Originally Posted by BNTRS
You can only download the software if the GA
you work through gives you access to it. You'd think this is a no-brainer as it's infinitely easier to let you have at it than to work making proposals for you, but apparently not everyone agrees with me.
I'll echo (in part) what Scagent said ONL is super strong in a lot of ways. Guardian is still very great, and the 10 pay is quite the product. If you're client is willing to give up some flexibility of outlay though, ONL's Prestige Max is a killer income generation product. And compare it's CSV and db in later years against other products. Even if you target a $1 CSV at age 121 compare more likely scenarios like age 95 or even 100, NDR at work can be a super benefit. The other issue, though is death benefit really has to be a secondary (or less) concern as there is no blending this product and as an HECV it looks pricey, but it's max funded outlay by design.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And to answer your specific question, 10 Pay is the better product for cash and income. L99 is a good base WL product, but 10 pay can definitely beat it. You can blend a 1:10 ratio WL:term with Guardian's WL products. However, 10 Pay is a little different, and generally works out better if you have a higher base WL DB. There's no one good answer and it takes a little playing around to get the right design.
I'd say start with the planned outlay, and figure out the db that'll work with this outlay.
If you want to get more into specifics I'd be happy to give you ideas. If you're cool discussing publicly and want to give more details on age and planned outlay, I can help. Or, if you'd rather keep certain details less public, feel free to shoot me a PM. I can get you pointed in the right direction.
Here are the case specifics:
25 yo female, quoting Preferred NT
Death benefit is less important, this is primarily going to be a long-term savings plan designed to accumulate CV. She says she can afford to comfortably save $500 per month but wants to see a proposal based upon $200 per month, and have the option to increase her savings amount later (her husband just got a new job and they want to make sure it's going to work out before getting "cash-strapped").
They are likely to access some CV through loans in around 17 to 18 years (their 9 month old will be college age) but plan to pay the loan back and use the CV for supplemental retirement income @ 65.
I have run (or had run for me
the following illustrations with $200 monthly premium all years and $500 monthly premium all years for Guardian L99. 1.) min face $100 PUA 2.) $1800 Base/$600 PUA 3.) $1200 Base/$1200 PUA.
Surprisingly (to me anyway), 2 & 3 show almost identical DB and CSV @ 65, the only difference is 2 has a higher DB early on and 3 has higher cash early on.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Originally Posted by dgoldenz
"We don't lower our caps" is a common thing I hear from insurance companies and marketing organizations - fast forward 3 years, caps are lowered, clients stuck with what they've got.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Companies are not generously giving out 13% caps without making up for it somewhere else.
this is something that gives me a little pause, especially when the guaranteed side of the IUL illustrations shows a lapse at age 80 or 90, what happens if they lower the caps and the policy lapses at 65 or 70? I'm going to look like an ass and
feel like one. I think I've got one foot on the Par WL bandwagon now! ESPECIALLY in cases like this where the CSV is almost identical on the projected side but the guaranteed side is WAAAAAY better on the WL illustration...