Guarantee UL - Thoughts?

I actually have a 50 year old prospect that I was thinking about offering UHL's ROP term. How come it won't work?

Thanks:)

You are California. It especially does not work there.

Example: Male 50 non

RNA - $25,000.00 pay till death is only $63.61

UHL ROP - $25,558 to age 95 paid up @ 20 years is $61.78. But they have to except $30,000 coverage for the first 20 years also. Yes they can use cash values for premiums or RDPdUp any time.

For $1.50 more it becomes $30,000.00 Xs 30 years then $30,642.00 to age 95

The RNA policy is Whole Life so it is better. <In CA, OR, AK, NV, WA, ID, AZ, TX, LA, VA, WI, UT>

> Sarcastic intent intended

Disclaimer: I am not a FE guy. I am a Life Insurance guy.
 
Last edited:
I ran an FE lead last year and quoted the 70-year old lady $15,000 FE which she would easily qualify for Prefered. She didn't bite. Too much premium for too little coverage.

I could tell she was a buyer IF the value was there but didn't have a strong need.

I quoted her $50,000 GUL with Genworth at Prefered rate. She applies. Does paramed. Offer comes back at super-Prefered (on a 70-year old lady). She could live to 100 before she would pay in close to her death benefit.

By the time this was all done she had cold feet and almost didn't take any of it. I (truthfully) told her, if MY mother got approved for super pref at age 70 I would be buying all I could afford. She took the minimum $25,000.

It's worth carrying in the FE market but you don't use it much.
 
You are California. It especially does not work there.

Example: Male 50 non

RNA - $25,000.00 pay till death is only $63.61

UHL ROP - $25,558 to age 95 paid up @ 20 years is $61.78. But they have to except $30,000 coverage for the first 20 years also. Yes they can use cash values for premiums or RDPdUp any time.

For $1.50 more it becomes $30,000.00 Xs 30 years then $30,642.00 to age 95

The RNA policy is Whole Life so it is better. <In CA, OR, AK, NV, WA, ID, AZ, TX, LA, VA, WI, UT>

> Sarcastic intent intended

Disclaimer: I am not a FE guy. I am a Life Insurance guy.

I get the sarcastic part and that you are not an FE agenet and do not work the FE market. Having said all that, you do post this stuff in the FE forum.
 
I get the sarcastic part and that you are not an FE agenet and do not work the FE market. Having said all that, you do post this stuff in the FE forum.

That is where the question was.

RBH asked >"....but I dont see why this couldn't be a good alternative for the financially responsible healthy client." I do use GUL and ROP for those clients if they fit. In my experience most sticks better than some of the smaller SIWL I write. Those clients are lower income, but not broke ass poor. many are retired and have a small pension and a house. I am writing a SIWL policy on a lady (retired) today and a Midland GUL on the 50 year old (store owner) son. It is all just life Insurance to me.

I said I was not an FE guy. I am not. I am a Life Insurance guy. I did not say that I did not work in the FE market. I do. Because of the education and contacts I have gotten in this forum. Guys like you, Newby and some others changed my whole outlook. Thank you.
 
I ran an FE lead last year and quoted the 70-year old lady $15,000 FE which she would easily qualify for Prefered. She didn't bite. Too much premium for too little coverage.

I could tell she was a buyer IF the value was there but didn't have a strong need.

I quoted her $50,000 GUL with Genworth at Prefered rate. She applies. Does paramed. Offer comes back at super-Prefered (on a 70-year old lady). She could live to 100 before she would pay in close to her death benefit.

By the time this was all done she had cold feet and almost didn't take any of it. I (truthfully) told her, if MY mother got approved for super pref at age 70 I would be buying all I could afford. She took the minimum $25,000.

It's worth carrying in the FE market but you don't use it much.

I bet this is another big problem you'd have with GUL in the FE market. As JD always likes to say, they procrastinate. If they can solve the problem now, get them to solve it versus adding in a 4 to 6 week delay and give them a chance to back out.
 
For me I just think WL is a simpler presentation for that market. Many of the clients I talk to are familiar with WL and a discussion about GUL will delay and prevent signing the application in many cases.
 
There have been a lot of good points in this thread. My biggest take away is that there is a clear difference in the bulk of the FE target market that would make a GUL hard to place...I wanted to hear some points of view and I definitely did...

I'm a life guy and the majority of what we write is FE. However, I came across a really competitive GUL that in some cases can replace a SIWL with no comparison.

Thanks for the input fellas...that's clearly why this forum provides so much value.
 
For me I just think WL is a simpler presentation for that market. Many of the clients I talk to are familiar with WL and a discussion about GUL will delay and prevent signing the application in many cases.

Simple? Hands down it is SIWL.

The best solution to the problem? I do not think you can easily lump everyone together. All 60 year olds are not the same.

What part of California do you work?
 
Last edited:
I agree with the idea that Simplified Issue WL is great for new FE sales.

However, a GUL is a viable option for existing WL policies that have cash value. You can buy a single premium GUL if the death benefit is higher enough thereby eliminating the missed payment issue.

Obviously, replacing policies should be completed with proper consideration. But perhaps there is a place for GUL's in the FE market when looked at from this perspective.
 
Back
Top