The View from Here

I had a client—I’ll call him David—who sat in my office after reading everything I’d sent him. Articles, policy illustrations, Nelson Nash’s book. The works.

He leaned back in his chair and said something I’ll never forget: “I feel like I’ve been watching a movie my whole life, and someone just told me it was upside down.”

That’s the moment. That’s when you see it.

You’ve been through five articles. You started with healthy skepticism about an industry that’s earned distrust. You’ve examined rate-of-return comparisons that miss the point entirely. You’ve fact-checked the critics and found their errors. You’ve watched credentialed advisors misunderstand basic mechanics. You’ve seen the math that nobody shows you—how much of your life flows to interest.

So where does that leave you?

The Uncomfortable Recognition

If you’ve made it this far, you’ve probably experienced something uncomfortable.

The growing recognition that maybe—just maybe—your objections to the Infinite Banking Concept were based on comparing it to the wrong things.

You thought it was an investment competing with the stock market. It’s a banking system competing with commercial banks.

You focused on rates of return. The real focus should have been on control of capital.

You worried about “expensive” premiums. The real question is: expensive compared to what? Compared to a lifetime of paying interest to institutions you don’t own?

This recognition is uncomfortable because it suggests that conventional financial wisdom—the stuff everyone knows, the stuff that sounds so logical—might be pointing you in the wrong direction.

That’s not comfortable. Nobody likes discovering they’ve been asking the wrong questions.

But here’s what I want you to know: that discomfort is a feature, not a bug.

The Skepticism That Brought You Here

Your skepticism about the insurance industry? Valid. Fully, completely valid.

Your wariness of agents who promise “tax-free income for life” and “infinite returns”? Smart. Those promises should make you skeptical.

Your questioning of rate-of-return projections? Exactly right. You should doubt anyone trying to compete with mutual fund performance using whole life insurance.

The skepticism that brought you through these articles—that’s an asset. It’s what protected you from both the industry’s hype and the critics’ misconceptions. It’s what led you to examine the mechanics yourself instead of accepting someone else’s explanation.

Don’t abandon that skepticism now.

What I’m asking you to consider is redirecting it. Instead of being skeptical of whole life insurance as a product, be skeptical of the comparison frameworks everyone uses to evaluate it.

Instead of asking “Is whole life a good investment?” ask “Is this the right tool for the banking function in my life?”

Instead of comparing policy illustrations to stock market returns, compare policy loans to bank loans.

Instead of focusing on accumulation, focus on circulation. How does capital flow through your life? Who controls that flow? Who profits from it?

A Different Kind of Math

I worked with a business owner—let’s call her Rachel—who told me something that stuck.

She said: “For twenty years, I’ve been calculating the return on my investments. I never once calculated the return on controlling my own financing.”

Rachel had built a successful consulting practice. Good revenue. Growing client base. But every time she needed equipment, she financed through a bank. Every time she moved offices, she qualified for a loan. When she bought company vehicles, she went to the dealership’s finance company.

She was paying 6%, 8%, sometimes 12% to access capital for her business. Not once. Continuously. For twenty years.

Meanwhile, she had been contributing to a SEP-IRA because her accountant told her to. Tax-deferred growth. Diversified portfolio. All the conventional wisdom.

When we calculated how much interest she had paid to external lenders over two decades, the number was staggering. More than she had accumulated in her retirement accounts. Significantly more.

“I was optimizing the wrong number,” she said.

That’s the math nobody shows you. Not the rate of return on your investments. The rate of return on recapturing the financing function in your life.

The Austrian Insight

Nelson Nash understood something that goes back to Austrian economics.

Capital properly controlled creates wealth. Capital uncontrolled destroys it.

Most people focus on accumulating assets. Nash focused on controlling the flow of capital. Who originates loans? Who sets terms? Who profits from the spread between what money costs to acquire and what it earns when deployed?

In conventional finance, someone else controls all of those functions. Banks originate loans. Credit committees set terms. Institutions profit from the spread.

Nash’s insight was that you can control those functions yourself. Not by starting a commercial bank—that’s too expensive. But by utilizing an existing infrastructure that’s been refined for over 200 years: mutual life insurance companies.

You become both the depositor and the preferred borrower. You fund the system with premiums. You access capital through policy loans. You pay interest to the insurance company—which you partially own as a mutual policyholder—and that interest flows to the insurance company’s general fund, benefiting all policyholders through the dividend pool.

It’s not about beating the market. It’s about becoming the market for your own financing needs.

The Question of Readiness

Here’s where I want to be honest with you.

Understanding the concept doesn’t mean you’re ready to implement it.

IBC requires discipline that most people aren’t prepared for. You have to fund policies consistently, year after year, even when it’s inconvenient. You have to treat policy loans seriously—paying yourself back with at least the same discipline you’d show a commercial lender. You have to think in decades, not quarters.

It requires changing how you think about money. Instead of looking for the highest return, you look for the most control. Instead of maximizing accumulation, you optimize circulation. Instead of separating your financing decisions from your investment decisions, you integrate them.

Not everyone is ready for that shift. And that’s okay.

If you’re not ready, the banking system will continue to exist without you. Banks will continue to profit from the financing function in your life. Credit companies will continue to set terms. The flow of capital will continue to enrich institutions you don’t own.

But you’ll know there’s an alternative. And knowledge, once gained, is hard to ignore.

The Continued Skepticism Option

Let me suggest something that might sound strange coming from someone who teaches this concept.

It’s okay if you’re still skeptical.

In fact, it’s healthy.

You’ve been through five articles examining the mechanics, the mathematics, and the misconceptions. You understand the framework better than most financial advisors ever will. That understanding makes your continued skepticism more valuable, not less.

Informed skepticism is different from ignorant dismissal. You know what questions to ask now. You know what comparisons matter. You know which objections are based on understanding and which are based on confusion.

If you choose to remain skeptical, at least your skepticism will be grounded in actual knowledge of how the system works.

What Nelson Would Tell You

Nelson Nash spent the last decades of his life teaching this concept. But he never pressured anyone to implement it.

His attitude was: here’s what I discovered. Here’s how it works. Here’s what it’s done for my family. If you want to examine it for yourself, the information is available. If not, that’s fine too.

Nash often said that IBC requires imagination—the ability to see what’s invisible. The flow of capital. The cost of depending on external lenders. The value of control over the financing function.

Some people have that imagination. Others don’t. Nash didn’t consider that a moral failing. He considered it a difference in thinking style.

If you can imagine a world where you don’t qualify for loans because you control your own capital, where your financing costs flow back to a system you own, where your need for borrowing strengthens your balance sheet instead of weakening it—if you can imagine that world, you might be ready to build it.

If you can’t imagine it, that’s information too.

The Path Forward

You have several options from here.

Option 1: Do nothing. Continue with conventional financial planning. Banks will continue to exist. They’ll continue to profit from your financing needs. That’s not a bad life. It’s just not an IBC life.

Option 2: Read deeper. Nash’s book is 97 pages. You can read it in an afternoon. It will either clarify everything or confirm your skepticism. Either outcome is valuable.

Option 3: Find a practitioner. Not someone who sells insurance. Someone who practices IBC. Someone who has policies on themselves, their spouses, their children. Someone who uses policy loans instead of bank loans. Someone who thinks in terms of banking systems, not sales presentations.

Option 4: Start small. Buy the amount of insurance you need anyway—but structure it for cash value efficiency. See how it feels. Watch how the cash value grows. Take a small policy loan and pay it back. Experience the mechanics yourself.

The choice is yours. The only thing you can’t do is go back to not knowing that there’s an alternative.

A Final Story

A few years ago, I worked with a family—call them the Johnsons—who implemented IBC gradually over five years. Father’s policy first. Mother’s policy second. Policies on the children that the parents funded.

By year five, they were financing everything through their policies. Cars, home improvements, business equipment. They were paying interest—yes—but paying it to insurance companies they partially owned, with the interest flowing back to them through dividends.

Mr. Johnson told me something that captures why this concept matters: “I finally understand why wealthy families stay wealthy. It’s not because they earn higher returns. It’s because they don’t hemorrhage capital to institutions they don’t control.”

That’s the insight. That’s the paradigm shift.

It’s not about earning more. It’s about leaking less.

It’s not about maximizing returns. It’s about controlling the banking function.

It’s not about beating the market. It’s about becoming your own market.

The View from Here

You’ve climbed a mountain over these five articles. You’ve examined evidence, checked facts, and challenged assumptions. You’ve seen how the industry actually works, how the products actually function, and how the critics actually argue.

The view from here is different than it was when you started.

You understand that this isn’t about investment performance. It’s about banking architecture.

You understand that the question isn’t “What’s the return?” but “Compared to what?”

You understand that your skepticism—properly directed—is one of the most valuable tools you have for making financial decisions.

That’s the real education. Not learning what to think, but learning how to think.

Whether you implement IBC or not, you’re now equipped to evaluate it properly. You know what questions matter. You know what comparisons are relevant. You know what your alternatives actually cost.

The choice you make from here will be an informed choice. And informed choices, whatever they are, tend to work out better than uninformed ones.

The skepticism that brought you this far? Keep it. It’s what will serve you best, whatever you decide to do next.

---

Three Questions to Consider

• What would change in your financial life if you never had to qualify for a loan again?

• How much interest will you pay over your lifetime, and where will those dollars go?

• Is the banking function in your life something you want to control, or something you’re comfortable outsourcing?

---

What’s Next?

If you want to explore further, Becoming Your Own Banker by Nelson Nash remains the foundational text. Ninety-seven pages. One afternoon of reading. The source material for everything we’ve discussed.

If you want to understand the Austrian economic principles behind IBC, the Lara-Murphy Report archives and Robert Murphy’s work on privatized banking are excellent next steps.

If you want to see contemporary applications, explore the Nelson Nash Institute’s educational materials.

The education continues as long as you want it to.

Ready to Talk?

You’ve completed the Prove It Path. If you want to see how these principles apply to your specific situation, Brad offers a free 30-minute intro call.

Talk to Brad — No pressure. Just answers.

---

This is educational content only and does not constitute financial, tax, or legal advice. Consult qualified professionals for guidance specific to your situation.