Gyroscopic Investing

I'm planning to send the following letter to financial journalists whose email addresses I have been given. Please criticize it so I can improve it.
This also includes going to the website mentioned in the letter and analyzing it.
Thanks!

----------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr./Ms. xxx,

As a reporter and writer in personal finance, you may have received questions from readers about the potential loss of up to half of their Social
Security benefits after the death of a spouse. I lead a team that has developed a solution to this problem, described below.

---------------------------------
Problem: The loss of Social Security benefits to a surviving spouse when one spouse dies

“Most elderly beneficiaries rely on Social Security for the majority of their income.” ("Fact #7" from
http://www.cbpp.org/research/social-sec ... l-security).

For most retired married couples, both spouses receive Social Security benefits, whether from their own work record or partly as a spousal benefit.
However, most such couples have no protection against the early death of a spouse, which leaves the survivor with only the larger Social Security
benefit, while the smaller one is lost.

This is no small issue among the Baby Boomer generation. The projected average total monthly Social Security benefit for married Baby Boomers is
approximately $3,100, falling to about $1,800 after the first spouse dies.*

Baby Boomers already know that this is a problem. AARP survey data indicate that 55% of their respondents consider maximizing the amount of money that their spouse receives after their death a "very important" factor in making Social Security claiming decisions (from Chart 2 in
http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/re ... s-econ.pdf).


Solution:

For married Social Security recipients in reasonably good health, buying term life insurance can mitigate this potential drop in income. The basic
idea is that if one spouse dies within the term of insurance, the survivor can use the life insurance death benefit to replace the lost income,
whether the survivor takes the death benefit as cash or as a life annuity. Of course if both spouses survive the term of the insurance, then there
will be no death benefit, but in that case both Social Security benefits have been received during the term of the insurance, so the loss of income
has still been avoided.

We have developed a simple calculator to show how many years of the smaller benefit can be replaced with a $100,000 death benefit, and what the total premium for a 10-year term policy would be, assuming a somewhat better than average health status; obviously the actual premium could be larger or smaller, depending on underwriting by the life insurance company.**

The web page with the calculator is www.ssb-lock.com
---------------------------------
*Note: I have not been able to find a direct source for these numbers, so I have estimated them from data taken from an article entitled
"The Impact of Changes in Couples' Earnings on Married Women's Social Security Benefits"
(https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v72 ... tml#chart6) by the following procedure:
1. Averaging the "husband alive" amount from the "leading and trailing boomers" column to estimate the woman's benefit;
2. Averaging the "husband deceased" amount from the "leading and trailing boomers" column to estimate the man's benefit;
3. Adding these two estimates to estimate the total benefit for both while alive.
I'm sure these are not exactly right but they should be reasonable approximations.

**In the case of the average couple above, assuming that they are both age 64, the calculator would show an estimated total premium (for two $100,000 10-year term policies) of $145/month and that the death benefit of $100,000 would pay for 6.4 years of the second Social Security benefit.
------------
Steve Heller

Looks like a marketing gimmick for selling term life insurance to a select group of older Americans to me.

curlew wrote:Looks like a marketing gimmick for selling term life insurance to a select group of older Americans to me.

Yes, that's what it is. So the question is how it would do at that task...

Libertarian666 wrote:

curlew wrote:Looks like a marketing gimmick for selling term life insurance to a select group of older Americans to me.

Yes, that's what it is. So the question is how it would do at that task...

I guess you'll just have to try it and see. Being in the target age group I think I'm pretty good at recognizing marketing gimmicks but I have no idea how to make them work. Not my area of expertise at all.

If I was one of the journalists you are sending your email to I would think you were looking for free advertising of your product (which you are) and I doubt I would give it much of a look unless I thought it was a really good idea.

Not trying to discourage you but you asked for criticism so that's mine.

curlew wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

curlew wrote:Looks like a marketing gimmick for selling term life insurance to a select group of older Americans to me.

Yes, that's what it is. So the question is how it would do at that task...

I guess you'll just have to try it and see. Being in the target age group I think I'm pretty good at recognizing marketing gimmicks but I have no idea how to make them work. Not my area of expertise at all.

If I was one of the journalists you are sending your email to I would think you were looking for free advertising of your product (which you are) and I doubt I would give it much of a look unless I thought it was a really good idea.

Not trying to discourage you but you asked for criticism so that's mine.

Absolutely.

But do you see that it is a real problem that I'm addressing? That's what I'm trying to get across. It's not just a marketing gimmick.

Libertarian666 wrote:

curlew wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: Absolutely.

But do you see that it is a real problem that I'm addressing? That's what I'm trying to get across. It's not just a marketing gimmick.

I get the problem you're addressing but it doesn't seem to apply very much to our situation. My wife and I are at a point where SS will account for about half of our income but the half that is not social security is our million dollar (permanent) portfolio. So I can't really see the point of life insurance in our case. If I die, I'm not really going to feel bad leaving my wife to live on my SS (close to the max @$3400 BTW), plus our million dollar portfolio. She's a smart woman and I'm sure she'll do fine.

Seems to me your target group is those with a smaller nest egg and a smaller SS check than ours. That's probably a pretty big number but I have no idea how big, or if your marketing idea will appeal to them and they'll be willing to spend the money for the insurance.

curlew wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

curlew wrote:

I get the problem you're addressing but it doesn't seem to apply very much to our situation. My wife and I are at a point where SS will account for about half of our income but the half that is not social security is our million dollar (permanent) portfolio. So I can't really see the point of life insurance in our case. If I die, I'm not really going to feel bad leaving my wife to live on my SS (close to the max @$3400 BTW), plus our million dollar portfolio. She's a smart woman and I'm sure she'll do fine.

Seems to me your target group is those with a smaller nest egg and a smaller SS check than ours. That's probably a pretty big number but I have no idea how big, or if your marketing idea will appeal to them and they'll be willing to spend the money for the insurance.

You have done well for yourself, but you are far from representative. Most baby boomers have almost nothing in savings, and they are the ones who really need this.

I have a fair amount of savings too, but my SS is a lot less than yours, so I'm in the target audience. In fact, I bought the insurance a couple of years ago before I worked out that this was a big problem for many people.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback.

Thanks for your comments.

TennPaGa wrote:From my standpoint, the letter was too long -- I got bored/lost. My advice:

* Describe the problem briefly. IMO, would help if you could reference someone else's article on the problem. For example, "Bill Jones in the Journal-gazette discussed..." But again, briefly.

I have never seen an article that discusses the problem as a problem, which is probably why no one before me seems to have figured out a solution. The fact that the second benefit stops is well known, but not that this is a problem, much less a big problem.

TennPaGa wrote: * Describe the solution, briefly.

The description of the solution is one paragraph. I don't think I can make it much shorter.

TennPaGa wrote: * Describe the tool, and how it helps solve the problem.

The description of the tool is one sentence. I don't think I can make it much shorter.

TennPaGa wrote: * Make a request of the letter recipient. What do you want him/her to do?

The person who gave me the list of journalists did not want me to specify that. His thinking seems to have been that they will know that I want them to tell people about it, and asking would be overstepping the bounds. I'm going to honor his wishes even though his name is not connected with this project, because he is the marketing expert and he is the one who gave me the names.

TennPaGa wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:Thanks for your comments.

TennPaGa wrote:From my standpoint, the letter was too long -- I got bored/lost. My advice:

* Describe the problem briefly. IMO, would help if you could reference someone else's article on the problem. For example, "Bill Jones in the Journal-gazette discussed..." But again, briefly.

I have never seen an article that discusses the problem as a problem, which is probably why no one before me seems to have figured out a solution. The fact that the second benefit stops is well known, but not that this is a problem, much less a big problem.

It is curious to me that it is not recognized as a problem. Surely people understand that if you have two income streams, and one goes away, making ends meet will be harder.

Maybe it is related to something curlew mentioned: If you are the sort of person who is savvy enough to know that term life insurance helps mitigate this risk, then you are likely savvy enough that you don't rely exclusively on social security income in retirement, and so you are not interested in purchasing such insurance.

Ok, but that doesn't explain why life insurance agents don't know it. And they don't, or they would use it to sell term insurance to Baby Boomers.

Maybe it is true that the people who need it the most won't buy it because their budgets are already strained to the limit without buying it. But even if you have other assets, unless you have a tremendous amount of money you still need it because the value of that second benefit is hundreds of thousands of dollars. How many people can ignore the possible loss of such a large amount of money? Not very many.

The only explanation I can come up with is that the only reason this is feasible is that life insurance rates are so low. If they were three times what they are, it wouldn't be affordable. And those rates have come down a lot in recent years, so maybe people are just not accustomed to how cheap term is these days.

Libertarian666 wrote:

TennPaGa wrote: * Make a request of the letter recipient. What do you want him/her to do?

The person who gave me the list of journalists did not want me to specify that. His thinking seems to have been that they will know that I want them to tell people about it, and asking would be overstepping the bounds. I'm going to honor his wishes even though his name is not connected with this project, because he is the marketing expert and he is the one who gave me the names.

TennPaGa wrote: Fair enough. I'd still think you'd want to ask for something, but I'm definitely *not* an expert in such things.

So $174 a month to get about 6 years of $833.333 worth of payments per month? So about $12.5K total cost to get $100K of total benefits? That seems like a good deal except for the term length which should be more like 15-30 years at least. And why restrict it to 62-70 only? There's other situations where covering a loss of SS income would be helpful. Think three generation households.

MachineGhost wrote:So $174 a month to get about 6 years of $833.333 worth of payments per month? So about $12.5K total cost to get $100K of total benefits? That seems like a good deal except for the term length which should be more like 15-30 years at least. And why restrict it to 62-70 only? There's other situations where covering a loss of SS income would be helpful. Think three generation households.

Thanks for the comments!

The maximum length that Prudential will sell is 20 years if you are over 55.

I think in that example the total maximum cost is about $21k ($174 * 12 * 10 = $20,880), but of course if one of the spouses dies during the term the total would be lower because they wouldn't have to pay the premium during the whole term.

Did you actually fill out the form on the website (www.ssb-lock.com) for your (or a simulated) situation and supply a (real or fake) email address? If so, I should have gotten an email with the form contents, but I haven't seen it.

And a longer term would often be better, but I'm trying to do the following:
1. Keep the costs down to as low a level as possible, to maximize the potential audience;
2. Keep the form as simple as possible, to avoid confusing the audience.

As for the age range, this is the optimal range for the simplest case because if they buy the insurance too early they "waste" a lot of the protection by having the term end earlier.

Actually most people really need more than $100k as well, but again I'm trying to avoid scaring potential customers with the cost, which will also vary depending on their insurance ratings.

When someone contacts me, I plan to run my "retirement optimizer" and tell them how much insurance they actually need and for how long. The retirement optimizer also solves for the optimal longevity annuity to cover the remainder of the survivor's lifespan after the insurance expires.

(If anyone wants to try the retirement optimizer, I can make it available on the web. Just message me and I'll send you the login credentials.)

BTW, I'm licensed to sell life insurance and fixed annuities in AZ, CA, FL, MI, NY, OH, PA, and TX. So if anyone here lives in one of those states and is interested in either of these types of products, please message me.

I have to say I agree with others that it's too long, too technical, and worded to sounds kind of scammy and disreputable, even when it isn't. If you're proud of your product, you don't have to hide behind weasel words and false excitement; just honestly and concisely describe the problem your product or service solves. How about this:

"If you died before your spouse, she would be left with only one Social Security benefit, potentially cutting her retirement income nearly in half. You can prevent this! We offer an inexpensive term life insurance policy sufficient to replace this lost income at minimal upfront cost. We anonymously analyze your financial situation and can provide a policy that meets your needs. Click here for details."

- Shorter; simply describes the problem to be solved in plain language
- Written from a male perspective; that's more of the target audience anyway since men are more likely to both think about this sort of thing and more likely to die before their wives
- The product is the service of providing this life insurance, not the analysis program

Pointedstick wrote:I have to say I agree with others that it's too long, too technical, and worded to sounds kind of scammy and disreputable, even when it isn't. If you're proud of your product, you don't have to hide behind weasel words and false excitement; just honestly and concisely describe the problem your product or service solves. How about this:

"If you died before your spouse, she would be left with only one Social Security benefit, potentially cutting her retirement income nearly in half. You can prevent this! We offer an inexpensive term life insurance policy sufficient to replace this lost income at minimal upfront cost. We anonymously analyze your financial situation and can provide a policy that meets your needs. Click here for details."

- Shorter; simply describes the problem to be solved in plain language
- Written from a male perspective; that's more of the target audience anyway since men are more likely to both think about this sort of thing and more likely to die before their wives
- The product is the service of providing this life insurance, not the analysis program

Are you referring to the text on the website, or the email? They are not intended for the same audience...

And if you are referring to the text on the website, exactly where should your suggested text go?

I guess my re-writing isn't suitable for an email to journalists. But the same principles apply:
- Why should you pay attention to me?
- Why should you be interested in what I'm saying?
- Is this interesting enough to be actionable for you?
- Is it good enough to seal the deal and get you to publish something about it?

What does Joe Journalist have to gain by giving you free publicity about your term life insurance sales program?

I'm not sure I would go to financial journalists about this. If I imagine myself as a journalist and your email hits my inbox, it's hard to think what I get out of it. I'm busy, I need good stories, and I want credibility. Your email is long and isn't anything I can copy and paste as a story, so you're not saving me time; you're reducing it. It's hard for me to see how this results in a good story unless I make one up or do an interview (again more of my time on the line). Stories involve specific people; what you've sent me is about systems, products, and abstract hypothetical people. And if I basically give you free publicity for your new product, that might actually impair my credibility, since I could be seen as a funnel for advertisements rather than a respected journalist.

If I were you, I'd try to put my message directly where the right eyeballs are gonna be. Do poor baby boomers even read the kinds of publications that have financial journalists? I'd expect all of those to have enough retirement funds that your service wouldn't be attractive. Where do poor baby boomers hang out? I'm not sure. Maybe place an ad in the AARP magazine or something?

Pointedstick wrote:I guess my re-writing isn't suitable for an email to journalists. But the same principles apply:
- Why should you pay attention to me?
- Why should you be interested in what I'm saying?
- Is this interesting enough to be actionable for you?
- Is it good enough to seal the deal and get you to publish something about it?

What does Joe Journalist have to gain by giving you free publicity about your term life insurance sales program?

I'm not sure I would go to financial journalists about this. If I imagine myself as a journalist and your email hits my inbox, it's hard to think what I get out of it. I'm busy, I need good stories, and I want credibility. Your email is long and isn't anything I can copy and paste as a story, so you're not saving me time; you're reducing it. It's hard for me to see how this results in a good story unless I make one up or do an interview (again more of my time on the line). Stories involve specific people; what you've sent me is about systems, products, and abstract hypothetical people. And if I basically give you free publicity for your new product, that might actually impair my credibility, since I could be seen as a funnel for advertisements rather than a respected journalist.

If I were you, I'd try to put my message directly where the right eyeballs are gonna be. Do poor baby boomers even read the kinds of publications that have financial journalists? I'd expect all of those to have enough retirement funds that your service wouldn't be attractive. Where do poor baby boomers hang out? I'm not sure. Maybe place an ad in the AARP magazine or something?

Why would Joe Journalist write about this? Well, perhaps because it is an enormous problem that no one else is addressing at all.

See, that's the point I'm trying to make. There is an enormous problem with the retirement of Baby Boomers, and while this doesn't solve the problem entirely, it is a step in the right direction, for married ones anyway.

And as for how it helps the journalist, all he or she has to do is write a story that says "Here's a problem that no one else is addressing, and I'm telling you about a website where there is a way to do something about it. Go there and see for yourself."

As for where to put an ad, I've already considered AARP, but they already sell (terribly overpriced) life insurance, so I'm not sure they are a good venue.

And very few Baby Boomers have enough assets to make this unattractive; even with a low 7 figure portfolio, it is a really bad idea to leave an asset worth a good fraction of a million dollars uninsured, and most BBs don't have anywhere near that much money. The median net worth of households headed by a 55- to 64-year-old is about $200K, and most of that is home equity. They have about $50K in investible assets, and that second SS benefit is worth at least a couple of hundred grand.

Of course you may very well be right that I will get nothing out of the email(s), but it is the only way I can try to get some publicity without spending a lot more money on something that may not pan out at all, so I don't really see a downside.

MangoMan wrote:Perhaps the thinking among retirees is that once one of them dies, total expenses will go down [although obviously not by 50%], and if they are already barely getting by on SS, adding the cost of life insurance becomes a burden financially.

That may not actually be true, but it may be how people think. Some folks can't even afford the meds they are prescribed.

Yes, it may be how most people think. But some people clearly have enough money to do it, and could use the protection, so I don't think that is the reason that this is not used to sell life insurance.

In any event, I'm going to try to get some traction for this idea. I'll post here when I have some feedback, whether positive or negative.

Libertarian666 wrote:I think in that example the total maximum cost is about $21k ($174 * 12 * 10 = $20,880), but of course if one of the spouses dies during the term the total would be lower because they wouldn't have to pay the premium during the whole term.

So this is dual coverage for both spouses? I didn't know that existed and it wasn't mentioned anywhere. That's an extremely important benefit that should be highlighted.

Did you actually fill out the form on the website (http://www.ssb-lock.com) for your (or a simulated) situation and supply a (real or fake) email address? If so, I should have gotten an email with the form contents, but I haven't seen it.

I did several times but I've received no e-mails. Not sure If I put in my email; but probably not as I don't want spam.

As for the age range, this is the optimal range for the simplest case because if they buy the insurance too early they "waste" a lot of the protection by having the term end earlier.

Actually most people really need more than $100k as well, but again I'm trying to avoid scaring potential customers with the cost, which will also vary depending on their insurance ratings.

Okay well, the non-purchaser ought to not have a narrow age limit unless you're just specifically marketing this to old couples worried about losing SS benefits if either one (as opposed to just the larger SS earner, usually the male) dies.

When someone contacts me, I plan to run my "retirement optimizer" and tell them how much insurance they actually need and for how long. The retirement optimizer also solves for the optimal longevity annuity to cover the remainder of the survivor's lifespan after the insurance expires.

It sounds pretty useful without having to go through the hubba bubba of a financial planner who has Big Cheese software that does things like that among many other ridiculously complex things.

I do agree with the others that there should be more appeal to emotion. You want to snag the journalist in a captivating way that they immediately see how it is beneficial to their audience. Think benefits instead of features.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:I guess my re-writing isn't suitable for an email to journalists. But the same principles apply:
What does Joe Journalist have to gain by giving you free publicity about your term life insurance sales program?

If its really that big of a problem, then you should test sending out a Press Release (PR) about it and not a dry e-mail sales letter to a journalists that is unlikely to get noticed as PS says. Most journalists stories and interviews are inspired by PRs. A PR will allow more sizzle as well as a real-life example, etc..

MachineGhost wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:I think in that example the total maximum cost is about $21k ($174 * 12 * 10 = $20,880), but of course if one of the spouses dies during the term the total would be lower because they wouldn't have to pay the premium during the whole term.

So this is dual coverage for both spouses? I didn't know that existed and it wasn't mentioned anywhere. That's an extremely important benefit that should be highlighted.

That is the premium for two separate policies for $100,000 face amount each. I'm pretty sure I mentioned that on the page but I'll make it clearer (whether or not I have already stated it).

MachineGhost wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: Did you actually fill out the form on the website (http://www.ssb-lock.com) for your (or a simulated) situation and supply a (real or fake) email address? If so, I should have gotten an email with the form contents, but I haven't seen it.

I did several times but I've received no e-mails. Not sure If I put in my email; but probably not as I don't want spam.

You won't get any spam, but it won't send the form unless you put in something that looks sort of like an email address, e.g., xx@yy.zz.

MachineGhost wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: As for the age range, this is the optimal range for the simplest case because if they buy the insurance too early they "waste" a lot of the protection by having the term end earlier.

Actually most people really need more than $100k as well, but again I'm trying to avoid scaring potential customers with the cost, which will also vary depending on their insurance ratings.

Okay well, the non-purchaser ought to not have a narrow age limit unless you're just specifically marketing this to old couples worried about losing SS benefits if either one (as opposed to just the larger SS earner, usually the male) dies.

Yes, that is the target audience. However, it doesn't matter which spouse dies; the reduction in total benefits is the same either way, to the greater benefit only.

MachineGhost wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:When someone contacts me, I plan to run my "retirement optimizer" and tell them how much insurance they actually need and for how long. The retirement optimizer also solves for the optimal longevity annuity to cover the remainder of the survivor's lifespan after the insurance expires.

It sounds pretty useful without having to go through the hubba bubba of a financial planner who has Big Cheese software that does things like that among many other ridiculously complex things.

I'd be happy to show the retirement optimizer to you over Skype or the like, if you want to see it.

MachineGhost wrote:I do agree with the others that there should be more appeal to emotion. You want to snag the journalist in a captivating way that they immediately see how it is beneficial to their audience. Think benefits instead of features.

I was specifically told by the person who gave me the email list not to do that. I'm respecting his request.

MachineGhost wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:I guess my re-writing isn't suitable for an email to journalists. But the same principles apply:
What does Joe Journalist have to gain by giving you free publicity about your term life insurance sales program?

If its really that big of a problem, then you should test sending out a Press Release (PR) about it and not a dry e-mail sales letter to a journalists that is unlikely to get noticed as PS says. Most journalists stories and interviews are inspired by PRs. A PR will allow more sizzle as well as a real-life example, etc..

I don't know anything about press releases. Can you suggest a way for me to learn how to do one, and how to find places to send it?

Libertarian666 wrote: I don't know anything about press releases. Can you suggest a way for me to learn how to do one, and how to find places to send it?

Been way too long to remember, but there is a proper format and order you must follow. See if this helps: http://service.prweb.com/resources/whit ... damentals/ There's other good articles too. As for distribution:

However, if you are a marketing professional, small business owner, PR agency, social media expert, mid/large corporation marketing staff member or website owner that is mainly interested in reaching the largest audience possible and willing to pay for that level of outreach (“value over cost”), then eReleases, PRWeb, 24/7 Press Release, and Newswire would be your top options.

Source: http://www.advisoryhq.com/articles/best ... -services/

This is noteable:

ERelease’s PRTrue Lists™ has a 94% delivery rate to hand-selected journalists, covering a wide range of industry niches. Is this really important? Yes, it is. A lot of online press-release services distribute press releases to generic addresses, like editor@newspaper.com or contact-us@newspaper.com.

But some of these releases end up in the proverbial “black hole,” where no one ever sees them or they get flagged as spam by email filters.

One key factor contributing to eReleases’ relatively higher rates is that it cultivates personal relationships with its reporters and sources. This is extremeley important for you because your press release has a much higher chance of being delivered directly to the inboxes of these reporters.

Source: http://www.advisoryhq.com/articles/best ... #ereleases

Maybe you can do A/B split testing and see what winds up being better, a letter or a PR.

MachineGhost wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: I don't know anything about press releases. Can you suggest a way for me to learn how to do one, and how to find places to send it?

Been way too long to remember, but there is a proper format and order you must follow. See if this helps: http://service.prweb.com/resources/whit ... damentals/ There's other good articles too. As for distribution:

However, if you are a marketing professional, small business owner, PR agency, social media expert, mid/large corporation marketing staff member or website owner that is mainly interested in reaching the largest audience possible and willing to pay for that level of outreach (“value over cost”), then eReleases, PRWeb, 24/7 Press Release, and Newswire would be your top options.

Source: http://www.advisoryhq.com/articles/best ... -services/

This is noteable:

ERelease’s PRTrue Lists™ has a 94% delivery rate to hand-selected journalists, covering a wide range of industry niches. Is this really important? Yes, it is. A lot of online press-release services distribute press releases to generic addresses, like editor@newspaper.com or contact-us@newspaper.com.

But some of these releases end up in the proverbial “black hole,” where no one ever sees them or they get flagged as spam by email filters.

One key factor contributing to eReleases’ relatively higher rates is that it cultivates personal relationships with its reporters and sources. This is extremeley important for you because your press release has a much higher chance of being delivered directly to the inboxes of these reporters.

Source: http://www.advisoryhq.com/articles/best ... #ereleases

Maybe you can do A/B split testing and see what winds up being better, a letter or a PR.

Very helpful. Thanks!