Dave Chilton

So I think those are both very good points.

You're a hundred percent right about permanent insurance.

I once did geek out on that to the nth degree.

In fact, I would say in the early nineties, because I took so much criticism from the industry, I almost became a bit obsessive compulsive about understanding the policies, the complicated math and everything else.

And I'm like you, I think in certain cases, for example,

a corporation that has excess retained earnings that's for estate planning reasons, if you buy the right type of policy and get solid advice, it's pretty tough to beat the math.

But I still think it's oversold to the general population who hasn't maxed out TFSAs, RSPs, paid off non-deductible debt, that type of thing.

But again, you're right.

You can't really go all in on anything.

Like a lot of people blast annuities.

Well, I still think a regular annuity in some instances can play a helpful role for people's retirement income generation.

And Mac, I'm always surprised how much criticism they do take because occasionally they make a lot of sense to me.

100%.

Yeah, you said all that very well.

And I mean, I loved earlier when you used the word tool.

It's better to think of these that way because then you recognize in certain instances that tool can indeed be very helpful.

And I think that's a philosophy we have to bring in.

You know, you've twice gone back to your trade-off comment, and it's a good one.

That is a very good comment.

All financial decisions are indeed trade-offs.