago, a post was made by an individual that I guess
was somewhat pro-Primerica. A few hours later I went back and re-read
the post and found out the wording was changed dramatically, and now
it was heavily anti-Primerica (or more specifically A.L. Williams). I
was confused at how that could be. I didn't give it a lot of thought
and read some more posts. A few hours later, I decided to look at it
again and discovered while all other posts listed the IP address of
the poster, this particular post said "Message modified by board
administrator" instead. That made me wonder if the adminstrator (Mark)
hadn't changed it to an anti-Primerica post.
Yesterday I posted an open question about what "Message modified by
board administrator" meant. I hoped that Mark would respond and
explain what kind of "modifications" he was doing to these posts. My
post (question) was deleted. There was another post (no subject) made
on the board in which a person (Scott) had replied to supposedley tell
how much he really earns with Primerica. His earnings were really low
(something like $120/month). However, I also noticed his reply said
"Message modified by board administrator". So again, I added my
question to Mark in that thread; what modfications did he make to
Scott's post? I guessed when Mark read my post, he would delete it and
ban me from making any further posts on the board. This morning I
checked the board, and sure enough my post had been deleted and I was
banned from making any more posts.
Now, for those who frequent that board doesn't that make you wonder
about the validity of the posts there? I can understand that they
don't want PFS agents coming on there and filling the board with
pro-Primerica hype. But why do they want to mislead people who read
the board into thinking there are people who are saying anti-Primerica
things, when in fact these "people" are really Mark saying what he
wants you to hear. Once again, I am disappointed that this site really
isn't looking after the consumers best interests at all, but merely
presenting the "other side" in a deceptive manner. Now you can argue
that Primerica deceives people all the time, and Mark is simply giving
them some of their own medicine. That would be fine if Mark was open
and honest about it. But to lie to make Primerica look bad, doesn't
make him any better the PFS and reflects poorly on his integrity and
credibility. Is Mark and Ken's lies more righteous then Primerica's?
If so, does this make them better? Does the ends justify the means?
Two wrongs do not make a right.
I guess it's true what they say, insurance salesmen are on the same
level as used car salesmen. They are all just looking after number
one, and the consumer gets screwed whoever they talk to. I wish I
could find a true "neutral" site where someone evaluated Primerica
against other companies. Until then, I guess in my mind the jury will
still be out on some things.
Since I originally discovered and exposed this "secret", the
administrator (Mark) has publicly admitted that he did engage in
modifying posts. His contention is that since PFS people and their
supporters are no allowed to post on the board, he has the right to do
whatever he wants with their posts. So, if he thinks you are
supporting PFS in any way, he can modify your post to replace your
words with his. Yet, your name and possibly e-mail address will
appear as the writer of those words! To me this is unethical.
Just a warning to anyone that visits this link. It is good to get
another viewpoint of PFS. HOWEVER, keep in mind that they put their
spin on things. So if you want an unbiased view of things, that
message board isn't where you will find them
If anyone knows of a "neutral" site that addresses PFS without any
spin from either side, I would love to know what the link is.
On 28 May 2001 16:10:02 -0700, pfsw...@netscape.net (Ross Beaulne)
wrote:
David M. Dunn
and leave the thread alone.
David
"USMCPFS" <usm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010702105154...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
bskversky
that was over three weeks old.
"David M. Dunn" <dave...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:eyP77.19949$gj1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...