Non Par Whole Life ...........

[rousemark]

Seems all the empahisis these days is GUL, IUL, Par, etc. Anybody still writing old fashioned non par whole life for blue collar family needs?

 

[DHK]

Besides the FE companies... the supplemental health companies do - AFLAC, Combined, AIL, etc.

The last one I had illustration software for was Hartford Life, so you can tell how long ago that was.

 

[rousemark]

Besides the FE companies... the supplemental health companies do - AFLAC, Combined, AIL, etc.

The last one I had illustration software for was Hartford Life, so you can tell how long ago that was.

A lot of companies are still offering it. I was wondering what agents are writing it and what market scenarios.....

 

[jboussea]

The only market I can see is Simpliefied FE whole life.

 

[Newby]

Seems all the empahisis these days is GUL, IUL, Par, etc. Anybody still writing old fashioned non par whole life for blue collar family needs?

What is the advantage of non-par? Why not just write participating WL? Price?

RNA has a low cost whole-life. It is participating but it doesn't pay dividends. It's priced very low. But Lafayette's participating WL is about the same price in a lot of cases and does pay dividends plus pays higher commissions an the smaller cases under $100,000.

 

[rousemark]

What is the advantage of non-par? Why not just write participating WL? Price?

RNA has a low cost whole-life. It is participating but it doesn't pay dividends. It's priced very low. But Lafayette's participating WL is about the same price in a lot of cases and does pay dividends plus pays higher commissions an the smaller cases under $100,000.

Price would be the only reason I could think of. If a PAR plan does not pay a dividend, then it is essentially the same as a non par.

 

[LostDollar]

Now that I know what they are, and see them from a 40 43 yr year perspective, the non-par was not a wise purchase. Some of the difference was the companies to be sure, but - off the top of my head - I think the par policy has 2-3x 2.374x cash and 2.5x 2.36x death benefit of the non-par.

(02/15/2016 dark green are the actual numbers for two $10K policies purchased in Ja and Fe 1974.)

It is possible the non-par policy paid a higher commission to the salesman.

I would not recommend the non-par to a worker of any description unless there was no other choice.

 

[rousemark]

Now that I know what they are, and see them from a 40 year perspective, the non-par was not a wise purchase. Some of the difference was the companies to be sure, but - off the top of my head - I think the par policy has 2-3x cash and 2.5x death benefit of the non-par.

It is possible the non-par policy paid a higher commission to the salesman.

I would not recommend the non-par to a worker of any description unless there was no other choice.

You apparently have no understanding of the products. As a general rule, you can purchase more coverage on a non par as the premium is lower.. The par can increase in death benefit through buying paid up additions and the paid up additions provide cash value. But since nothing is free, there is a cost for that future increased death benefit and cash value. In fact, the thing that every body pushes is the fact that a person can retire and receive the dividends tax free.... the reason that is possible is the courts have consistently held that the life insurance dividend is a "refund of excess premium". Back in the day, all the debit agents in this area carried little laminated cards with the Supreme Court decision in order to show people they were being "overcharged" and all they were getting back was their own money plus a little interest.

All values are guaranteed on the non par whole life.. this is not true of the par as dividends are never guaranteed.

I know Columbian does not have the most competitive products but I ran a comparison using their par and non par WL plans. Age 35, standard non smoker. Dividends but paid up additions.

Premium $1716.00 per year.

Par face, $100,000..... non par face $136,170

Par GTD cash value age 65... $41,448 .... Non Par $52,608

Par Projected CV $63,628 DB $139, 984

So, you can see that when you base it on equal premium, the values of the par do not come any where close to what you remember "off the top of your head".

 

[LostDollar]

My unpublished novel, A Tale of Two Policies, may contain information at variance with what you stated above. I know the policy which cost me more in annual payments to the insurance company 40 years ago has less benefit now.

My research assistant is currently unavailable so it will be awhile before I can get back with you with more specifics.

I believe your statement about participating policies not guaranteeing dividends is also not 100% true. Whether I can find the link again to prove it, is another story.

 

[rousemark]

My unpublished novel, A Tale of Two Policies, may contain information at variance with what you stated above. I know the policy which cost me more in annual payments to the insurance company 40 years ago has less benefit now.

My research assistant is currently unavailable so it will be awhile before I can get back with you with more specifics.

I believe your statement about participating policies not guaranteeing dividends is also not 100% true. Whether I can find the link again to prove it, is another story.

Suggest you obtain an insurance license.... At least during that process you learn the basics about par and non par life. Dividends are not guaranteed any more than current assumptions are guaranteed in a UL or interest sensitive WL.. Back in the 80s, there were a lot of big projections made on Par plans that did not come to fruition. But at least they did have the basic guarantees of WL so they did not crash like the ULs did.

As far as the figures I posted, they are not only accurate but are typical of the way the two products are designed to perform..