Traditional LTCI Vs. LTC Annuity

[yankee466]

If "your FMO" could help you with the "details" I would not be here, lol. Fact is most FMO's are not that helpful with the "details", hence looking for real world experiences and not someone that has never sold before and/or not as familiar with the product as necessary, lol.

Then I'd suggest you call your regional marketing person for One America. Mine, here in Atlanta, was very helpful. Anxious to sit with me, buy me coffee, go on appointments with me, etc.

 

[CALTCAgent]

Then I'd suggest you call your regional marketing person for One America. Mine, here in Atlanta, was very helpful. Anxious to sit with me, buy me coffee, go on appointments with me, etc.

I have coffee at home, lol.

I think a product you have might be annuity care 2, which is not approved in CA.

 

[Jeff.S]

since Genworth just discontinued sales of their annuity LTC product due to poor sales, I wonder how the other carriers are doing.

Else, your statements about easier to qualify for and no rate increases are both incorrect. The cost of the LTC rider can increase, which can result in lesser benefits than originally planned on some of these products, and the UW is still pretty strict in general....with exceptions of course.

Even though I am not a fan of any of the linked benefit plans, the Life/LTC products appear to offer more bang for the buck.

Actually, Genworth discontinued their hybrid product due to improper pricing. They were too quick to market with the product.

And the asset based care products definitely are easier to qualify for than stand alone LTCi products. No para meds, rarely an APS ordered and streamlined phone underwriting.. at least for what I am writing. And, at least for what I am writing, contractually, there are no rate increases for the LTC linked products.

The difference between the life/ltc and annuity/ltc products lies primarily in LTC benefit amounts available to the client. Additionally, although the annuity linked products do offer higher LTC benefit amounts, the life products offer a death benefit of more than the premium deposited if the LTC benefits are not used... where as the annuity products do not.

 

[dmarbell]

maybe they should develop some type of annuity/homeowner's insurance combination product.

Some time ago I entertained associating with a group called "Xelan." It was a planning group aimed at MDs. They had a couple of trusts, I believe set up as VEBAs or similar, that they paid deposits in to for coverage of malpractice and disability. If there were claims, they were covered. If not, they could get at least a portion of their money back.

Yes your idea is brilliant. It was tried in the past otherwise. It was known as a "mutual insurance company."

Danny

 

[VolAgent]

Some time ago I entertained associating with a group called "Xelan." It was a planning group aimed at MDs. They had a couple of trusts, I believe set up as VEBAs or similar, that they paid deposits in to for coverage of malpractice and disability. If there were claims, they were covered. If not, they could get at least a portion of their money back.

Yes your idea is brilliant. It was tried in the past otherwise. It was known as a "mutual insurance company."

Danny

Here is the funny thing, I think NDM meant it as sarcasm. He didn't realize it was how it all started.

 

[Mr_Ed]

Here is the funny thing, I think NDM meant it as sarcasm. He didn't realize it was how it all started.

me, sarcastic?

 

[VolAgent]

me, sarcastic?

I know, shocker isn't it?

 

[Mr_Ed]

I know, shocker isn't it?

huge shocker.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Here is the funny thing, I think NDM meant it as sarcasm. He didn't realize it was how it all started.

So, here's my question: how many of the agents who think that an "LTC Annuity combo product" is a good thing have "Homeowner's Annuity combo product"?

We should take a poll.

 

[dmarbell]

Here is the funny thing, I think NDM meant it as sarcasm. He didn't realize it was how it all started.

I actually did recognize the sarcasm.

I'm old enough to remember when most insurance companies were mutual companies, or at least a lot of them were. They were such a good idea that the return on investment to policyholders couldn't be allowed to stand, when it could be turned into return on investment for shareholders.

NADM,

The annuity/LTC combo product would only be a good idea if the underwriting were more lenient, and I bet it is not. (In fact, with go/no-go decisions on underwriting, it might be more stringent.) I've run some analyses, and the stand alone products are just better for benefits, and if funded with the annuity there is more money left in the account at all points along the way.

Danny

 

[Mr_Ed]

I actually did recognize the sarcasm.

I'm old enough to remember when most insurance companies were mutual companies, or at least a lot of them were. They were such a good idea that the return on investment to policyholders couldn't be allowed to stand, when it could be turned into return on investment for shareholders.

NADM,

The annuity/LTC combo product would only be a good idea if the underwriting were more lenient, and I bet it is not. (In fact, with go/no-go decisions on underwriting, it might be more stringent.) I've run some analyses, and the stand alone products are just better for benefits, and if funded with the annuity there is more money left in the account at all points along the way.

Danny

sound analysis.
I agree.