IUL for a 71 Year Old?

[scagnt83]

You are a Pip, SCAGNT83! There's just something loveable about you! It's very well hidden but I know it's there!!!

Wow, I had to look that one up. Are you from across the pond?

 

[goillini52]

Wow, I had to look that one up. Are you from across the pond?

I thouhgt he was talking about this kind of Pip.

 

[BYSFG]

You couldnt do that same design with GPT. Even if you used Opt2 like he said to.

GPT would limit your single Premium on the $100k DB to around $60k. That is why you use CVAT for a single premium design to max out the CV. (go on NAs software and try it yourself)

The only thing using GPT would do is to create a higher DB, higher expenses, lower return on the CV, and a higher commission for the agent (because of the need for a higher DB using GPT).

Thanks for clarifying. Was curious why Andrew considered GPT, probably just to see the outcome I suppose.

I was thinking along those lines (bolded) after revisiting some older discussions a week or so back to validate some concepts & self study. Welps, another one for the bookmarks.

 

[scagnt83]

Thanks for clarifying. Was curious why Andrew considered GPT, probably just to see the outcome I suppose.

I was thinking along those lines (bolded) after revisiting some older discussions a week or so back to validate some concepts & self study. Welps, another one for the bookmarks.

No problem. There are times where you might want to use GPT for a SPIUL.
If the main priority is to maximize the DB, then using GPT with opt2 could be a great design for the policy. It just depends what you are trying to achieve.

I would guess that Andy was effin with me since he is of the opinion that a 71 year old should do a 10 pay and never a SP. And if they want to prevent a MEC then thats the way to do it. But that defeats the purpose of doing a single pay.

 

[term2u]

First, I never said that HIS client should do that. Only that it is possible to do at age 71.

As I suggested in my original post.... why dont YOU run some illustrations and find out for yourself. Thats how I know it is possible. If it is not possible then you could easily prove me wrong by posting your own illustrations.

Now the biggest question for the OPs client is what DB does he actually need? Everything else is irrelevant until we know what the exact need and goals are. But since the OP has now said that the client does not have an interest in CV gains, then obviously an IUL is NOT the right product.... perhaps a GIUL but still unlikely.
They should be in GUL or WL. But even that is irrelevant since they are going to incur surrender charges at this point and it would likely be hard to get the 1035 past suitability.

If he is worried about a lapse, at this point it is most likely best to just bite the bullet and pay a little bit more per month. I would have to look at the illustration again as well as the inforce to really see if there is a way to possibly unwind it if he wanted to. But it wouldnt be easy and likely wouldnt be worth the effort and he would still probably lose a bit of principle.

----------



Are you saying that one of those two products are what you think he should be in? Just a different IUL than AIG??

Thanks a lot for all of your help - I really appreciate it!

It looks like I may just have to tell them to increase their premiums as you mentioned, due to them already being "pot committed" with this policy. I'm wondering what the likelihood is of the policy actually lasting to age 100, but I guess there's no real way to tell?

 

[BYSFG]

I'm curious what other methods are as well but maybe have them call for an in force illustration? I think this would probably provide a good idea of how long it can run to with given/assumed rates and premiums/ adjusted premiums. A ball park range at best I think.

 

[term2u]

I'm curious what other methods are as well but maybe have them call for an in force illustration? I think this would probably provide a good idea of how long it can run to with given/assumed rates and premiums/ adjusted premiums. A ball park range at best I think.

Yeah, since the policy was just put in place in 12/2015, we have to wait a full year in order to see an inforce illustration. With that being said, the initial illustration that I provided should be pretty true to the policy's current state.