Ohio National WL product release

[Allen Trent]

Am I interpreting this video discussion correctly about the newly repriced Ohio National WL products & that it was priced for protection, not accumulation focus?

Just curious if anyone has seen the illustrations or other carriers WL offerings under the new non-forfeiture regs along with 7702 changes.

I am wondering if WL carriers realize UL/VUL/IUL will have the upper hand in max funding accumulation focused cases because 7702 allows so much more premium room in a contract when you can use 0% as your guarantee for the max funding premium calculation.

 

[DHK]

Ohio National's reprice also coincides with their recent de-mutualization. I haven't been looking at illustrations, but others are telling me about their comparisons they're doing.

In one comparison (and I don't recall the numbers), the new Ohio National 10-pay's non-guaranteed performance BARELY outperformed MassMutual's GUARANTEES on their 10-pay.

So much for "mutual without being mutual".

 

[Allen Trent]

Ohio National's reprice also coincides with their recent de-mutualization. I haven't been looking at illustrations, but others are telling me about their comparisons they're doing.

In one comparison (and I don't recall the numbers), the new Ohio National 10-pay's non-guaranteed performance BARELY outperformed MassMutual's GUARANTEES on their 10-pay.

So much for "mutual without being mutual".

weird--my video link to the 7 min video doesnt work & I cant edit my post.

Anyway, I believe you are correct. in the middle of the video, to 2 ONL people mentioned they priced at 3.75% non forfeiture for their 10 pay, 65pay, 100 pay products. Example they gave was a competitor priced at 2% to allow more accumulation, but ONL premium for $500k was $21k compared to the competitor required base policy premium being $35k yr. So the protection focused sale would save a lot of money

Here is the link to video again: Ohio National’s Prestige whole life products: Protection and flexibility (vimeo.com)

 

[DHK]

Of course, it depends on the purpose of the policy to begin with. They certainly aren't compatible with what we do in The Breakaway League anymore.

 

[DHK]

Btw, just found out that the buy-out amounts per policy will not be affected by any outstanding loans against their policies. Glad to have that confirmation, but for a non-direct recognition company, it's good to reinforce that they'll do that for the buy-out as well.

 

[scagnt83]

Im not seeing any huge differences on WL. Guaranteed values seem a bit more competitive now. Not much change on the Non-Guaranteed side.

IUL on the other hand, Im seeing 100% more premium before GPT limits kick in.

 

[scagnt83]

I am wondering if WL carriers realize UL/VUL/IUL will have the upper hand in max funding accumulation focused cases because 7702 allows so much more premium room in a contract when you can use 0% as your guarantee for the max funding premium calculation.

They do. At least some of them do.

I saw something from Guardian saying they plan to "enhance" their Index Rider on the WL. Not sure if they are using some type of hybrid model for that or not on the underlying chasis. But I figured it had something to do with the new regs and changing landscape. Maybe a precursor to a true IUL.

Its going to be hard for the major mutuals who have shunned Indexed products, to suddenly release IULs and get their brainwashed captives to do a 180 on the "evils of indexed products". But they will spin it and make it work.

No surprise on ON running from CV accumulation products. The real money is in protection products, especially in such a low rate environment. I wouldnt be surprised to see ON release a GIUL. Try to stop some of the bleeding with better chance of CV.

 

[scagnt83]

Btw, just found out that the buy-out amounts per policy will not be affected by any outstanding loans against their policies. Glad to have that confirmation, but for a non-direct recognition company, it's good to reinforce that they'll do that for the buy-out as well.

They were probably forced to legally. Since legally the funds are still part of the CV and contribute to the DBs value.

 

[DHK]

They were probably forced to legally. Since legally the funds are still part of the CV and contribute to the DBs value.

I wouldn't say 'forced', but required based on past precedence on how dividends are treated based on the entire cash values and not affected by loan balances.

 

[scagnt83]

I wouldn't say 'forced', but required based on past precedence on how dividends are treated based on the entire cash values and not affected by loan balances.

I mean their attorneys told the board of directors they had to because legally they would be taken to court and lose. I wouldnt put it past the board to try and exclude loan values.

There is pre-existing case law on this subject if I remember correctly... I will have to look it up to see who it was now, I cant remember off the top of my head.

But its good to see non the less. Sucks that ON is moving away from CV life insurance. Lets hope this is not a trend.