Whole life vs Universal life vs VUL

The ULNL with low premium has no chance of building CV, so I have to ask why would any Insurance Carrier want to sell them if they suspect that these policies will continue to be held by the insured?

I guess I may be missing something here, but the answer seems clear that it so that the person can be insured for the duration of their life expectancy with a level premium through out.

Term does not offer that.
 
The ULNL with low premium has no chance of building CV, so I have to ask why would any Insurance Carrier want to sell them if they suspect that these policies will continue to be held by the insured?

I guess I may be missing something here, but the answer seems clear that it so that the person can be insured for the duration of their life expectancy with a level premium through out.

Term does not offer that.

Reviving old threads, and missing the point of the question? Its clear what policyholders perceive as the advantage of no-lapse UL. A lower premium than whole life or a properly funded UL that is still guaranteed not to lapse for the insured's lifetime. The problem is, how is the company going to make money? Interest rates are in the toliet and many companies are having difficulty getting the investment returns they need. Also, I've heard they are already starting to see these NLULs aren't lapsing like projected, isn't that any oxymoron. That is why a few companies have raised premiums on new policies. The question is, does any company have a large enough book of these to hurt the company?
 
No lapse ULs aren't lapsing as quickly as the companies predicted? that's pretty funny.
That's like the unions opting out of the new health reform after they endorsed it.
Is up still up or is it now down?
 
No lapse ULs aren't lapsing as quickly as the companies predicted? that's pretty funny.
That's like the unions opting out of the new health reform after they endorsed it.
Is up still up or is it now down?

No proof, but its what I've heard. But yes, it is hilarious if true. Imagine people holding onto a product that has no cash value and is was sold on the promise it would be there forever to pay a death benefit.
 
Reviving old threads, and missing the point of the question? Its clear what policyholders perceive as the advantage of no-lapse UL. A lower premium than whole life or a properly funded UL that is still guaranteed not to lapse for the insured's lifetime. The problem is, how is the company going to make money? Interest rates are in the toliet and many companies are having difficulty getting the investment returns they need. Also, I've heard they are already starting to see these NLULs aren't lapsing like projected, isn't that any oxymoron. That is why a few companies have raised premiums on new policies. The question is, does any company have a large enough book of these to hurt the company?

Yes they could potentially hurt the company any product could. But after the fiasco with Variable Annuities and Long Term Care these products are being watched very closely. There is a lapse ratio on this product. Also many companies are now adding cash value to the product - in my mind to encourage lapses. Meaning they would much rather you take back the cash value than wait until death. And I'll bet it will work. I've seen some that build cash value very nicely to the point of premiums ( net TVM) being returned if within a certain period.
 
Yes they could potentially hurt the company any product could. But after the fiasco with Variable Annuities and Long Term Care these products are being watched very closely. There is a lapse ratio on this product. Also many companies are now adding cash value to the product - in my mind to encourage lapses. Meaning they would much rather you take back the cash value than wait until death. And I'll bet it will work. I've seen some that build cash value very nicely to the point of premiums ( net TVM) being returned if within a certain period.

Explain the "fiasco with Variable Annuities " please. I missed that one entirely.
 
Back
Top