Whether I Need LT Rider with a IUL

Good point. It all depends on what your priorities are.

I still like a Mass 10Pay with their LTC rider if you want the best combo of accumulation and LTC coverage.

I need to dig into TAs IUL/LTC rider to see how it compares to Mass and JH.

Nationwide isnt "bad". Its just from an accumulation standpoint they are behind the curve from what I have seen so far. But a few really good years in the market and it could outperform the Mass 10 Pay. So 6 one way half dozen the other probably with Nationwide vs. Mass. I like Mass because the dividends help to increase the LTC benefit.


Do you think TA is a viable option when it comes to IUL?
 
I'm still not a "huge fan" of IUL... so I will defer your question to others.


@DHK

DHK, can you share why you are not a big fan of IUL? I realize that this post is from 2014, wonder if you still feel the same about IUL. Thanks
 
I've learned and evolved my position since then. :)

Fair enough, thanks. I was a little apprehensive of the idea of IUL initially, am SLOWLY warming up to the idea of using IUL for retirement income as opposed to a Deferred Income Annuity, am still educating myself ....

Almost all the illustrations I have seen are done using 6% return, I haven't really played around with the index averages yet but I suspect it doesn't take a whole lot for the return to drop down to 5% or even 4.5% and that will paint a very different picture as far as the lifetime retirement income is concerned.

Of course, to be fair, the return can go up to 7 or 8 % too for the policy.
 
Almost all the illustrations I have seen are done using 6% return, I haven't really played around with the index averages yet but I suspect it doesn't take a whole lot for the return to drop down to 5% or even 4.5% and that will paint a very different picture as far as the lifetime retirement income is concerned.

Of course, to be fair, the return can go up to 7 or 8 % too for the policy.

Always run hypothetical illustrations at lower index returns. That is where you start to see a real difference between various carriers and policy designs.

If your IUL is crashing below 5% when fully overfunded, then you better think hard about selling that carrier.
 
Always run hypothetical illustrations at lower index returns. That is where you start to see a real difference between various carriers and policy designs.

If your IUL is crashing below 5% when fully overfunded, then you better think hard about selling that carrier.

Agree with this completely. You will see high charge carriers (LFG, Pac, ect.) really far apart under a stress test of 15-30% underperformance. Contractually guaranteed bonus and multipliers are the only ones I will entertain.
 
Agree with this completely. You will see high charge carriers (LFG, Pac, ect.) really far apart under a stress test of 15-30% underperformance. Contractually guaranteed bonus and multipliers are the only ones I will entertain.

I cant even get on board with guaranteed multipliers. The way IUL's are headed is making whole life more and more attractive.
 
I cant even get on board with guaranteed multipliers. The way IUL's are headed is making whole life more and more attractive.

I agree about the multipliers. Just more confusion and moving parts for the client. IUL is complicated enough.

Multipliers sound great on the surface... but puts the risk on the client instead of the carrier.

Carriers feel they have to compete against "product innovations" by other carriers. But they would do well to take a hard look at the quality of business they are writing and quality of the policy design all these new agents are selling...
 
Back
Top