Best IUL for Young Adult? (Under 35)

[LarryK]

I've recently used the North American ( NACOLAH) Builder IUL 7 with a 26 year old and I'm using the Lincoln Life Reserve IUL with a 34 year old business owner with split dollar. It's hard to make a generalization you need to look at the ledger but additionally you need to look at what benefits and riders are offered and are included or are being offered at an additional charge. As an example the NACOLAH product has a chronic care rider which is included and is only an extra charge when used. Lincoln has a LTC care rider at an extra charge but they have great literature and support for business owners. Each situation is different.
Larry

 

[CWG san Diego]

You should present Premium financing with the split dollar and it will give the business owner some tax saving at the same time. Just an idea.

 

[ATM]

AXA has little better CV however NoAm goes longer on the guaranteed side.

Sorry but illustrating both products with the same interest assumption is not comparing equally.

Under the NAIC rules NACOLAH can illustrate a max rate of 7.42% and AXA only 6.86% (I think that's the number). If you are illustrating AXA at 6% you should really illustrate NACOLAH at 6.56% since they have better crediting terms and over time produce higher returns to the policy holder. e.g., a S&P 500 pt to pt with a 13.5% cap will outperform the same index with a 12% cap in some years. Not in all years but in enough to give the NAIC confidence that it should equate to over .50% per year advantage (at least going by thier methodology).

Or better yet use Midland and use 6.91% for comparison purposes. (14.5% cap on S&P point to point.) Plus there are other advantages they have such as crediting interest on 100% of a clients money, event he amounts used to pay policy expenses. Over time that in itself is a big advantage.
.

 

[AboutThatLife]

Sorry but illustrating both products with the same interest assumption is not comparing equally.

Under the NAIC rules NACOLAH can illustrate a max rate of 7.42% and AXA only 6.86% (I think that's the number). If you are illustrating AXA at 6% you should really illustrate NACOLAH at 6.56% since they have better crediting terms and over time produce higher returns to the policy holder. e.g., a S&P 500 pt to pt with a 13.5% cap will outperform the same index with a 12% cap in some years. Not in all years but in enough to give the NAIC confidence that it should equate to over .50% per year advantage (at least going by thier methodology).

Or better yet use Midland and use 6.91% for comparison purposes. (14.5% cap on S&P point to point.) Plus there are other advantages they have such as crediting interest on 100% of a clients money, event he amounts used to pay policy expenses. Over time that in itself is a big advantage.
.

Everyone talks about Midland here, but where there is North American I do not see Midland.

I am not understanding some of these policies. You put 96-110K into the policy by a certain time and if you take out loans for retirement the policy explodes. Doesn't seem to matter how much you put in, the supplemental income only lasts for 7-8 years on the non-guaranteed side. Unless you go with the Utopia values.

 

[The Gimp]

Everyone talks about Midland here, but where there is North American I do not see Midland.

I am not understanding some of these policies. You put 96-110K into the policy by a certain time and if you take out loans for retirement the policy explodes. Doesn't seem to matter how much you put in, the supplemental income only lasts for 7-8 years on the non-guaranteed side. Unless you go with the Utopia values.

How exactly are you coming to that conclusion? You must be reading it wrong.

 

[BYSFG]

Everyone talks about Midland here, but where there is North American I do not see Midland.

I am not understanding some of these policies. You put 96-110K into the policy by a certain time and if you take out loans for retirement the policy explodes. Doesn't seem to matter how much you put in, the supplemental income only lasts for 7-8 years on the non-guaranteed side. Unless you go with the Utopia values.

How prevalent are lifetime income benefit riders? Or similar for other carriers?

 

[AboutThatLife]

How exactly are you coming to that conclusion? You must be reading it wrong.

No Im looking at midpoint values. Right now I'm looking at a $250K increasing DB for a 32/M $4200 PP paid until 65 with 20 years planned retirement income. I know the guaranteed column is unrealistic, but so is the non-guaranteed. I've tried switching to level and withdrawing the basis, and the best I can do is life expectancy.

It explodes on guaranteed and midpoint assumptions. Only the non-guaranteed remains and it looks crazy! I just don't know if I can trust the non-guaranteed column to be true for 32 years. Average rates of return dont count years where the index account gets 0% and the COI causes the account value to remain flat or go negative. This is especially worrisome for ages 55+ when it becomes significantly harder to build CV.

----------

How prevalent are lifetime income benefit riders? Or similar for other carriers?

Not very common to me. The only company I know that still does one is Americo. Their LifeCrest product has more expensive COI than some other products and a low cap of 9.45%, but it is also guaranteed for life at the minimum premium.

After paying for 20 years you get guaranteed ROP, so for small DB's you can pay minimum and your CV is guaranteed to jump from like 5K to 24K then continues to grow thereafter. Or you can get all your money back in an annuity plus 5%.

Usually comes in a bit cheaper than non-par WL, with the added potential of small gains on the non guaranteed side.

 

[EAJoe]

How prevalent are lifetime income benefit riders? Or similar for other carriers?

Minnesota Life and Life of the Southwest both have lifetime income riders for their IUL products.

 

[aclaro]

No Im looking at midpoint values. Right now I'm looking at a $250K increasing DB for a 32/M $4200 PP paid until 65 with 20 years planned retirement income. I know the guaranteed column is unrealistic, but so is the non-guaranteed. I've tried switching to level and withdrawing the basis, and the best I can do is life expectancy.

It explodes on guaranteed and midpoint assumptions. Only the non-guaranteed remains and it looks crazy! I just don't know if I can trust the non-guaranteed column to be true for 32 years. Average rates of return dont count years where the index account gets 0% and the COI causes the account value to remain flat or go negative. This is especially worrisome for ages 55+ when it becomes significantly harder to build

What rate are you running?

 

[AboutThatLife]

What rate are you running?

For which product? I dont see how that changes what the guaranteed side is doing. 6-6.5%.