GenWorth VS John Hancock

[scagnt83]

In other words, a 45-year old can buy a $100 Daily Benefit with 5% compound inflation benefit.

OR

for the exact same premium buy a $260 Daily Benefit with a 3% compound inflation benefit.

Using your example, for the $260 daily benefit, there would be almost a $1000 per year difference in premium using MoO. That is hardly "exactly" the same.

Despite the fact that you believe you are always right and above everyone else, your example is hardly the gospel....

 

[Mr_Ed]

Using your example, for the $260 daily benefit, there would be almost a $1000 per year difference in premium using MoO. That is hardly "exactly" the same.

Despite the fact that you believe you are always right and above everyone else, your example is hardly the gospel....

Your numbers are wrong.
Go back and re-run the quotes.

 

[scagnt83]

Your numbers are wrong.
Go back and re-run the quotes.

$864 per year difference when paying monthly. Unless vitalsales suite is wrong today.

 

[Mr_Ed]

$864 per year difference when paying monthly. Unless the software Im using is wrong.

not even close.
try again.

 

[scagnt83]

not even close.
try again.

I would suggest you try running it first and then get back to me. Both WinFlex & VitalSales both say the same thing.

Post some SC illustrations and then we can talk.


(and there is no need to PM me with the exact same thing you posted publicly)

----------

From WinFlex:

Now I was just running quick quotes to test your statement. I noticed that I did not throw in professional home care... maybe that is the difference maker... other than that you tell me. If I am wrong please let me know, I was simply trying to test your theory.... of course Im not the one calling people stupid either...

(vital sales suite was a dollar or two off on one of them compared to winflex, but that is nothing)

 

[Mr_Ed]

see attached.

with most policies, in most states, for about the same premium, someone can buy a 3% compound with a MUCH HIGHER daily benefit than buying 5% compound with a much lower daily benefit.

3% compound is the better value nearly every time.

That's why I said 5% compound is a dinosaur. It used to be the king of the earth. Now it's just bunch of fossils in a museum.

In this instance with the MOO policy, ths 45 year old male can either buy $3,000 per month growing at 5% compound OR for the same premium buy $6,600 per month growing at 3% compound. The latter option gives MORE benefit to the insured until his late eighties. If you add the fact that MOO will allow the 3% compound to be increased in the future without proof of insurability, the 5% compound becomes even more of a dinosaur.

 

[scagnt83]

In this instance with the MOO policy, ths 45 year old male can either buy $3,000 per month growing at 5% compound OR for the same premium buy $6,600 per month growing at 3% compound. The latter option gives MORE benefit to the insured until his late eighties. If you add the fact that MOO will allow the 3% compound to be increased in the future without proof of insurability, the 5% compound becomes even more of a dinosaur.

I was going by your numbers.... now you are changing the numbers ..... that is the problem with generalized statements, everything is situation specific.

You claimed my quotes were wrong.... were they? Or was what you posted first wrong? Maybe 3% is better than 5% in some situations.... but I knew they numbers you threw out were way off base.


But I will admit that in your "amended" example the 3% looks better. But 4% also looks better than the 3% for when a 45 year old will most likely need LTC. (imo)

 

[Mr_Ed]

I was going by your numbers.... now you are changing the numbers ..... that is the problem with generalized statements, everything is situation specific.

You claimed my quotes were wrong.... were they? Or was what you posted first wrong? Maybe 3% is better than 5% in some situations.... but I knew they numbers you threw out were way off base.


But I will admit that in your "amended" example the 3% looks better. But 4% also looks better than the 3% for when a 45 year old will most likely need LTC. (imo)

the numbers I threw out were not off base.
the numbers I used in my original post were for the GNW policy, not the MOO policy.

with gnw a 45 year old can get $275 per day with 3C for the same premium as $100 per day with 5C.

 

[ltcadviser]

I would suggest you try running it first and then get back to me. Both WinFlex & VitalSales both say the same thing.

Post some SC illustrations and then we can talk.


(and there is no need to PM me with the exact same thing you posted publicly)

----------

From WinFlex:

Now I was just running quick quotes to test your statement. I noticed that I did not throw in professional home care... maybe that is the difference maker... other than that you tell me. If I am wrong please let me know, I was simply trying to test your theory.... of course Im not the one calling people stupid either...

(vital sales suite was a dollar or two off on one of them compared to winflex, but that is nothing)

Tyler, I have never seen the value in including Non-Forfeiture benefits. Just saying.

 

[scagnt83]

Tyler, I have never seen the value in including Non-Forfeiture benefits. Just saying.

In reality with the way lapse rates are it is probably a seldom used benefit. But I find it surprising how much people like the idea of the benefit when told about it. I usually dont put it on the first quote I show, but I often mention it as an option just to put it out there and see if they like the idea of it.

It doesnt seem to add too much to the monthly premium, usually around $20 from what Ive found.

I see it kind of like the Partnership status. Sure most people who can afford to buy LTCI will probably not need the Partnership status... but if the sh*t hits the fan for some reason in retirement it is a nice safety net to have. (its insurance on top of insurance)