Ohio National 10 pay

I am not sure the file uploaded
It loaded.

Looking at it on my phone. Guaranteed columns appears to never get to anything close to IRR of 1%. Most years, especially in later years, CV growth is around 1% guaranteed. So the mid & projected right columns of anything better assumes you can trust ON to credit those non guaranteed items.

62k seems a little steep for 40 year old for 1M, but would have to look & compare. Thinking 10 pay no lapse IUL would be way lower cost on the guaranteed face component. Accumulation focus IUL, VUL or Max fund WL+PUAR with the balance might look better & not obligate the client to make the 10 pay WL premium.

However, I could be way off, as merely going from gut reading it for 1st time
 
So, I ran a no lapse IUL guaranteed to age 120 for 10 pay solve. total cost of $173k compared to the ON 10 pay $621k total. This not only would have more flexibility if the client wanted to pay more or less, it would allow the person to to have $448k in savings to invest elsewhere like another WL+ PUAR, IUL, VUL, Roth, stock market.

Is it just me or doesnt the ON 10 pay seem a bit steep for the $1M face guarantee for a 40 year old?

upload_2022-9-21_13-50-20.png

Also, ran a basic WL illustration trying to get $62K into a policy annually as a non-MEC, so it required a ton more face & term riders to get close to $60k for the 10 years between the base premium & max PUAR of 3x base. Not sure the 10 pay looks better or not, still need to digest. but guessing the ON will have to perform well above the midpoint to look better than more standard WL+ PUAR or other scenarios
upload_2022-9-21_16-42-4.png
 
Back
Top