term2u
Super Genius
- 101
I'm not too familiar with SF's WL or any of their products, but what are everyone's thoughts on him being rated as a SNT at age 27? You would think he would've been a PNT?
Should I Cancel My Whole Life Policy?
- Thread starter JohnWalker
- Start date
-
- Tags
- whole life
- 24,938
Possible that they do not offer above Std at $25,000
term2u
Super Genius
- 101
Oh yeah - Good point! Makes complete sense...
- 1,405
And if/when you die, the cash SURRENDER value means NOTHING. It is part of the face amount at death.
On a PAR plan, the Paid Up Additions will usually increase the Death Benefit more than the Cash Surrender value, payable in addition to the face amount.
On a UL plan, Option B will pay the cash value in addition to the face amount.
If you are going to join low class insurance agents in giving advice, at least tell the whole story.
- 10,318
Technically it is part of the Net Amount at Risk. But only a licensed agent would know that.
Simplistically, yes, the Cash Value is not separate from the Death Benefit. If you pull out CV then the DB is reduced. If the CV grows then the DB grows. It is just how the policy works. Of course if you have significant CV then the DB is significantly higher than when it started.
Also, if the CV was paid out separate from the DB, then it would be subject to taxation. Since it is intertwined with the DB, then it is paid out tax free.
- 1,405
You guys are funny, and I don't mean ha-ha funny.
I said:
And if/when you die, the cash SURRENDER value means NOTHING. It is part of the face amount at death.
Now there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with my simple and categorical statement of fact. It is completely accurate.
In the "illustration" posted by Jerard:
http://www.insurance-forums.net/for...y-whole-life-policy-t75809-5.html#post1009693
He is clearly asking about a non-par contract, which is what that illustration is for. In that context, my categorical statement of fact is completely 100% accurate. In fact it actually corrects a problem with the illustration. The illustration says: "Cash Value Dollars". That is misleading. It should say "Cash Surrender Value". The ONLY way you can take that money and run, is to quit the policy. And please, no lectures on "policy loans". If it is YOUR money, YOU don't have to borrow it. The reason the company, or any bank would accept that as collateral, is because the lender knows that if you default on the loan, the policy can be TERMINATED and the cash surrender value taken to pay off the loan. The point is simple, you can't have the policy death benefit AND the cash surrender value. You have one OR the other, NOT both/and.
But to muddy the water, which is what many life insurance agents do, rousemark decides to parachute into the discussion par dividends and UL Option B. Does he take a moment and confirm what I said about cash surrender values, NO. Why, because he WANTS TO BAMBOOZLE the consumer. Bullshiite baffles brains, the motto of so many whole life pumpers.
Then along comes scagnt83 with this stinking pile of crap:
"Technically it is part of the Net Amount at Risk. But only a licensed agent would know that."
"Technically" you will NOT find that terminology in a non-par life insurance contract, which means this is just another attempt to BAMBOOZLE the consumer. I understand what "Net Amount at Risk" refers to, but for all intents and purposes, it is used by an agent to confuse a consumer. It is particularly clear it is used to confuse a consumer, when it is raised to respond to the categorical fact that:
What I said there is COMPLETELY ACCURATE and requires neither qualification or explanation. An agent interested in helping a consumer understand the policy, should say "Amen brother".
The efforts by these two underlines the problem with many in this industry, which loves to keep the consumer confused.
It's not funny, it's sad.
Last edited:
Sorry Bob but you know about as much about insurance as most non licensed people.. If you were in the business, you would know State Farm WL is a PAR product so he is NOT "plainly talking about a non par product" as you say. If you had read the whole thread and taken the time to download the proposal illustration he provided you have known that, providing you had enough knowledge to know what dividends and Paid Up Additions mean.
What is really sad is a guy seeking to make a living off of people he considers to be scum. Go back to ranting and raving about Rutstien..
- 10,318
He does not realize he is looking at the Guaranteed Page of a Participating WL policy. Yet he feels qualified to give advice like he actually knows what he is talking about... LOL.
- 1,405
My comments went to the photograph that appears in this posting:
http://www.insurance-forums.net/for...y-whole-life-policy-t75809-5.html#post1009693
which your comments followed.
I then posted my comment, to which you both responded.
That is the context.
Now you want to change the context.
Bullshiite baffles brains.
http://www.insurance-forums.net/for...y-whole-life-policy-t75809-5.html#post1009693
which your comments followed.
I then posted my comment, to which you both responded.
That is the context.
Now you want to change the context.
Bullshiite baffles brains.
Similar threads
