IUL Presentation Needed ?

8437682fea642b21e22c9bb1b15a4613.jpg
 
You keep using absolutes about UL.

There are several types of UL. Are you saying that all UL is "never the best option" or are you talking specifically about IUL, the topic of this post?
No matter what label you put on any form of UL it’s just lipstick on a different pig.
 
I agree with blaming the companies, but I disagree with why. When these were sold, those really were normal interest rates for that period. The Fed Funds rate was double digits for quite some time. Also, the cost of insurance had only gone down. In fact, even with current trends in health, mortality is still improving.

The reason the companies are to blame is they allowed the policies to be minimally funded when they knew full well they were not designed nor intended to be used that way.

The interest rates weren't a fluke, our interest rates now are. They have intentionally been depressed for decades now. Unfortunately, these minimally funded policies could not survive this aberration.

Highest and Lowest Interest Rates and Why They Changed

There are companies that raised the COI even though mortality is improving. If the declining interest rates would not blow up the policy maybe rising interest rates will. Its is in the companies best interest to let these policies lapse way before maturity.
 
There are companies that raised the COI even though mortality is improving. If the declining interest rates would not blow up the policy maybe rising interest rates will. Its is in the companies best interest to let these policies lapse way before maturity.

I'm aware, it is another reaction to abnormally low interest rates.

I'm not saying the companies aren't to blame, I'm just saying I believe it is for a different reason. Were these policies not minimally funded, they would be a cash cow for the companies and they'd have little interest in them lapsing.

The real flaw was allowing agents to sell minimally funded policies. It is bad for everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DHK
I'm aware, it is another reaction to abnormally low interest rates.

I'm not saying the companies aren't to blame, I'm just saying I believe it is for a different reason. Were these policies not minimally funded, they would be a cash cow for the companies and they'd have little interest in them lapsing.

The real flaw was allowing agents to sell minimally funded policies. It is bad for everyone.

Completely agree
 
I blame the companies for the UL mess. They knew they would never pay the 10-12% interest rate that they were projecting on their illustrations which now are paying 4%. Then you factor in a lot of them raised the cost of insurance, you then have one hell of a box to fund. I have never sold a UL policy until recently but I have seen many in force ones over the years and only 1 was funded properly, the rest I have seen didn’t make it past 75. The companies then turn around and blame the agent because they did not fund it properly when they are the ones issuing the contract with underfunded premiums. They knew exactly what they were doing.

20 and 30 year term policies really didnt exist back in the 1980s, so some UL were funded to only provide coverage to age 60 or 70 even when they were projected at 10-12%. while some carriers have raised COI, i am aware of others that lowered the COI when mortality improved in the 90s & 2000s.

the company I work with lowered COI on inforce policies & has allowed UL clients for the last decade to convert their UL without Underwriting to either a Reduced Paid up policy or a premium paying WL policy. none of which were contractual obligations.
 
Back
Top