Lately, we’ve seen a troubling trend online.

People—some well-meaning, some not—are sharing misinformation about mutual holding companies, claiming these companies are no longer mutually owned or that they’ve quietly abandoned their policyholders.

That couldn’t be further from the truth.

So Joe, Bruce, and I decided it was time to clear the air. Because when it comes to protecting your family’s legacy, clarity matters more than opinion. You deserve to understand the facts—not fear-based interpretations.

And as we’ve seen too often, when confusion spreads unchecked, people start making financial decisions on the wrong foundation.

That’s not stewardship. That’s reaction.

Why We Had to Talk About Mutual Holding CompaniesWhat Is a Mutual Holding Company?Do Policyholders Still Have Ownership and Voting Rights?Why Would a Company Make This Change?Are Mutual Holding Companies Dangerous?What Does This Mean for Your Infinite Banking Strategy?What This Means for YouBook A Strategy Call

Why We Had to Talk About Mutual Holding Companies

When you use whole life insurance as a long-term asset—and especially when you're building a Privatized Banking System—you want to know the company you’ve partnered with is stable, aligned with your values, and built to honor policyholders for the long haul.

That's why we recorded this episode:

To define what a mutual holding company really is

To contrast it with traditional mutual companies

To explore how it affects voting rights, ownership, and trust

And to provide clarity amid a cloud of online confusion

Our goal is not to push any specific company, nor to attack those raising questions. But we do want to make sure the conversation is grounded in accuracy—because your stewardship depends on it.

What Is a Mutual Holding Company?

At its core, a mutual holding company (MHC) is a specific kind of corporate structure that allows a life insurance company to retain mutual ownership while gaining the flexibility to create stock subsidiaries. This means the parent company is still owned by policyholders, while the subsidiary has the ability to raise capital through stock offerings.

Bruce broke it down this way:

“A mutual company is owned by the policyholders... When it becomes a mutual holding company, it’s still owned by the policyholders, but they insert a stock company below that for reasons like expanding or raising capital.”

This structural change is about flexibility—especially for future growth, acquisitions, or increased reserve requirements. It’s not inherently negative. It’s a strategic business decision, and it's one we should understand, not fear.

Do Policyholders Still Have Ownership and Voting Rights?

Yes—and this is where the misinformation gets loudest and most misleading.

In a mutual holding company, policyholders still own the mutual holding company itself. That hasn’t changed. What has changed is that the operational insurance company underneath the holding company is now a stock entity—one that may have shareholders in addition to the parent company.

Rachel explained:

“There’s this perception that if a company becomes a mutual holding company, they’re no longer mutually owned... But that’s not true. The policyholders still own the mutual holding company. They still elect the board.”

So yes, the structure is layered. But no, policyholders haven’t been stripped of ownership or voting rights.

Joe added that this structure can even be a way for companies to avoid full demutualization, which would entirely sever mutual ownership.

Why Would a Company Make This Change?

There are many reasons an insurer might transition to an MHC:

To raise capital for growth

To meet solvency or reserve requirements

To create a defensive structure to avoid hostile takeovers or future demutualization

To diversify business offerings or form subsidiaries

Bruce emphasized that mutual companies must act in the poli...