Ohio National - Demutualization

[scagnt83]

"We have heard that ON clients are not screwed now because they can just 1035 their CV... IF insurable.
This is a bit of a reach, if you bought a ten pay, the new one is twice as much based on new 7702 rules so right off the bat you are buying less death benefit
The 1035 money over and above the premium goes into a pua rider( assuming 1035 to another whole life policy) that rider carries a sales charge some up to 10%.
The client is older so the premium will be higher and there is a new contestability clause.
A healthy client may have an out and but certainly is not in an enviable position.

I completely agree, and I am not the one going around saying that statement.

In addition to taking a loss, there are a whole host of other reasons they are in a much worse position now vs. when they were sold on the plan that has now fallen apart.

 

[scagnt83]

are you using an IUL illustration before or after 7702 changes? It would be a bit disingenuous to use a current max funded today when that wasnt available.

The new 7702 regs did not have a major effect on the CV to premium ratio in IUL. It has always been in that range. The changes were the Premium to DB ratio.

It does carry a smaller COI charge per dollar of premium, which does help a little bit. But the COI in the first few years is miniscule. In that scenario, for a 67yo Standard Female, COI is $516 in y1, $579 in y2.

So at most, the new 7702 regs caused a $1k difference in that scenario I outlined.

 

[scagnt83]

No, I'm convinced that you are gaslighting me and are just trying to feed a narcissistic tendency to always be right.

I've admitted when I don't know something, but you can't. It's not in your nature and you keep twisting terms and facts in order to ... do something. I guess to always be right.

I've had you on ignore, but I have previously respected you too much to not view your posts.

I'm done with you Tyler.

Im just stating facts David. None of this was personal until you took it that way and took shots at me.

Expenses do not stop on a 10pay WL after y10.

A UL can be designed and funded to be every bit as guaranteed as a WL, even a 10pay WL.

UL provides more "premium equity" for the first 5-8 years.

Paying a large amount of premiums into an insurance policy (any permanent policy) for the expectation of CV returns, carries the risk of a potential lost opportunity cost if the policy does not performed as planned.

Most people buy 10pay WL policies for Cash Value accumulation, with the expectation of Dividends being maintained. And would not have bought the policy based on Guaranteed Values.

Most people who buy WL with the expectation of Dividends being paid, would consider having dividends slashed, as being screwed over by the insurer.

Facts

 

[scagnt83]

But I guess I'm just a dumb CLU that knows that target premiums does not guarantee a policy against a lapse and that COI is an ongoing increasing expense. And other than reducing the future DB in a later year... and knowing that overloan protection riders primarily prevent LAWSUITS that could arise from phantom income when a policy lapses (should it qualify for the rider to be activated), I'd love to see an innovative product that would solve these fundamental issues in IUL.

Target premium is irrelevant, since it is a figure to calculate commissions. The agent/client choose what premium level to fund a UL policy.

What prevents a lapse is the level of funding.

And the possibility of a Lapse when taking income is just as likely with UL as it is with WL... which is exactly why WL carriers have copied that feature from IUL. (speaking of innovation)

And if you educated yourself about UL and IUL, you would know that these "issues" are only in your mind if the policy is max funded using GPT.

 

[scagnt83]

If I'm selling WL... why do I need to know how UL works?

And again, there's a big difference between a short-pay strategy and a limited pay policy.

Yes, I know there are SOME (very few) UL policies that can be limited pay.
Do I know how those work? No.
Have I ever sold one? No.

Why do you need to know how UL works??!!

You make incorrect statements about UL on a public forum....

Claim to be an expert within the life insurance industry...

Claim to be a "student of the industry" (your words)....

It is widely owned by consumers across the country...

Yet you see no need to know how UL works?

----

Have you never encountered a client who already owns a UL policy?

Have you never competed against a UL policy?

Have you never been asked questions about UL from clients or propsects?

Do you not feel a responsibility to actually know for a fact if there is a potentially better solution on the market for a clients situation? (because I promise WL is not the answer every time for every client)

Do you not want to offer clients ALL of the options and benefits afforded to them in the life insurance code of law? (because WL is lacking 2 major options afforded to consumers to have a policy specifically designed for their specific needs)

-----

If you dont care about the facts surrounding the product, then dont make false statements about the product.

 

[scagnt83]

This has been going on for YEARS - especially when I was first moderating and growing the Facebook group and things exploded in a private thread in the 1000 post forum.

I finally have enough confidence and knowledge in THIS subject matter to call out his BS and his maneuvering that I could clearly see it for what it is now.

And the worst thing (and the best thing) you can do for someone with narcissistic tendencies... is to call them out on it and refuse to engage. Narcissists cannot stand that. They're not mature enough.

Making sure statements are factually correct is called professionalism, not narcissism. Facts are facts.

You just freak out whenever someone says you are wrong. Thats why you kicked me out of your fb group (which I only joined in the first place because you personally asked me to). You couldnt take being told you said something incorrect.

 

[DHK]

 

[DHK]

 

[DHK]

 

[scagnt83]

I'd love to see an innovative product that would solve these fundamental issues in IUL.

I don't believe it exists, but I'd love to be wrong.

Ironic statement there. This exact mentality has caused some IUL carriers to change the expense structure.... to the detriment of the client.

Now some stop COI around age 90 and keep the COI super low.

Instead, they charge an Asset Fee against the CV. Carrier makes a lot more in that scenario. But fear mongering agents cant make misleading claims against that structure.

In all fairness, it does help if the policy is not fully overfunded, since the expenses should be a sustainable amount for the CV in the policy. But for fully overfunded polices, the old expense structure was a lower Net expense to the client.