IUL, and Future Withdrawals

You see what you did there?

I made a correct statement about a product.



He is wrong. While a UL will stay in force as long as the surrender value is not less than 0, that does not mean there are no premiums due.

The Minimum Premium is required, which is the same as saying that Expenses are required. But they are not required at set intervals or on any certain time period.

What BNTRS was saying is that there is no required schedule of Premiums above and beyond the Expenses. And those expenses can be paid on any schedule you wish generally speaking.


You can pay all the required minimum for the entire no lapse period and keep the policy in force, but only so long as that. You could even MEC it and do max single premium in the first year and still lapse the policy.

No Lapse periods have nothing to do with this. Not all IULs have a no lapse period.

Technically any policy COULD lapse. The point I was making that you failed to grasp, is that UL has no required Schedule of Premiums.


Read to lead! I said typically there is an additional charge for all premiums paid over a certain amount. I never said there was no charge to begin with. Additional

Well there is our disconnect. I have never sold an IUL that charges any type of extra charge on premiums above and beyond the normal Premium Load. Can you share which product does this? NA doesnt, LFG doesnt, Allianz doesnt.

What you believe to be true is not correct for all (or most) IUL products.



Contributing up to MEC leaves you with policy years that see no premiums paid in, and lower premiums paid in when premiums do resume to prevent new MEC status. MEC is based on a rolling 7 year period, but you know that. Many times, only the first 4 years are paid and the last 3 see no payments. Account values often drop or remain stagnant during this period. In later years past age 56, if this occurs the lack of fresh funds can really eat away at the policy on the guaranteed side and reduced interest credits will cause the policy to lapse earlier.


None of this is true if you design the policy correctly. You need to learn how to design a UL policy correctly.

If GPT is causing Premiums to be reduced, that means you are not using Opt 2. A properly designed UL can fund the policy right below the MEC limit and there is no reduction in Premiums or affect to performance. Funded up to the MEC limit is what maxes out the policy. You have a huge disconnect with how to properly design the policy.

Im not trying to be mean with this comment, but you dont know what you are doing and it could be dangerous to a consumer. I would highly suggest that you check out the "edutainment" section of the forum. Steve Savant has some good videos on there that cover the basics of how to design a UL policy.

Or you could take a few hours and use the search function in the forum to find threads to read. What you are doing wrong has been covered on here many times before.



Y
I agree. you and BTFNS are two of the most knowledgeable people on this site about UL's. That doesn't prevent you from making "salesy" statements like referring to required payments into the policy as "premiums". As if they don't exist. It sounds nice, but it's just not legally nor technically valid. Even minimally funded, these payments will generate nominal accumulation for at least a period of time. They are premiums.

So now you want to insult our professionalism?? AND incorrectly say that we are wrong???

What he said is 100% technically correct. Since this is a Forum for INSURANCE AGENTS, his comment was a technical comment and not a sales based comment. I would avoid calling out others when you are wrong. He made a technical comment that was correct. Not a sales comment. Often technical comments can be misleading or not tell the whole story for a consumer, which is why "generic" terms are often used in sales situations. But that does not mean the comment is incorrect from a technical or legal standpoint.

You are the one who is giving consumers incorrect information that could be dangerous to their financial situation.
So far on this forum, the majority of what you have said about IUL is incorrect or not totally correct.


Over and over you have made totally baseless and incorrect statements about how IUL works. At this point I dont expect you to take a step back and attempt to actually learn what your mistakes are. Instead of asking questions, you just make more incorrect statements that just expose your lack of knowledge even more.

It is ok not to know something. It is not ok to give consumers incorrect advice, and it is not ok to make snide accusations about other agents integrity while at the same time making incorrect statements.
 
Last edited:
I agree. you and BTFNS are two of the most knowledgeable people on this site about UL's. That doesn't prevent you from making "salesy" statements like referring to required payments into the policy as "premiums". As if they don't exist. It sounds nice, but it's just not legally nor technically valid. Even minimally funded, these payments will generate nominal accumulation for at least a period of time. They are premiums.

You are certainly entitled to whatever opinion you want to have on this or any subject, but you are by no means entitled to decide my intentions.

My statement is technically and factually correct, especially so when one reads it in the context for which it was intended--a non-secondary guaranteed death benefit application of universal life insurance.

If you still wish to disbelieve this, I'll note the fact that UL contracts do not have basic non-forfeiture features because there is no premium that goes unpaid to cause a forfeiture.

Or here's another exercise for fun. Call an insurer on the behalf of a current UL policyholder and tell them you want to APL the next premium due.

Now it is correct that all monies paid to an insurer are considered premiums. This is because insurance law requires all monies paid to an insurance contract be labeled as premiums. This is tied to the reason that insurance agents and financial advisors et. al. are not supposed to use the word "deposit" when talking about monies paid to an annuity contract (technically they are premiums paid). But just because we call something a premium does not mean that it will always follow some sort of schedule of due dates.

Universal life insurance "premiums" are very different functionally speaking than whole life and term life insurance premiums. That's the fact end of story. I'm not trying to sell anyone universal life insurance with that statement.

I've said very little to question your intention or integrity, and I'd appreciate it immensely if you'd extend me the same courtesy.
 
BNTRS, do you sell Universal Life in Ohio? I am wondering if we can work something out with Illustration through private emails. I have PM you too.

By the way, I thought I read somewhere an article about Genworth literally increase the premium of Universal life from the 1970s and 1980s. I could not find that particular article again, but I think its about the term-life insurance that the cost sky-rocket and eat up the cash values.

Annual cost of $30k?!! I cannot post links here, but google
1) WSJ "Universal Life Policies Hurt by Low-Rate Era"

2) "Transamerica sued for cost increases on universal life insurance contracts"

3) "Low Rates Are Tormenting Insurers"
 
I'm not trying to sell anyone universal life insurance with that statement.

Do you want to be my agent? :D

BNTRS, do you sell Universal Life in Ohio? I am wondering if we can work something out with Illustration through private emails. I have PM you too.

Are you shying away from IULs now OP?

Someone correct me if Im wrong but isnt it a pretty bad time for traditional ULs at the moment? Has any other agents thought or tried this with a WL product?
 
Are you shying away from IULs now OP?

Someone correct me if Im wrong but isnt it a pretty bad time for traditional ULs at the moment? Has any other agents thought or tried this with a WL product?

BYSFG, well, as stated in my 1st post, I just have some EXTRA cash laying around that I need to put to a better use than parking in a bank. If I die, the $100K is still $100K. If I live another 10 years, this extra $100K would be $100.2K given the 0.1% interest.

Both me and wife are highly skilled, and we live way below our mean. So we are never worried about losing both jobs or have period of no income.

So really, we are looking for some growth here. Just assume we never ever gonna take out loan or withdrawal until 60+. What would be a good way to earn some GROWTH without much downside risk?

Your opinion is appreciated.

IUL would seem like a no brainer here (at least the Pacific Life in my original post), offering good upside and no downside.

Do you see any risk to IUL assumptions here that I posted? Why do you think IUL is out of fashion now? I see that you said Traditional UL, but I am not interested in that.

Thanks
Aaron
 
I've said very little to question your intention or integrity, and I'd appreciate it immensely if you'd extend me the same courtesy.

I said it sounds like something an MLM guy would say and said it sounds "salesy". Do you associate MLM with poor integrity or intention?

I understand thoroughly how a UL works. I fully understood your explanation and what you meant by "premiums". I took issue with you calling them "premiums". I can do that. Í said the UL has premiums, I never said they were on a schedule.

I respect you and your contributions to this forum. Have a nice day.

----------

Technically any policy COULD lapse. The point I was making that you failed to grasp, is that UL has no required Schedule of Premiums.

I understand this. I mentioned the no lapse policy just as a point, that you can get protection for the entire no lapse period by paying the required minimums all at once.

I have never sold an IUL that charges any type of extra charge on premiums above and beyond the normal Premium Load.

You are correct about this. I do not have any IUL's in my inventory that have this feature.

None of this is true if you design the policy correctly. You need to learn how to design a UL policy correctly.

I understand how to design a UL correctly. For my purposes, I frequently did make the policy level at certain periods in order to align with the client's goals.

You are right with the increasing option, you can contribute to MEC all years. Not every policy has the option.

You are the one who is giving consumers incorrect information that could be dangerous to their financial situation.

Dangerous? Certainly not more dangerous than what his agent is doing.

I have admitted to making two mistakes. The first one was on additional premium load, this is a feature of regular UL policies not IUL policies.

The second mistake depends on which policy you are looking at, not every policy can be set to increasing benefit. Because of the policies I sell, it happens alot in this particular scenario. And no i don't sell this policy to everyone, it has a very specific use case and the people I sell it to would never run into this problem. But I still look at this scenario.

The underlying advice is the same. Don't do too much, too soon.

I don't make any statements about a policy until i have a contract in front of the client. I focus primarily on benefits and use cases. For clients I sell UL products to, I meet with them once for fact finding, once for comparison, and once for review on policy delivery.

So now you want to insult our professionalism?? AND incorrectly say that we are wrong???

People will always see the negative and not the positive.:no:
 
I said it sounds like something an MLM guy would say and said it sounds "salesy". Do you associate MLM with poor integrity or intention?

I understand thoroughly how a UL works. I fully understood your explanation and what you meant by "premiums". I took issue with you calling them "premiums". I can do that. Í said the UL has premiums, I never said they were on a schedule.

I respect you and your contributions to this forum. Have a nice day.

----------



I understand this. I mentioned the no lapse policy just as a point, that you can get protection for the entire no lapse period by paying the required minimums all at once.



You are correct about this. I do not have any IUL's in my inventory that have this feature.



I understand how to design a UL correctly. For my purposes, I frequently did make the policy level at certain periods in order to align with the client's goals.

You are right with the increasing option, you can contribute to MEC all years. Not every policy has the option.



Dangerous? Certainly not more dangerous than what his agent is doing.

I have admitted to making two mistakes. The first one was on additional premium load, this is a feature of regular UL policies not IUL policies.

The second mistake depends on which policy you are looking at, not every policy can be set to increasing benefit. Because of the policies I sell, it happens alot in this particular scenario. And no i don't sell this policy to everyone, it has a very specific use case and the people I sell it to would never run into this problem. But I still look at this scenario.

The underlying advice is the same. Don't do too much, too soon.

I don't make any statements about a policy until i have a contract in front of the client. I focus primarily on benefits and use cases. For clients I sell UL products to, I meet with them once for fact finding, once for comparison, and once for review on policy delivery.



People will always see the negative and not the positive.:no:



Just so we have an idea of your experience. How long have you been actually designing and selling ULs?
 
You are right with the increasing option, you can contribute to MEC all years. Not every policy has the option.

Not every IUL policy has an option for an Increasing DB?? Please point one out that does not offer Opt2. I honestly would like to know. How about any non GUL that does not offer Opt2... Most IULs offer Opt 1 and 2 and even 3.

----------

I understand how to design a UL correctly. For my purposes, I frequently did make the policy level at certain periods in order to align with the client's goals.

No you dont. The way you described the limitations on contributing to the policy proves that you do not. Instead of insisting you know everything, you could try asking questions and you might learn something.

There was a previous thread where I pointed out that the way you described designing a UL policy was incorrect... you never once asked how. Even if a 1st year agent tells me I am wrong, the first think out of my mouth is asking "how?".

----------

Dangerous? Certainly not more dangerous than what his agent is doing.

Yes. When you give consumers incorrect info about how to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars it is dangerous to their financial well being. What the current agent did or did not do does not matter. Is it ok for me to hit a person in the face just because someone else hit them harder?

This is not a game of "im right and your wrong". This is real life and you are giving financial advice to a consumer about serious amounts of money. When you think you know everything & are not open to learning more or something different to what you have already been taught, is when you are most dangerous to a consumer... especially when you have this attitude and are new to the biz. Most entry points in this industry are giving agents extremely biased and incomplete information.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top