Justifying a Whole Life Policy

[Jerard]

You claimed that ULs were bad for consumers, dangerous, and that you had no respect for agents who sell them. You even challenged the ethics of agents who actively sell ULs.

Not quite accurate but close enough. I amended my opinion to not include professional career agents (this, of course, I've said at least 2 times before).

So if you do not define "bad" as a lapse and loosing coverage. What do you define it as? In my opinion a client with active coverage is good and a client with lapsed coverage is bad.

Once again you are dancing around with comments not relative to my points. Since I've stated my point at least 8 times you'll have to go back and re-read them.

A ULs Guarantee (assuming no secondary guarantee) is based on the assumed funding level at issue.

You are actually putting the words "guarantee" and "assumed" in the same sentence and not see the basic flaw in this?

Yes, if the client skips a premium that Guarantee is altered.

Thank you. This proves one of my points.

If you think that most ULs are sold in an unethical way you are out of touch. And the statistics back that statement up.

Show them to me. The statistics that show the percentage of agents that sell ethically verses those that sell unethically.

Maybe among FE agents ULs are sold that way. But in other markets that is not the majority.

I'm not an FE agent. I talk to anyone that wants to talk insurance regardless of their age.

If you want to read the Guarantee on a UL, go run some illustrations from some decent companies and read away.

"Passing the buck" instead accepting my challenge.

 

[scagnt83]

"Passing the buck" instead accepting my challenge.

Obtaining an illustration should not be that hard. I know for a fact that there are multiple UL illustrations on this website.

But since you do more than FE I trust that your capable of finding one yourself. (if it will be properly designed is another story)

 

[sman]

It's better than the rest, but if agents sell it like other UL's (ability to skip premiums) then that guarantee is voided. Or if they are late on payments.

Hold on a second, you stated UL's aren't guaranteed. Now you're giving stipulations on how the guarantee may be lost and blaming it on the way agents sell it.

I certainly have no dog in this fight and really don't care whether you agree or not, but the FACT remains that GUL's ARE guaranteed. Of course you can throw out all the 'what ifs' you want, but as long as a person meets the requirements of the contract it's guaranteed.

 

[scagnt83]

Of course you can throw out all the 'what ifs' you want, but as long as a person meets the requirements of the contract it's guaranteed.

Hey Sman, "what if" you skip a premium on a WL policy? Is it still guaranteed?

 

[sman]

Hey Sman, "what if" you skip a premium on a WL policy? Is it still guaranteed?

As long as it has cash value it is. But once that's gone it's about as guaranteed as me hooking up with Halle Berry.

 

[Jerard]

I'm done saying the same thing over and over and over and have what I said come back distorted.

My only points I have made on this topic are the following:

FACT: All UL's consists of two MAIN components. The COI, and the interests dependent cash value. I have proven this with the sites I have listed and asked to be shown any other sites that you think proves this point is wrong. If Wikipedia, Forbes, USLegal, or Ask.com are not good enough then choose any site that proves what I have said is not true.

FACT: Anything that is dependent on a variable for it's sustainability cannot have contractual guarantees. I agree that GUL's come the closest. As I have shown this "guarantee" is dependent on a set of strict conditions. If these conditions are not met then the guarantee is voided by the company. Once the guarantee has been voided then the company is legally allowed to void the contract in the event the CV is less than the COI.


I'm not going to repeat myself on all this again. No one has provided any facts to dispute the above statements. Name calling, insults, and snide comments meant to make fun of me are not facts. The only facts that can prove my points wrong would be a contract scan saying different. I'm tired of waiting for something that will never arrive.

I do apologize if my comment on agents that sell UL's offended anyone, It wasn't meant for anyone in particular and, as I said, it wasn't meant for any professional agents that sell UL's the "safe" way (yes, that means you guys). I'm done with this thread.

 

[GoCubsGo]

Jerard, Seems you started out saying UL's are bad for everyone and anyone. Then you softened to not bad for everyone but not properly explained so that makes them bad. Now are you back to they are bad for everyone?

North American has a UL with an Extended No Lapse Guarantee (Custom Guarantee UL). It is not their TermGUL. It spells out that by paying the premiums stated on the Tabular Detail Page the death benefit is guaranteed to age 120. Contractually guaranteed. Now with either this UL or WL if you change one part of the contract it affects other parts. If you stop paying the premiums on either one you lose the death benefit. Getting the guarantee back on a reinstatement will be easier with the WL. In the FE world the North American UL would work for a few. A 66 year old male can get 25K for 63.78 compared to RNA WL for 112.16. About half! Not every FE client is the dead broke illiterate pig pen some make them all out to be. Some can handle the responsibility and understand that it is a death benefit only product that they can't miss payments or use as a cash source down the road. I think they deserve an agent that explains all the options available and lets them decide. Not just assumes they are too stupid to handle anything other then a simple SIWL.

 

[scagnt83]

I'm done saying the same thing over and over and over and have what I said come back distorted.

My only points I have made on this topic are the following:

FACT: All UL's consists of two MAIN components. The COI, and the interests dependent cash value. I have proven this with the sites I have listed and asked to be shown any other sites that you think proves this point is wrong. If Wikipedia, Forbes, USLegal, or Ask.com are not good enough then choose any site that proves what I have said is not true.

FACT: Anything that is dependent on a variable for it's sustainability cannot have contractual guarantees. I agree that GUL's come the closest. As I have shown this "guarantee" is dependent on a set of strict conditions. If these conditions are not met then the guarantee is voided by the company. Once the guarantee has been voided then the company is legally allowed to void the contract in the event the CV is less than the COI.


I'm not going to repeat myself on all this again. No one has provided any facts to dispute the above statements. Name calling, insults, and snide comments meant to make fun of me are not facts. The only facts that can prove my points wrong would be a contract scan saying different. I'm tired of waiting for something that will never arrive.

I do apologize if my comment on agents that sell UL's offended anyone, It wasn't meant for anyone in particular and, as I said, it wasn't meant for any professional agents that sell UL's the "safe" way (yes, that means you guys). I'm done with this thread.

Fact:
A WL policy has a Guaranteed Column & a Non-Guaranteed Column of the Contract.

Fact:
A UL has a Guaranteed Column & a Non-Guaranteed Column of the Contract.

Fact:
The Guaranteed Column of the WL is only Guaranteed if you pay all of the Premiums shown on the Illustration/Contract.

Fact:
The Guaranteed Column of the UL is only Guaranteed if you pay all of the Premiums shown on the Illustration/Contract.

Fact:
Ask.com, Wikipedia, Forbes, etc are not considered valid references for a professional discussion. But it shows where your knowledge of ULs come from. And it comes from non insurance industry sources.

Fact:
Any UL illustration from a quality company will disprove your "guarantee" related comments.

Fact:
There are more than just 2 IMPORTANT components to a UL.


You now have amended your comment to say there are just 2 main components.
But that would be like saying the 2 main components of a car are just the paint and engine.
In the case of the car, just like the UL, anyone who knows anything about cars knows that the above statement is just not true.

 

[VolAgent]

As long as it has cash value it is. But once that's gone it's about as guaranteed as me hooking up with Halle Berry.

See what happens with a non-par WL if you skip a premium. It will go through that cash value pretty quick with no dividends to replenish it. It might last a bit longer than a GUL, but definitely not for life.

 

[rousemark]

I'm done saying the same thing over and over and over and have what I said come back distorted.

My only points I have made on this topic are the following:

FACT: All UL's consists of two MAIN components. The COI, and the interests dependent cash value. I have proven this with the sites I have listed and asked to be shown any other sites that you think proves this point is wrong. If Wikipedia, Forbes, USLegal, or Ask.com are not good enough then choose any site that proves what I have said is not true.

FACT: Anything that is dependent on a variable for it's sustainability cannot have contractual guarantees. I agree that GUL's come the closest. As I have shown this "guarantee" is dependent on a set of strict conditions. If these conditions are not met then the guarantee is voided by the company. Once the guarantee has been voided then the company is legally allowed to void the contract in the event the CV is less than the COI.


I'm not going to repeat myself on all this again. No one has provided any facts to dispute the above statements. Name calling, insults, and snide comments meant to make fun of me are not facts. The only facts that can prove my points wrong would be a contract scan saying different. I'm tired of waiting for something that will never arrive.

I do apologize if my comment on agents that sell UL's offended anyone, It wasn't meant for anyone in particular and, as I said, it wasn't meant for any professional agents that sell UL's the "safe" way (yes, that means you guys). I'm done with this thread.

Jerad: you seem to be missing the fact that a whole life is also based on those same main components.. They are based on the mortality or COI and the interest the companies earn on the excess.. In fact companies a re just now having to change the nonforfeiture values in their plans because of the current low interest rates are not enough to maintain what they have provided in the past. The only thing different about the whole life is the inflexibility of the whole life. As long as the flexibility of a UL is not abused, it will preform as well as a WL.. I just ran some proposals with a company using their whole and their UL funding the Ul with the same premium as the WL.. Guess what their performance was almost exactly the same.

As for the projections on a Gtd. basis for a UL, they won't happen. They normally assume not only the Gtd interest rate from day 1 but the maximum COI.. I don't know of any company that is issuing polices at minimum interest and maximum COI. if they were the projected values and the gtd values would be the same.