Policies Are in Trouble - Need Help.

[scagnt83]

Well I guess that did not work.

Id say its still on track.... I pointed out to the OP what they need to look at BEFORE diverting premiums to a new higher COI WL policy. I also pointed out wrong advice in relation to their situation.... Id say we are right on track!

1. Look at ALL options to save policy

2. Price a new policy

3. Make a comparison and decide. 8 times out of 10 it will make sense to save the UL.

 

[Jerard]

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.

I want a life policy to be in force the day the client dies, no matter if they are 80, 100, or 200. I wonder what the COI would be if a UL owner happens to live to 120. Do you think any UL would still be in force? What if you only showed the printout based on the minimum interest rate, do you think that would last should someone live to 120?

If you would go back and reread my opinion you would see that it was based on the client still being insurable. And that if he wasn't then he should make the best effort to keep what he has. Did you miss that part?

I DO know how ULs work which is why I have the opinion I do. As I stated in the other thread...the only way you can prove me wrong is to show me the contract of a contractually guaranteed UL/GUL. You never did and you never will. Until you do you have no valid argument, to me at least.

 

[scagnt83]

I want a life policy to be in force the day the client dies, no matter if they are 80, 100, or 200. I wonder what the COI would be if a UL owner happens to live to 120. Do you think any UL would still be in force?

Your question just shows how much you do not understand the product.

As I said before, a policy that old most likely endows at age 100. In other words, you will not have to pay anymore premiums after age 100 to keep it in force. Some policies the age is 120, but most all policies from the 80s and 90s are age 100. (many of today's policies are too)

And the COI at age 120 would be $0... because the policy matures at age 100...

If you want to know what the COI would be at age 100 then why dont you look it up? But it would not matter if the policy was correctly funded. And during the years that it really matters often it is less than traditional WL... and MUCH less than FE.

----------

If you would go back and reread my opinion you would see that it was based on the client still being insurable. And that if he wasn't then he should make the best effort to keep what he has. Did you miss that part?

I read that. And you are still wrong.

The client will take on a MUCH higher COI with a new policy at this point.

Again, you have no way of knowing what is in their best interest without seeing the inforce illustration using a sustainable premium that guarantees coverage until maturity.

----------

I DO know how ULs work which is why I have the opinion I do. As I stated in the other thread...the only way you can prove me wrong is to show me the contract of a contractually guaranteed UL/GUL. You never did and you never will. Until you do you have no valid argument, to me at least.

Your statements as well as your questions prove you do not understand it in the least.

As I said before, most any UL can be CONTRACTUALLY guaranteed. That is a fact.

The more you talk about UL the more you prove you have no clue how it works.

 

[Jerard]

As I said before, most any UL can be CONTRACTUALLY guaranteed. That is a fact.

Prove it. It's as simple as that.

 

[WinoBlues]

Id say its still on track.... I pointed out to the OP what they need to look at BEFORE diverting premiums to a new higher COI WL policy. I also pointed out wrong advice in relation to their situation.... Id say we are right on track!

1. Look at ALL options to save policy

2. Price a new policy

3. Make a comparison and decide. 8 times out of 10 it will make sense to save the UL.

I agree with you. My advise centered around several inforces. Then a comparison using the same premium and face of a whole life plan based on current health.

 

[scagnt83]

Prove it. It's as simple as that.

How can you give advice about a product you know nothing about??? You are the very definition of dangerous to clients.

Here is your proof:

There is a CONTRACTUALLY GUARANTEED UL policy. If you are unfamiliar with reading a UL illustration here is a hint "look at the column that says GUARANTEED".

It is guaranteed to stay in force until endowment at age 100 as long as you pay the $2,400/ year premium. And since it is not a GUL you could hypothetically miss premiums and as long as you make them up there is no secondary guarantee to buy back into for a fee like GUL.

And this can be done with almost any UL policy.

----------

Here is more proof. If you ever bothered to actually read a UL illustration you would know it tells you what the Guarantees of the policy are.

You do not know what you do not know.

You can choose to open your eyes and learn. Or you can keep hammering a square peg into round holes for the rest of your career....

 

[WinoBlues]

Prove it. It's as simple as that.

If I can remember this week I will request a history on the West Coast (Protective ) I mentioned.

I wrote it in 2008. F-77, initial face was $175,000 premium was $732.13 per month. She wanted a to age 100 policy. After a series of missed payments, max loans and reduction of face and premium the current face is $99,000 premium is $430mo and still guaranteed to age 102 per the last inforce.

I want to say the ONL guy i mentioned was similar face and premium. With him no reducing just a lot of missed and late payments.

I am getting ready to write myself a GUL short pay.

 

[Jerard]

How can you give advice about a product you know nothing about??? You are the very definition of dangerous to clients.

Here is your proof:

There is a CONTRACTUALLY GUARANTEED UL policy. If you are unfamiliar with reading a UL illustration here is a hint "look at the column that says GUARANTEED".

It is guaranteed to stay in force until endowment at age 100 as long as you pay the $2,400/ year premium. And since it is not a GUL you could hypothetically miss premiums and as long as you make them up there is no secondary guarantee to buy back into for a fee like GUL.

And this can be done with almost any UL policy.

Good lord, man..... putting in 200 a month for 100K of course it will carry it. If you could pay 1000 a month then that would carry it several lifetimes (yes, I know that would MEC it out). We all know that the turn over rate for agents is about 90-95 percent during the first 2 years. How many of them do you think are selling ULs like you do? Most sell them at the minimum premium and don't care what happens 20 years down the road. That's where the danger is, as I have said before. I have also said, in both threads, that I don't include responsible agents in my opinion because those are the ones that are most likely will sell it to last even with the minimum rate.

 

[scagnt83]

Good lord, man..... putting in 200 a month for 100K of course it will carry it. If you could pay 1000 a month then that would carry it several lifetimes (yes, I know that would MEC it out).

Outside of the FE world $200 a month is not a big deal. Did you notice the DB when they are older in age?

A traditional WL policy with an increasing DB would have the same/similar premium. So your point is moot.

And an 86 year old paying $200/m for $100k-$300k in DB is a steal compared to a new policy

----------

We all know that the turn over rate for agents is about 90-95 percent during the first 2 years. How many of them do you think are selling ULs like you do? Most sell them at the minimum premium and don't care what happens 20 years down the road. That's where the danger is, as I have said before. I have also said, in both threads, that I don't include responsible agents in my opinion because those are the ones that are most likely will sell it to last even with the minimum rate.

An agent in their first 2 years probably should not sell a traditional UL at all!! It is the most complicated life product on the market after IUL.

And no, most do not sell them at minimum premium. If you submit a policy at Minimum premium often you will get a call from the underwriter telling you how stupid you are.

The biggest problem today is policies being funded at Target and not above.

And basically you are saying that insurance agents are all unethical scumbags who dont care what they do to clients. Maybe in your world but not mine.

As I said before, the facts say you are wrong. If ULs were mostly sold at Minimum Premium they would have a significantly higher lapse rate than WL. And the facts show that they have only a 1%-2% higher lapse rate than a fully underwritten WL policy does. And they have a LOWER lapse rate than FE WL.

Industry stats say you are completely wrong that most agents sell UL incorrectly.


And nice job changing the subject and not just admitting that your statements were incorrect once proven wrong.

 

[Jerard]

Outside of the FE world $200 a month is not a big deal. Did you notice the DB when they are older in age?

I don't consider myself an "FE" agent. My average issue age for 2014 was 47.

An agent in their first 2 years probably should not sell a traditional UL at all!! It is the most complicated life product on the market after IUL.

Yea....but they do. Either by choice or by some sales manager telling them to. So did I when I first started. It took me about 3 years to realize what the potential danger they were for people 20 to 30 years down the road. You see, I actually care about the people I meet. They are not simply pawns for my own personal gain. This is the greatest job for people that not only want to make a living but to really help people at the same time.

And no, most do not sell them at minimum premium. If you submit a policy at Minimum premium often you will get a call from the underwriter telling you how stupid you are.

You're probably right on many cases. But what of the cases that get issued at minimum? Of companies that don't call? Of the times it get's past the underwriter? Of the illustrations that the agent shows the great looking projected growth and hopes the client doesn't ask about the minimum column? Do you think Bankers agents sell at minimum? Do you think that Bankers underwriters ever call and force a higher premium after the sale has been made? It boils down to how the company president feels about people. If he (she) just cares only about the bottom line then why would they care about clients 20 years from now? For the underwriters that do call they most likely have a president that cares about long term steady growth rather than short term gain.

The biggest problem today is policies being funded at Target and not above.

While I have no doubt that you, personally, make sure they are funded correctly so your UL sales are safe, there are many, many agents that do not. With the before mentioned turn over rate of new agents there are alot of desperate and hungry ones that only want to make a sale any way they can. They will forgo their clients' well being in favor of their nagging wife, food for the kids, or their past due mortgage. Most new agents don't have the luxury of catering to the elite clientele that you seem to have. I don't include you and agent's like you in my beef against ULs, but the agent that, for whatever reason, doesn't know or doesn't care.

And basically you are saying that insurance agents are all unethical scumbags who dont care what they do to clients. Maybe in your world but not mine.

Many are unethical, yes, but the majority are simply selling a product they don't know what the dangers are. As you, yourself, said....new agent's shouldn't sell ULs for the first 2 years. But what of the agents that have managers that push (insist) that product to be sold? I sold alot of them in the early 90's simply because I didn't know any better and that's what we were told to sell. True, ULs sold today are safer than 20 years ago. But the main reason for that is the smaller gap between the minimum interest rate and the projected.

As I said before, the facts say you are wrong. If ULs were mostly sold at Minimum Premium they would have a significantly higher lapse rate than WL. And the facts show that they have only a 1%-2% higher lapse rate than a fully underwritten WL policy does. And they have a LOWER lapse rate than FE WL.
Industry stats say you are completely wrong that most agents sell UL incorrectly.

I don't care what the lapse rate is. What happens after an agent makes the sale is not relevant to the elements of the product and how it can be safe or not safe at the point of sale. If it makes you happy to win the lapse rate issue, then good, it's yours.

And nice job changing the subject and not just admitting that your statements were incorrect once proven wrong.

I have to hand it to you. I never thought you would take a natural assumption and use that to prove all ULs are guaranteed. The 'natural assumption' is that all ULs are guaranteed if you dump enough money into them. I would classify that as a "no chit, Sherlock" moment.

I grant you that you know more about today's ULs than I do. I haven't sold one in 20 years. But the elements of the UL are, and have been, the same the whole time. And therefore have the real danger of imploding in later years if not sold correctly. I have no doubt that you sell them safely. I want to educate the ones that don't. You and I have both seen new agents come onto this forum with the question..."I just got my license.......what is the difference between term and whole life?" I cringe with I see those...it's like..."dude, that was just on the test you passed!"

Go ahead and have the last word, I know you have to. Between this thread and the other one I have said (more than once) everything I can on the topic. The other thread even has tons of documentation to support my argument. All you have produced is a self made illustration which only shows it to be safe due to the high premium.

Have a nice day....