- 687
The reason I ask about North American and Midland is because I have ran several scenarios and North American has consistently came out with a higher income stream and death benefit over midland. I would have assumed just the opposite.
Indexed Universal Life Insurance Income Comparison
- Thread starter BNTRS
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #12
Thanks, I'll see what I can do.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hmmm, what makes you think Midland would have come out on top? I've often illustrated Midland with a 6.1% assumed rate and 6% to account for the higher cap (the historical says it should be 6.3%, but I'm not going to the maximum). Midland compares very favorably at that point.
I like them both, and have no real problem going one vs. the other. If you have faith in the higher cap, then I say Midland, if you're going to stick to the philosophy that they will all average out to the same over time, than North American currently has the edge internal expense wise.
Last edited:
Just to add more information. I ran Minnesota Life with the new death benefit option and it came out as follows:
Initial DB: $265,575, Cash Value at 65: $532,206, Death Benefit at 65: $788,873, Income age 66-100: $48,450, Death Benefit at Age 100:$301,421, Death Benefit at 120: $4,734,971
The caveat is that the Death Benefit would be paid 50% at time of death and 50% over a maximum of 30 years or to age 95. If the goal is pure income at 66 then you can change it to 100 for 30 years and the income goes up to $50,471.
Initial DB: $265,575, Cash Value at 65: $532,206, Death Benefit at 65: $788,873, Income age 66-100: $48,450, Death Benefit at Age 100:$301,421, Death Benefit at 120: $4,734,971
The caveat is that the Death Benefit would be paid 50% at time of death and 50% over a maximum of 30 years or to age 95. If the goal is pure income at 66 then you can change it to 100 for 30 years and the income goes up to $50,471.
- 687
2 reasons:
First,
With Midland being a direct company and North American using IMO's that there would be more expenses involved with North American, therefore Midland IMO should provide higher potential income and death benefit.
Second,
Comparing both companies annuities portfolio I find that Midland has higher caps and bonuses hence Midland providing higher potential overall returns, which is what lead me to compare the XL products and their potential returns through overfunding.
lachjs789
Expert
Did you use a traditional or participating loan option?
- 403
I have been a UL product development managing actuary for several carriers. Given a choice, I would always opt for the non-indexed version of UL. Unless a carrier intentionally tilts its expenses to lower the costs of indexed UL, it must divert a chunk of every dollar to buy derivates that support the index, a cost that cannot be recouped.
sharondenning
New Member
- 1
Thank you so much this is exactly what I was looking for!
Just read this post for the first time this morning, thanks to a first-timer posting troll who bumped it to the top. (I never understand the point of that...). Good stuff.
Brandon, have you updated your original data? I'm just getting into IUL as another option in my arsenal, and am appointed with LSW, North American and American General. Looks like I'm well-covered for product choices, just by the results posted.
Brandon, have you updated your original data? I'm just getting into IUL as another option in my arsenal, and am appointed with LSW, North American and American General. Looks like I'm well-covered for product choices, just by the results posted.
- Thread starter
- #19
- 717
Check out Lincoln National 's producer site if you have access. They have comparisons of their products to many of their competitors...some samples attached from last year.
Similar threads
