- 11,475
I was expecting to see you with death benefit option A Level based on your earlier definition of Net Amount at Risk which was definitely based on Option A.
I don't touch IUL anymore, but was going from memory on past illustrations I've done.
The equation still works, but it would need additional descriptors.
DB Option A: Net death benefit = cash values + decreasing net amount at risk - any outstanding loans
DB Option B: Net death benefit = cash values + fixed net amount at risk or 'pure insurance' - any outstanding loans
With increasing, it's a set amount of coverage that increases as the cash values grow. (I know you know this.)
I had always seen or shown Option B on Max funded IUL/UL. But in recent months, especially with 7702 change, I am seeing illustrations when Option A with a higher initial face to fit the premium ends up looking as good or better long term. I had thought the agents were doing it as a commission play because Target commissionable premium is based on intial face amount & Option A needs higher face to fit sane premium that a lower initial face would on Option B. Downside is surrender schedule is also based on face amount, so that will be higher too.
Not just that, but I would prefer DB option A when possible because it takes out the client and/or policy management risk out of the equation to ensure that what you want to have happen... does happen.
How do I know that *I* or the client will remember in year 25 to change from DB option B to A? I think that risk is huge. Of course, the policy can always be replaced or adapted to something else, but if I can remove a part of the human equation, that much the better.