Need Help - My First Second to Die Case for an Estate

Hey guys, need some advice. This is the first large case like this I have done when concerning an estate. I'm working on a quote for a friend of mine and want to be sure I'm doing the right/best thing for him given his parents situation.

They have already received one quote from another agent who was recommended to the family and is pushing whole life second to die on them very hard, however my first instinct was to do a guaranteed universal life policy.

Is this guys just trying to make more money/sell them a more expensive policy?

I know that the whole life policy will build up more cash value and do so quicker, that is not the primary concern for the family/estate in this case(they made that point clear). Having access to cash value/loans is more of an afterthought for them.

My quote is about $1,000 per month cheaper than the other agents whole life quote (both for the same face value coverage).

Am I correct to encourage them to go with a GUL policy based on this?

Give me pros and cons or any advice.

I can't think of any reasons why they would want a whole life policy instead of my policy?

For the record I'm looking at either the Mutual of Omaha Universal life Survivor policy or the Lincoln LifeGuarantee SUL
 
Last edited:
Premium offset. That's why. What is the other policy?

GUL is a good offer too, but find out who they are looking at and what is being offered.

Don't lock in on GUL just quite yet.
 
The whole life policy they have been quoted is through Guardian.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Premium offset. That's why. What is the other policy?

GUL is a good offer too, but find out who they are looking at and what is being offered.

Don't lock in on GUL just quite yet.


The agent pushing the whole life policy hasn't mentioned premium offset to them, and wants them to overfund it for the life of the policy. Which to me, again, doesn't make a ton of sense to focus on building that cash value, when they have told me that the cash value isn't a selling point for them.
 
Last edited:
no need to overfund, but it's a good idea to have some CV in later years. Just provides flexibility...maybe a new product is better. Pretty hard to 1035 no cash to a new policy. I had a case recently where the clients were insistent on having CV with a policy split option, in case they got divorced.
 
They won't be able to access the cash value if the policy is inside of an ILIT...if cash value doesn't matter to them, then saving $12k/year in premiums with a GUL should be pretty attractive.
 
They won't be able to access the cash value if the policy is inside of an ILIT...if cash value doesn't matter to them, then saving $12k/year in premiums with a GUL should be pretty attractive.

I believe they are only setting the ILIT up as the beneficiary, and that the policy is not inside of the trust. Is that possible?
 
I believe they are only setting the ILIT up as the beneficiary, and that the policy is not inside of the trust. Is that possible?

Something is getting lost somewhere. That makes absolutely no sense. If the ILIT isn't the owner, then the insurance is still an asset of the insured and still counts for estate tax.
 
Something is getting lost somewhere. That makes absolutely no sense. If the ILIT isn't the owner, then the insurance is still an asset of the insured and still counts for estate tax.

Then my buddy (the son) must just not know which it is. I asked him and that's what he told me.

They are using an attorney for all of this, so I'm sure it's being done right.

The other agent is encouraging them to overfund the policy by $700 per month so that it will gain more cash value. Is he doing this just so he can get a higher commission on the policy? If they can't access the cash value then it seems to me that he is simply trying to screw them so he can make more?
 
Then my buddy (the son) must just not know which it is. I asked him and that's what he told me.

They are using an attorney for all of this, so I'm sure it's being done right.

The other agent is encouraging them to overfund the policy by $700 per month so that it will gain more cash value. Is he doing this just so he can get a higher commission on the policy? If they can't access the cash value then it seems to me that he is simply trying to screw them so he can make more?

I doubt it. There really is no reason to overfund a WL in this case unless you are trying to short pay it. The comp goes to nothing on PUAs, so he isn't doing it for that reason. There are plenty of other products he could put that money into that would pay better.

I would say your buddy probably doesn't understand what is going on and is doing a poor job of relaying the information to you due to his lack of understanding.

The Guardian rep's recommendation may be good or it may be bad, no idea. But I am pretty sure we have almost no real idea what is going on after being relayed through your buddy and then you.
 
I doubt it. There really is no reason to overfund a WL in this case unless you are trying to short pay it. The comp goes to nothing on PUAs, so he isn't doing it for that reason. There are plenty of other products he could put that money into that would pay better.

I would say your buddy probably doesn't understand what is going on and is doing a poor job of relaying the information to you due to his lack of understanding.

The Guardian rep's recommendation may be good or it may be bad, no idea. But I am pretty sure we have almost no real idea what is going on after being relayed through your buddy and then you.

No, he specifically told me that the guardian agent is selling them the policy and using the cash value as a selling point and told them to overfund the policy because it would build up the cash value that they could then borrow against at a later date. That part was made very clear to me (the reasoning for the overfunding)
 
Back
Top