- 2,758
Exactly! Thank you.
Justifying a Whole Life Policy
- Thread starter stci
- Start date
-
- Tags
- whole life
Exactly! Thank you.
- 4,132
"what ever happened to showing a combined smaller WL policy with a Term rider or separate 30yr Term"
Absolutely nothing happened to it. But is it an automatic default or one of several options that should be shown and discussed with the client? Show the client his/her options, explain them and let them decide what they want to do.
I learned a long time ago, if I decide ahead of time for the client, usually the commission is zero. I also learned make them a client first. Show them their choices or somebody else will.
But I agree with Larry that lately a lot of agents who don't have product knowledge cite "moral" reasons for not selling a certain product. While Larry is much more civil about it than I, let me call it what it is, Bull Shite. IF you have to cite how "moral" you are, well, you usually aren't.
Absolutely nothing happened to it. But is it an automatic default or one of several options that should be shown and discussed with the client? Show the client his/her options, explain them and let them decide what they want to do.
I learned a long time ago, if I decide ahead of time for the client, usually the commission is zero. I also learned make them a client first. Show them their choices or somebody else will.
But I agree with Larry that lately a lot of agents who don't have product knowledge cite "moral" reasons for not selling a certain product. While Larry is much more civil about it than I, let me call it what it is, Bull Shite. IF you have to cite how "moral" you are, well, you usually aren't.
- 2,758
Are you saying that agents should not have morals? You and Larry keep saying that because someone doesn't like a product then it must be because they are "ignorant" about that product. Yet neither of you post any facts to support your claim that UL's are not a dangerous product. If you can scan and post any UL policy that says in the contract that it is guaranteed 'no matter what' then I'd like to see it. You can't because it doesn't exist. Until you do then keep with your personal attacks of "ignorance" if that is all you have.
I understand why you would take such a intolerant approach to my opinion. If you have agents under you that sell alot of UL's then, of course, if they were to stop due to learning how they really work then you'd make less money off their sales. WL is harder to sell because you can't tell the client.."oh, but you can skip payments and still not lose your insurance".
Forgive me for quoting you, but "Bull Shirt" on that.
- 4,132
"Are you saying that agents should not have morals"
If you have to tell me you have "morals", do you really?
"Yet neither of you post any facts to support your claim that UL's are not a
dangerous product"
AND ONCE AGAIN YOU CHANGE THE TOPIC! Is this a post about UL? Not when I checked. YET, JUST LIKE BEFORE, you slide over into this tangent on UL and somehow imply that whole life and UL are one in the same?
So, while I don't want to call you ignorant, it seems you have a problem with comprehension as this is the second time you've gone off on this tangent argument about UL. Where are we talking about UL? Where have I spoken about UL in this post other than right now?
I mean I reread your post and it's a wtf? IS THIS POST ABOUT UL?
YES OR NO?
as I told you before, we agree much more than we disagree about UL, but once again this isn't a post on UL. is it?
If you have to tell me you have "morals", do you really?
"Yet neither of you post any facts to support your claim that UL's are not a
dangerous product"
AND ONCE AGAIN YOU CHANGE THE TOPIC! Is this a post about UL? Not when I checked. YET, JUST LIKE BEFORE, you slide over into this tangent on UL and somehow imply that whole life and UL are one in the same?
So, while I don't want to call you ignorant, it seems you have a problem with comprehension as this is the second time you've gone off on this tangent argument about UL. Where are we talking about UL? Where have I spoken about UL in this post other than right now?
I mean I reread your post and it's a wtf? IS THIS POST ABOUT UL?
YES OR NO?
as I told you before, we agree much more than we disagree about UL, but once again this isn't a post on UL. is it?
- Thread starter
- #15
- 4,132
"There is no way I can justify it because he wont get the return on his money"
Really simple.. what whole life product do you have to offer? What company?
What return are you talking about? A stock market return? An equity type return? a Bond type return? a treasury type return? How would RISK play into your advising? Are you securities licensed or ever have been?
"I know my products I have read those books"
So what do YOU own and why?
"And ya I am not a sly salesman Im out to protect my client not to sell him something that he does not need."
Go back to my previous post and see what I said about commissions you earn when YOU decide what the client should have ahead of time.
Are YOU 100% certain he does not need or want that type of policy? Then why is he interested in it?
"I never said I wouldnt sell it to him!"
Yes, but you've posted you wouldn't because you have Morals? Where'd they go?
Really simple.. what whole life product do you have to offer? What company?
What return are you talking about? A stock market return? An equity type return? a Bond type return? a treasury type return? How would RISK play into your advising? Are you securities licensed or ever have been?
"I know my products I have read those books"
So what do YOU own and why?
"And ya I am not a sly salesman Im out to protect my client not to sell him something that he does not need."
Go back to my previous post and see what I said about commissions you earn when YOU decide what the client should have ahead of time.
Are YOU 100% certain he does not need or want that type of policy? Then why is he interested in it?
"I never said I wouldnt sell it to him!"
Yes, but you've posted you wouldn't because you have Morals? Where'd they go?
- 2,758
The comments made by you and Larry indirectly referenced the debate we had last week. The same reference to "ignorance" with regard to product knowledge was the same. It's possible my assumptions were incorrect, but I don't think so.
I have never said that *I* have morals. I have praised the ones that appear to and have tried to show new agents the dangers of the UL. I don't care if you, Larry, or anyone else likes it or not. I will continue to (occasionally) speak out against this product. If only a single agent stops selling it because of what I have said here then my goal has more than been achieved. For every agent that does not sell them that means there are perhaps thousands of clients that won't have to worry about losing their insurance someday because they skipped a few payments here and there. "But the agent said I could and it would be OK, why do I have to pay more or lose it?"
If I am the only one that has ever changed or went off on a different tangent of a topic then I'll do a "my bad...". But before you chastise me for it then go back and do the same for every person that has made a comment about their sports teams, made a joke, posted a YouTube video, a funny gif, or anything else that is not directly related to insurance. I enjoy the humor and the tangents, it's what makes this forum more interesting. It is rare to see a thread that doesn't eventually change from the original topic to something else then back again. But you don't walk up to a thousand prostitutes...pick a single one out and call her a 'ho'.
- 4,132
jerad?
Big difference between posting a utube or gif and completely going off about a different product.
Why don't you just start a post on why you don't like ULs? Why must you do this rant about ULs on a WL post? You do understand WL and UL are two different products and every time you go off tangent it takes away from the subject. I mean for crying out loud, just make a UL topic and have at it.
Prior to GULs coming about, I sold 1 UL product in over 20 years. And that was to a bank manager who after reviewing all three types of coverage chose that plan. He was certain, after looking at all three, that was what he wanted.
I don't like straight UL's anymore than you do. Probably less. But really, this is a whole life post, not a UL post and it makes no sense or provides no help to try and turn it into a UL post. All that will do is confuse agents or piss them off like it has me, because it has nothing to do with what we're talking about and you're serious rather than joking around. Joking around is one thing, what you're doing is another. Just make your own thread on UL and have at it.
"Are you saying that agents should not have morals"
If you have to tell me you have "morals", do you really?
"I have never said that *I* have morals"
Let me see if this helps you understand.
"If you have to tell me you have "morals", do you really?"
If an agent, not you of course, has to tell me that they have "morals", does that agent, not you of course, really have them?
Does that work better for you?
Big difference between posting a utube or gif and completely going off about a different product.
Why don't you just start a post on why you don't like ULs? Why must you do this rant about ULs on a WL post? You do understand WL and UL are two different products and every time you go off tangent it takes away from the subject. I mean for crying out loud, just make a UL topic and have at it.
Prior to GULs coming about, I sold 1 UL product in over 20 years. And that was to a bank manager who after reviewing all three types of coverage chose that plan. He was certain, after looking at all three, that was what he wanted.
I don't like straight UL's anymore than you do. Probably less. But really, this is a whole life post, not a UL post and it makes no sense or provides no help to try and turn it into a UL post. All that will do is confuse agents or piss them off like it has me, because it has nothing to do with what we're talking about and you're serious rather than joking around. Joking around is one thing, what you're doing is another. Just make your own thread on UL and have at it.
"Are you saying that agents should not have morals"
If you have to tell me you have "morals", do you really?
"I have never said that *I* have morals"
Let me see if this helps you understand.
"If you have to tell me you have "morals", do you really?"
If an agent, not you of course, has to tell me that they have "morals", does that agent, not you of course, really have them?
Does that work better for you?
Last edited:
- 10,708
Actually I think that I was the one who initially called you ignorant.
Maybe that term was a bit harsh in retrospect. But I did not mean it on the level that you took it. I genuinely meant that there is a disconnect in your level of knowledge on this product. You are not fully informed of all of the facts.
I let that thread go in the spirit of staying kosher. This post is not an attempt to antagonize, but to bring a bit of understanding about opposite side of this discussion. And hopefully show that I am not trying to have an argument, but instead a professional discussion about the viability of a product that you claim is a "bad" product.
Jerard,
In the previous thread you mention, I presented facts. But you refused to acknowledge or comment on any of them.
From your comments on the previous thread, it is very clear to those of us looking at this from an outside perspective, that you are blinded somewhat by a personal bias that was formed out of being burnt by the product early in your career. Which is very understandable.
But the root of the reason you were burnt was a lack of education on how the product works. I am not saying that you are to blame for that. Most likely the people training you on the product knew just as little as you. Or maybe it really was a crappy UL.
But that does not mean that there are not good UL policies or that a UL can not be designed to be good (or even guaranteed) for the client.
It is obvious by your comments that you do not believe this is the case. But it can be factually proven if you bother to set aside your bias and consider the facts.
The lack of understanding about ULs in this industry is certainly a problem. And it has financially hurt many consumers in the process. But it is no different than a lack of understanding about other financial instruments. Ultimately it is the agent who makes the recommendation and designs the funding/structure of the policy.
There are some really crappy ULs out there. I will be the first to admit that.
But there are really crappy insurance products in any category.
And yes, a crappy UL can do more harm than a crappy WL can.
Yes, I agree that as an industry we should regulate the crappy products more, especially crappy ULs.
But there are ULs out there that are extremely good products.
As someone who knows UL inside and out, Jerard, your comments show that you are not fully informed on the proper application and use of a UL policy.
I am not trying to argue. But it is very clear to anyone who is fully versed in UL that there is a gap in your knowledge base.
______________________________________________________________
You cite wikipedia as a source on a professional forum???.... but you totally disregarded the stats I gave from LIMRA (the largest and most respected independent industry research firm).
The proper way to sell GUL is like a permanent Term product.
The agent should never mention loans and never mention skipping payments.
A loan should basically never be taken on a GUL and should not be presented as a viable option.
At the end of the day GUL basically acts like a non-par Level DB WL that builds little to no CV. And there are a $h!t ton of those types of WL out there....
________________________________________________________________
I have ULs on the books. Not GULs but ULs, that are guaranteed to age 95+. Not because of a Rider or because of a secondary guarantee.
But a UL with the Guaranteed Column extending to age 95-100 because of the premium funding level. A totally contractually guaranteed UL.
_________________________________________________________________
If ULs are so dangerous or bad, why do they have only a slightly higher lapse rate (1.4%) than WL does?
These are lapse rates according to LIMRA I have attached the report:
WL: 3.9%
UL: 5.3%
That is only a 1.4% difference.
(by the way Term was 10.2%)
So the hard facts say that UL is only 1.4% more dangerous to the client.
In fact, SI & GI WL have a much higher lapse rate, especially in the fist 5 years of the policy, but even on down the line too.
______________________________________________________________
ULs can serve FE needs, WLs do it better usually. But there is more to Life Insurance than just FE needs Jerard. There are many agents whos business does not concentrate on just purely FE.
You seem to box everyone into the same box as only having a Life Insurance need of FE near the end of their life. This just is not factually true.
Yes, your theory is factually true for a segment of consumers. But it is not true for all or even most consumers who buy life insurance.
______________________________________________________________
I agree that the industry had a problem with ULs, and it still persists somewhat.
But the problem has more to do with education than it does with the products that are available.
There are good quality UL products available to sell. If an agent is educated on the subject they would not sell a poor quality or underfunded UL. Those that do are either uneducated or unethical. What other reason would there be for either of those scenarios?
___________________________________________________________
ULs are not a simple product. As stated before, if you dont fully understand it you shouldnt sell it.
But unfortunately being misinformed about something can give you the illusion of being fully informed.
Take a chance that you might not know everything that you think you know and objectively consider facts in a professional and logical manner. You will expand your Life Insurance knowledge if you do.
You will also find out from the attached report that FE type products have a higher lapse rate. SI products have more than double that of fully underwritten products, including UL.
Actually SI WL has almost double the lapse rate in the early years than SI UL. They both even out on down the road. As do all permanent policies basically (within 1% of each other).
But SI WL has a lapse rate that is 7.6 times higher than fully underwritten UL in the first year. They do not equal out until around year 6 when they both basically level off.
So statistically FE type products (SI & GI) are worse for the consumer and more of a "bad product" than UL.
Also, I sell very little traditional UL these days. Actually, hardly any. Mainly due to interest rates. WL is just more attractive in the current economic environment. But your comments about UL are misinformed, misleading, and wrong.
Last edited:
Similar threads
