welcome!
30 year term policy?
- Thread starter jacodaro
- Start date
welcome!
- 2,152
Ben Feldman is a rather smart guy, unfortunely most in insurance today or so it seems here, so many want to sell a commodity. Insurance never has been a commodity but the way many sell and push term does make seemingly commodity like product and one that so many espouses as being dirt cheap. Well no wonder why it is so cheap, yet it is a easier sale then attempting to sell a PLI. So basically you have many insurance agents simply taking the road of least resistance.
HWS
New Member
My software indicates that the following should write in Arizona:
30 Year Level Term Survey
Face Amount: $500,000
Male Age: 55/56 Non-Smoker
Industrial - Alliance Pacific Insurance
Americo Financial Life and Annuity Ins.
Union Central Life Insurance Company
Old Mutual Financial Life Insurance
TIAA-CREF Life Insurance Company
AAA Life Insurance Company
Conseco Insurance Company
Shenandoah Life Insurance Company
Baltimore Life Insurance Company
Good luck.
Face Amount: $500,000
Male Age: 55/56 Non-Smoker
Industrial - Alliance Pacific Insurance
Americo Financial Life and Annuity Ins.
Union Central Life Insurance Company
Old Mutual Financial Life Insurance
TIAA-CREF Life Insurance Company
AAA Life Insurance Company
Conseco Insurance Company
Shenandoah Life Insurance Company
Baltimore Life Insurance Company
Good luck.
Last edited:
You are correct James. Sadly, agents are catering to, and riding the momentum of the insurance/financial pornography heard in the media. Beyond the obvious disservice this has toward the consumers, giving them a false sense of security and loosing them and their families a ton of money, it creates great difficulty for the agent to survive and enjoy this business.
IMHO, if you travel the road of less resistance YOU become the commodity, providing a service that 1-800-NO-AGENT can. Term is the most basic of all insurance products (another reason I think agents drift toward it...mental laziness). What real value do any of us, as agents, provide when your service consist of selling the consumer a 30 year term product? No conversion discussion, no cost benefit analysis about PLI compared to term. I would say very little value, no more then DR or Suzie or Howard. In fact, they may provide more.
Agent
IMHO, if you travel the road of less resistance YOU become the commodity, providing a service that 1-800-NO-AGENT can. Term is the most basic of all insurance products (another reason I think agents drift toward it...mental laziness). What real value do any of us, as agents, provide when your service consist of selling the consumer a 30 year term product? No conversion discussion, no cost benefit analysis about PLI compared to term. I would say very little value, no more then DR or Suzie or Howard. In fact, they may provide more.
Agent
Which ever carrier you decide to go with....when he only has a couple of years left on the policy, you should offer to do a life settlement on the policy for him!
That is very irresponsible. Do you sell life insurance policies or do just pitch this junk?
I see *some* justification for Viaticles. Life Settlements on the other hand, could have some serious negative ramifications for the industry. On a positive note, there may be a some good ramifications for Fat Tony, who's looking for new investment opportunities.
As far as I know, you cannot do a Life Settlement on a term policy, even if you wait 28 years!
- 439
I sell inforced life policies to private investors (life settlement broker)
There is no market for viaticals and it is near impossible to find a company that will handle a viatical trasaction for you. Most life policies have some sort of terminal clause written in to them. I know that some carriers will pay 95% of face if you are diagnosed with a terminal illness and have an LE of 24 months or less.
There are justifications for life settlements. I am working with a producer who has a client with a 1.4 million dollar policy. She cannot afford next years premiums. She has already payed in alittle over 500,000, but only has a cash value of 80,000. Her options are taking the cash surrender value of 80,000 or doing a life settlement with me. I'm going to get her about 650,000-700,000 for the policy.
You can do a life settlement on a Convertible Term Policy. These are great options for your senior clients. If a client has a convertible policy and decides that he does not want to convert it for himself, then we can take it and shop it out for him. He ends up getting a large lump sum of cash, the only down side is that he loses the rest of his coverage, but if you are a skilled pro, then you can get him new coverage with all this extra cash he just received.
"I sell inforced life policies to private investors (life settlement broker)
There is no market for viaticals and it is near impossible to find a company that will handle a viatical trasaction for you. Most life policies have some sort of terminal clause written in to them. I know that some carriers will pay 95% of face if you are diagnosed with a terminal illness and have an LE of 24 months or less."
If that is the case then my *some* just got reduced to none. My point was I could philosophically recognize the validity for a Viatical as opposed to a Life Settlement.
She has paid in $500,000 but only has 80k in CV, sounds like a policy that's been in force for what, a couple years? To be paying that high of premiums, annually, I would assume she must have a serious Estate Tax issue. How is a life settlement going to resolve that, other then increase it? Does she have other assets if rearranged could free up additional capital to pay the premiums? She bought this policy just a couple of years ago and was affordable then, what changed? Do you even know the answer to these questions?
A qualified Financial/Insurance Advisor, CPA and Estate attorney should be involved to look for additional options to fund the necessary and desired Life Insurance. If a financial Advisor could show this client that they could still fund the policy and how keeping it would be more rewarding to them (their CV alone in a couple more years will be available for loans) and their family, would she not want to keep it in force?
"You can do a life settlement on a Convertible Term Policy. These are great options for your senior clients. If a client has a convertible policy and decides that he does not want to convert it for himself, then we can take it and shop it out for him. He ends up getting a large lump sum of cash, the only down side is that he loses the rest of his coverage, but if you are a skilled pro, then you can get him new coverage with all this extra cash he just received."
I just read your explanation on another thread about the use of convertible term insurance in Life Settlements. How many Insurance companies would go for a Life Settlement Company persuading the Insured in exercising their right to convert just prior to dropping (selling off) the policy? Do you not see how this could have a potentially damaging effect to future policy holders; not having the option to convert their new policy. Or perhaps a tighter qualification for the conversion of the policy?
PLI ROR on Death benefits are great, that is why the Life Settlement market even exist. This is obvious, however still note that even when paying the owner above the CV, the LS companies make a greater return on the existing policy. That same greater return that their family will now not receive. Taxes will now have to be satisfied by the heirs. If there is no estate tax, the then created estate, because of the PLI, is now nonexistent.
Do you not see a conflict of interest...a group of investors that possess a desire for you to die as soon as possible, thereby increasing their ROR by reducing ongoing future premiums? Life insurance, in it's definition strongly rest in the beneficiary having a insurable interest, suffering financial loss if the insured dies. NOT an invested interest, if the insured dies, as soon as possible.
I hope these are made banned soon as it is glorified mafia like investing. And as a whole, eventually, will hurt the economy with less spendable assets for heirs.
On a side note, I really like your tag line. Robert E. Lee was great man, as was Thomas J. Jackson. (Stonewall Jackson)
Agent
There is no market for viaticals and it is near impossible to find a company that will handle a viatical trasaction for you. Most life policies have some sort of terminal clause written in to them. I know that some carriers will pay 95% of face if you are diagnosed with a terminal illness and have an LE of 24 months or less."
If that is the case then my *some* just got reduced to none. My point was I could philosophically recognize the validity for a Viatical as opposed to a Life Settlement.
"There are justifications for life settlements. I am working with a producer who has a client with a 1.4 million dollar policy. She cannot afford next years premiums. She has already payed in alittle over 500,000, but only has a cash value of 80,000. Her options are taking the cash surrender value of 80,000 or doing a life settlement with me. I'm going to get her about 650,000-700,000 for the policy."
She has paid in $500,000 but only has 80k in CV, sounds like a policy that's been in force for what, a couple years? To be paying that high of premiums, annually, I would assume she must have a serious Estate Tax issue. How is a life settlement going to resolve that, other then increase it? Does she have other assets if rearranged could free up additional capital to pay the premiums? She bought this policy just a couple of years ago and was affordable then, what changed? Do you even know the answer to these questions?
A qualified Financial/Insurance Advisor, CPA and Estate attorney should be involved to look for additional options to fund the necessary and desired Life Insurance. If a financial Advisor could show this client that they could still fund the policy and how keeping it would be more rewarding to them (their CV alone in a couple more years will be available for loans) and their family, would she not want to keep it in force?
"You can do a life settlement on a Convertible Term Policy. These are great options for your senior clients. If a client has a convertible policy and decides that he does not want to convert it for himself, then we can take it and shop it out for him. He ends up getting a large lump sum of cash, the only down side is that he loses the rest of his coverage, but if you are a skilled pro, then you can get him new coverage with all this extra cash he just received."
I just read your explanation on another thread about the use of convertible term insurance in Life Settlements. How many Insurance companies would go for a Life Settlement Company persuading the Insured in exercising their right to convert just prior to dropping (selling off) the policy? Do you not see how this could have a potentially damaging effect to future policy holders; not having the option to convert their new policy. Or perhaps a tighter qualification for the conversion of the policy?
PLI ROR on Death benefits are great, that is why the Life Settlement market even exist. This is obvious, however still note that even when paying the owner above the CV, the LS companies make a greater return on the existing policy. That same greater return that their family will now not receive. Taxes will now have to be satisfied by the heirs. If there is no estate tax, the then created estate, because of the PLI, is now nonexistent.
Do you not see a conflict of interest...a group of investors that possess a desire for you to die as soon as possible, thereby increasing their ROR by reducing ongoing future premiums? Life insurance, in it's definition strongly rest in the beneficiary having a insurable interest, suffering financial loss if the insured dies. NOT an invested interest, if the insured dies, as soon as possible.
I hope these are made banned soon as it is glorified mafia like investing. And as a whole, eventually, will hurt the economy with less spendable assets for heirs.
On a side note, I really like your tag line. Robert E. Lee was great man, as was Thomas J. Jackson. (Stonewall Jackson)
Agent
- 439
You are partially right about the lady I stated as an example. She used a horrible financial advisor that sold her the policy for estate tax reasons about 4.5 years ago. Since then he has lost about $600,000. I am dealing with her son's agent. She has nothing left for the next premium payment.
Life Settlements will not be banned. Life Insurance is an asset that an individual has the right to sell if they want to.
Stonewall and Lee were both great men.
Life Settlements will not be banned. Life Insurance is an asset that an individual has the right to sell if they want to.
Stonewall and Lee were both great men.
According to the figures you are providing she would have been spending around $110,000 a year in premiums. I don't now the age of this women, however I ran an Illustration on a 65 nonsmoker; she would have a DB of $2,700,000 and at least $144,000 in CV by year 3. In the 4.5 year mark, CV would be in the $345,000ish range. Not $80,000 (UL would have higher CV but lower DB.)
So how do you pay 500,000 in premiums and only end up with 80k in CV?.
LS in it’s conceptual premise, promote in the investment of, and a desire for, a premature death.
You really believe that's a morally sound premise from which to build a service or product to the consumer?
When LS are sold, they shortchange the heirs or increase their tax liability. To the one who received the LS payment, their tax liability just increased. And of course they loose the insurance they actually wanted and needed, which is worth more than a LS.
LI in it's conceptual premise desires for and invest in the long and healthy life of the individual, providing a DB IF the client dies prematurely, which neither party is rooting for. The insurance company makes money, the client (through CV) and his family make money. It's a glowing example of the free market at work, where both parties involved benefit.
Life Insurance is an asset owned by the policy owner...yes. However subject to the rules and regulations of the federal tax law, state commissioner’s statues and the insurance code. Agreed, sometimes too much so. Nevertheless, you cannot do whatever you want with it. I cannot put all the money I want into it and not suffer negative tax treatment. There are limitations set by the government and the respective insurance companies.
All personally owned Assets have some barrier/restrictions in their use as well. For example, I don't believe the government has any authority to give me permission to own a firearm or carry it on my person for self defense. However, you better believe they will and have the right to, stop me from shooting another person void of self defense. But, it is my Asset your honor and I chose to use it in that fashion. What right do you have to tell me what I can and cannot do with my personally owned appreciating S&W Asset?
Life Settlements should be banned because of their morally flawed premise which promotes mafia like investing in undermining the very definition of life insurance; which in turn cause great harm to the insurance industry, as well as the economy as a whole.
Agent
- 439
She currently is 84, she baught the policy when she was 79.
Similar threads
