Does Northwestern Really Outperform MassMutual?

[VolAgent]

Or maybe it depends on what your definition of "is" is. NML is reinsuring about a third of face amount written, while Mass is close to two-thirds. Now maybe you'd tell me that's because NML has agents that care about the company and its profitability and so they don't writ the crap business Mass agents do. And that would be totally acceptable, because I wouldn't expect any less. Truth is, they are taking on more risk. I'm not sure why you'd bring up the NML doesn't assume reinsurance. That's like Macy's making a budget and saying we're not going to assume any sales adjustments. There's a cost to reinsurance, so not assuming it means you don't budget for it. You can't possibly be right about this, NML is not that foolish.

Just a slight correction. It sounds like Chuckles is saying that Mass provides reinsurance for others, while NML does not, and that could be part of the reason Mass reinsures so much.

 

[Chuckles21]

So if NML is paying money on term insurance, what does that do for me as a WL policy owner? It takes divisible surplus away from me.

Not true again, but i will take responsibility for not clarifying those #'s enough.

2010 total dividends paid: $4,846,170,000
2010 total life dividends paid (ordinary & term): $4,613,025,000
2010 ordinary only life dividends paid: $4,527,758,000

So over 98% of all life dividends were for ordinary life, plus they don't take money from ordinary life to pay dividends on term the two are separate.

Or maybe it depends on what your definition of "is" is. NML is reinsuring about a third of face amount written, while Mass is close to two-thirds. Now maybe you'd tell me that's because NML has agents that care about the company and its profitability and so they don't writ the crap business Mass agents do. And that would be totally acceptable, because I wouldn't expect any less. Truth is, they are taking on more risk. I'm not sure why you'd bring up the NML doesn't assume reinsurance. That's like Macy's making a budget and saying we're not going to assume any sales adjustments. There's a cost to reinsurance, so not assuming it means you don't budget for it. You can't possibly be right about this, NML is not that foolish.

Again sorry for the misunderstanding. As VolAgent correctly stated I was saying that MM provides reinsurance for other carriers where NML does not. So although MM reinsures more they also take on some others risks.

Also i do agree that NML has more risk out there, but then how do you explain them having better mortality experience?

 

[njh_lfg]

My situation: I probably only need a small death benefit for the first 30 years. After 30 years, I'm much more interested in the policy as income (using the dividends only). I'm also planning to save up for a downpayment for a house in 2-3 years.

Enough about comparing what could or could not happen in the future regarding dividends or return; nobody can see into the future and one can spin data or cherry pick policies that performed well. Fact of the matter is a NWM agent would never tell you that MM has a better product and you should take your business there and vice versa.

Why do you feel that a WL policy is good for your situation other than a life insurance salesman who gets paid a commission on a policy they want to sell you told you it would work well?

If you are trying to save for a down payment in 2-3 years a WL policy is the last place you should consider placing your money for that goal; you are almost guaranteed to have a negative return on your premiums.

However, rather than getting stressed out researching and trying to make the right choice between the two (if you feel as though a WL plan would benefit your personal financial situation) why not do two smaller contracts, one with each company?

Take a step back and explore other options, especially if you feel that you only need a small death benefit. Buy a small term plan and find a better strategy to save your money.

 

[BNTRS]

Why do you feel that a WL policy is good for your situation other than a life insurance salesman who gets paid a commission on a policy they want to sell you told you it would work well?

And this theory about why the life insurance salesman thinks this is a good idea would be different from why the stock broker thinks stocks are a better idea how?

The "they make a commission" rant is where the bottom feeders go, IMO.

 

[njh_lfg]

And this theory about why the life insurance salesman thinks this is a good idea would be different from why the stock broker thinks stocks are a better idea how?

The "they make a commission" rant is where the bottom feeders go, IMO.

So if you knew you needed money in the next couple years would you set yourself up a new WL policy?

Not a "stock broker" thing. You would have better purchasing power stuffing the cash in your mattress in that short of time frame. Its a using the details provided to make a factual statement.

WL for cash accumulation is great if used as a small piece of an overall portfolio, in the right circumstances. This does not sound like one on the surface with few details.

 

[BNTRS]

So if you knew you needed money in the next couple years would you set yourself up a new WL policy?

Not a "stock broker" thing. You would have better purchasing power stuffing the cash in your mattress in that short of time frame. Its a using the details provided to make a factual statement.

WL for cash accumulation is great if used as a small piece of an overall portfolio, in the right circumstances. This does not sound like one on the surface with few details.

Can't we just accept that your vilifying of this guys agent(s) was uncalled for and idiotic before we jump around to different topics?

Oh wait, was that an attempt to change the subject because you already acknowledged that it was uncalled for and idiotic? Sorry for the redundancy there.

(PS: where's the sarcasm font?)

 

[njh_lfg]

Can't we just accept that your vilifying of this guys agent(s) was uncalled for and idiotic before we jump around to different topics?

Oh wait, was that an attempt to change the subject because you already acknowledged that it was uncalled for and idiotic? Sorry for the redundancy there.

(PS: where's the sarcasm font?)

Keep throwing blows my friend.

Was anything I said false? When someone mentions using funds from a WL plan 2-3 years out do you think that it would be a suitable situation to use the product?

(PS: change your picture on your website it might be deterring clients; you look like a child molester in a trailer with that ugly paneling and wrinkled collar.)

 

[tins]

(PS: change your picture on your website it might be deterring clients; you look like a child molester in a trailer with that ugly paneling and wrinkled collar.)

Not trying to be mean, but this guy is on to something. That picture may scare people away.

 

[BNTRS]

(PS: change your picture on your website it might be deterring clients; you look like a child molester in a trailer with that ugly paneling and wrinkled collar.)

Wow, all I can say is wow. I'm done with the banter. Anyone who goes to that level must have some seriously messed up things going on in his/her life.

FWIW, that's not paneling, again with the off the wall assumptions.

Not trying to be mean, but this guy is on to something. That picture may scare people away.

People have been rolling in on a pretty consistent and frequent basis, so I'm not too worried about it.

 

[mikichan]

Was anything I said false? When someone mentions using funds from a WL plan 2-3 years out do you think that it would be a suitable situation to use the product?

Hi, just to clarify, I am not planning on taking a loan or withdrawing money from the WL policy 2-3 years out. I do not plan to do that until I retire 30+ years from now.

My somewhat conflicting goals are this:
- I need some life insurance now in case something should happen to me
- I do not expect to need life insurance 30+ years from now
- I took over a life policy from my mom that already had 13 years in (she didn't want to pay the premiums anymore) -- and the cash value buildup is great (put in x premium, get 1.10x in cash value) -- so I thought maybe a WL policy would be a good long term investment. It's return of premium on steroids, as long as you can hold it 30+ years.
- I plan to keep the WL policy for pretty much forever.

- I also would like to save up for a downpayment for a house

- Though I think I should be ok, I have two worries
--> If my budget doesn't work out as planned, I will have to delay the house for a lot longer, not fully fund my 401k, and/or stop paying life insurance. Since I don't like the idea of taking pretty much a total loss on the insurance if I stop paying, I would opt for options #1 or #2. Neither of which is much better. However, I really don't want to do that. Which is why flexibility is appealing to me.
--> Since I expect to hold the WL long term, I am strongly interested in future growth of the cash value and dividends.

So pretty much, I want everything. I would appreciate the flexibility of temporarily stopping/lowering premium payments (NML's ACL) in case I need to build up my cash value for the house. I want some life insurance. However, I don't want to sacrifice long-term growth.

NML's ACL is sounding really good to me, but I am just stuck on the lack of guarantees (and the fact that I've already started the underwriting @MM).

I have considered buying term and pushing the WL off for a couple more years, but I will be older then. So WL would cost more. After a few more years, when I hit my mid-30s, WL will no longer be an option for me, since I think it's only worth it if I can hold it for 30 or so years (after which I plan to start enjoying it).

So I am still thinking about everything -- which company is better -- MM with its better guarantees but inflexible premiums, or NML with its flexibility and promises of a better return. I like NML, obviously, but am REALLY worried about future performance.