Would one of the policies happen to be with AIG/AGLA? .. They only only permitting their crashing ULs to be converted to an expensive Interest Sensitive Whole Life.
Policies Are in Trouble - Need Help.
- Thread starter Moondoggy
- Start date
Would one of the policies happen to be with AIG/AGLA? .. They only only permitting their crashing ULs to be converted to an expensive Interest Sensitive Whole Life.
- 15,041
I doubt it, only because I don't believe AGLA has a B/D or VULs.
Again, you need three things for each policy.
1. Inforce illustration as is. Current premium, current interest rate, and current expenses.
2. Inforce illustration with current premium, current expenses and minimum interest going forward.
3. Inforce illustration with premium necessary to carry the policy to maturity at current interest rate and current expenses.
Unless some others, I hate to cast doubt upon your new agent. I'm sure he means wells. Unfortunately, the only way he generates a commission is if you buy a new policy or you give him referrals to people who buy a new policy. The first is obviously easier, so he is more inclined to look at solutions that replace your current policy versus fix it.
Again, this does not mean your new agent does not have the best of intentions. I'm sure he does, but he is going to be vastly more inclined to go with any solution that involves a new policy. Also, a new policy really may be necessary. Unlike the rest of us, he probably has seen an inforce illustration of your policy. He really does have more information than any of us.
I would listen to what he has to say, but I would also have him lay out why your current policy can't be saved before doing anything.
- 10,326
Sorry, but this advice is way off base
And what evidence do you have to make the claim that most agents who sell UL do not do it responsibly?
Before you answer, let me point out that GI & SI WL has a higher lapse rate than UL does, even over the long term. And UL only has a 1%-2% higher lapse rate than WL does. Those are all LIMRA statistics.
----------
It is impossible to make that claim with any certainty at all. What you said is 100% JUST A GUESS.
It is entirely possible that raising the premium to $250/quarter could GUARANTEE that the policy stay inforce until age 100.
Without seeing the inforce illustration you have no clue if it is "kicking the can down the road" or not.
To flat out say "not to go with this option", is totally baseless and irresponsible.
The correct advice is to look at the Guaranteed Illustration using that premium amount. The goal is to have a premium that will take the policy to age 100 on the guaranteed illustration. Then you can compare that premium to any alternatives.
----------
Same as above.... you have no way of knowing this without seeing the Inforce Illustration.
----------
Again, how can you say this is the best option when you are clueless as to what the numbers are???
Then you want them to go buy a new policy with a higher cost of insurance than they are probably paying now. Yet you have no clue if for the same premium they could keep the existing policy with the higher DB!
----------
Totally 100% not true. Most any UL policy can be 100% guaranteed. And no Im not talking about GUL..... but it is guaranteed too.... but in a different way than I am referencing.
The guaranteed column is always guaranteed. And most any policy can be designed so that the guaranteed column endows.
----------
A WL can lapse just like a UL can. If you dont pay your premium then it will eventually lapse, and often the UL will last a longer time without premiums being paid than the WL can.
An agent that actually knows what they are doing can design a UL so that it will not implode down the road. As I said before, you can design the policy so that the guaranteed column goes out to age 100+.
And your argument about GUL holds very little weight. Many GUL policies have a grace period or provisions so that if you miss a premium you can reinstate the Secondary Guarantee.
Your post is basically a bunch of unsubstantiated scaremongering without any actual facts or information to back up your recommendations or assertions.
And what evidence do you have to make the claim that most agents who sell UL do not do it responsibly?
Before you answer, let me point out that GI & SI WL has a higher lapse rate than UL does, even over the long term. And UL only has a 1%-2% higher lapse rate than WL does. Those are all LIMRA statistics.
----------
It is impossible to make that claim with any certainty at all. What you said is 100% JUST A GUESS.
It is entirely possible that raising the premium to $250/quarter could GUARANTEE that the policy stay inforce until age 100.
Without seeing the inforce illustration you have no clue if it is "kicking the can down the road" or not.
To flat out say "not to go with this option", is totally baseless and irresponsible.
The correct advice is to look at the Guaranteed Illustration using that premium amount. The goal is to have a premium that will take the policy to age 100 on the guaranteed illustration. Then you can compare that premium to any alternatives.
----------
Same as above.... you have no way of knowing this without seeing the Inforce Illustration.
----------
Again, how can you say this is the best option when you are clueless as to what the numbers are???
Then you want them to go buy a new policy with a higher cost of insurance than they are probably paying now. Yet you have no clue if for the same premium they could keep the existing policy with the higher DB!
----------
Totally 100% not true. Most any UL policy can be 100% guaranteed. And no Im not talking about GUL..... but it is guaranteed too.... but in a different way than I am referencing.
The guaranteed column is always guaranteed. And most any policy can be designed so that the guaranteed column endows.
----------
A WL can lapse just like a UL can. If you dont pay your premium then it will eventually lapse, and often the UL will last a longer time without premiums being paid than the WL can.
An agent that actually knows what they are doing can design a UL so that it will not implode down the road. As I said before, you can design the policy so that the guaranteed column goes out to age 100+.
And your argument about GUL holds very little weight. Many GUL policies have a grace period or provisions so that if you miss a premium you can reinstate the Secondary Guarantee.
Your post is basically a bunch of unsubstantiated scaremongering without any actual facts or information to back up your recommendations or assertions.
Whats amazing is only 1 person mentioned this guys horrific health as far as insurance goes. He could easily be rated 4 or 6 tables which means if he wants to keep his insurance he'd be a fool to just not start funding his current policy heavily as surely his present policys cost of insurance is much less than a newly heavily rated policys cost of insurance
- 10,326
Exactly.
When I was new to the business I was given a large book of old UL policies to work that were sold in the late 80s and early 90s. I know UL very well.
Sure a good many were not funded sufficiently. But more often than not it made sense to fund the policy at the appropriate level vs. taking out a new policy with a MUCH higher COI. Often a combo of lowering the DB and increasing premiums was used. Sometimes switching from Opt 2 to Opt 1, etc. etc.
I didnt make a lot of new life sales because I did the right thing. But I did well from cross selling annuities because they trusted me after I did the right thing.
I didnt scare them into taking a financial loss
- 2,758
Sorry, but this advice is way off base
And what evidence do you have to make the claim that most agents who sell UL do not do it responsibly?
Before you answer, let me point out that GI & SI WL has a higher lapse rate than UL does, even over the long term. And UL only has a 1%-2% higher lapse rate than WL does. Those are all LIMRA statistics.
----------
It is impossible to make that claim with any certainty at all. What you said is 100% JUST A GUESS.
It is entirely possible that raising the premium to $250/quarter could GUARANTEE that the policy stay inforce until age 100.
Without seeing the inforce illustration you have no clue if it is "kicking the can down the road" or not.
To flat out say "not to go with this option", is totally baseless and irresponsible.
The correct advice is to look at the Guaranteed Illustration using that premium amount. The goal is to have a premium that will take the policy to age 100 on the guaranteed illustration. Then you can compare that premium to any alternatives.
----------
Same as above.... you have no way of knowing this without seeing the Inforce Illustration.
----------
Again, how can you say this is the best option when you are clueless as to what the numbers are???
Then you want them to go buy a new policy with a higher cost of insurance than they are probably paying now. Yet you have no clue if for the same premium they could keep the existing policy with the higher DB!
----------
Totally 100% not true. Most any UL policy can be 100% guaranteed. And no Im not talking about GUL..... but it is guaranteed too.... but in a different way than I am referencing.
The guaranteed column is always guaranteed. And most any policy can be designed so that the guaranteed column endows.
----------
A WL can lapse just like a UL can. If you dont pay your premium then it will eventually lapse, and often the UL will last a longer time without premiums being paid than the WL can.
An agent that actually knows what they are doing can design a UL so that it will not implode down the road. As I said before, you can design the policy so that the guaranteed column goes out to age 100+.
And your argument about GUL holds very little weight. Many GUL policies have a grace period or provisions so that if you miss a premium you can reinstate the Secondary Guarantee.
Your post is basically a bunch of unsubstantiated scaremongering without any actual facts or information to back up your recommendations or assertions.
You're crazy if you think you're going to drag me into a repeat of this same augment we had a couple of years ago. Just search for that one, it will save us both alot of typing. My opinion on ULs will never change.
- 10,326
You mean Im crazy if I think presenting you with logic and facts will cause you to actually learn about the industry you claim to be a part of?
You clearly know nothing about how UL works. You clearly do now want to know. And you are giving a consumer UNSUITABLE and UNETHICAL advice concerning their policy.
Your recommendations were not based on facts or what is best for the consumer.
You can speak your ignorance all you want to with other agents. But when you give incorrect advice to a consumer I will call you out every time.
Last edited:
- 2,758
My opinion is not altered by your name calling nor your illusions of superiority. By the way, HERE is the original thread.
You kept saying that the OPs policies should be saved to last until he is age 100. Nice, but what if he lives to 101?
- 10,326
I did not call you any names.
A policy that old most likely endows at age 100 which is why I used that age. Obviously you want to guarantee coverage until the end of the required premium schedule.
And I could care less about the old thread.... you are giving baseless and nonfactual advice to a consumer. Plus you are basically scaremongering them into a situation which it would be impossible for you to know is a better option. I havent said anything to you about UL since then. But when you give advice that is factually wrong to a consumer Im going to say something.
You do not know how UL works, so you call it bad and tell them to switch to WL. Its absolutely terrible advice.
Last edited:
- 24,967
Well I guess that did not work.
Similar threads
