John Hancock Increases Long Term Care Rates by 90%

[somarco]

If the actuaries initially assumed their lapse percentage at 8% and the actual lapse rates turned out to be 3%, wouldn't you call that a wrong actuarial assumption?

To say they were wrong is to imply they intentionally used wag's to set rates.

When UL policies were sold, especially those sold by A. L. Williams minions with projected 12% growth rates, everyone knew those projections would not hold up. Even the 6 - 8% projections by other carriers were generous but closer to reality than the Williams group.

I suspect the home office critters that produced the 12% dividend projections knew they were blowing smoke.

But then, they were projections and projections are never guaranteed. If things didn't work out as planned, and they didn't, it was no big deal to cut dividends and simply tell policyholders they would have less cash and have to pay premiums longer than initially estimated.

Of course life insurance historical data was abundant, as were interest crediting assumptions and dividend histories.

LTCi actuaries were essentially working in the dark.

If you want to believe they were wrong, that is your prerogative. But I don't equate what they did with what Millico did with their life plans or Baldwin United with their annuities.

Both those carriers were so far off the mark compared to the rest of the industry that even Stevie Wonder could see there was something wrong.

it is wholly irresponsible (and ignorant) of tlmarketing to tell a consumer who buys a policy today to expect a 60% to 90% increase over his/her lifetime.

Thank you for stating something that should have been obvious to anyone reading this thread.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but one thing that always bugs me is when an agent totally misleads others by acting as if they are an authority when in fact they have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Arthur Rudnick]

To say they were wrong is to imply they intentionally used wag's to set rates.

If you want to believe they were wrong, that is your prerogative

What I'm saying is their was no intentional attempt to come up with incorrect numbers.

Are you implying that the company actuaries, back in the 70s, 80s & 90s knowingly set premiums that they knew were incorrect?

Again, this is not only about Hancock. Every LTC carrier has had rate increases on existing policyholders and higher rates on new policy series.

You say:
"LTCi actuaries were essentially working in the dark".
Which only confirms that they did not have proper information available to price the product properly.

 

[VolAgent]

What I'm saying is their was no intentional attempt to come up with incorrect numbers.

Are you implying that the company actuaries, back in the 70s, 80s & 90s knowingly set premiums that they knew were incorrect?
Again, this is not only about Hancock. Every LTCi carrier has had rate increases on existing policyholders and increased rates on new policy series.

You say:
"LTCi actuaries were essentially working in the dark". Which only confirms that they did not have proper information available to price the product properly.

Don't forget the mutuals, NML, MM, NYL and Guardian. No rate increases on existing policyholders, just new business.

 

[Arthur Rudnick]

Don't forget the mutuals, NML, MM, NYL and Guardian. No rate increases on existing policyholders, just new business.

I didn't forget them. You're right, I was wondering when that would be brought up.

There was a time when the words "rate increases on existing policyholders" never existed.

In a few years, I'm willing to bet we'll be saying the same thing about NML, MM, NYL and Guardian.

 

[VolAgent]

I didn't forget them. You're right, I was wondering when that would be brought up.

There was a time when the words "rate increases on existing policyholders" never existed.

In a few years, I'm willing to bet we'll be saying the same thing about NML, MM, NYL and Guardian.

No telling.

It was never a huge line for any of them, so they aren't going to have the exposure of JH or Genworth or even Met. Also, they started with substantially higher rates. They may just be willing to stomach the loss on some of the older series to be able to keep saying that.

At least, that is how Mass acted when I was there. Of course, that was a few years ago too, so that may have changed.

 

[Mr_Ed]

To say they were wrong is to imply they intentionally used wag's to set rates.

When UL policies were sold, especially those sold by A. L. Williams minions with projected 12% growth rates, everyone knew those projections would not hold up. Even the 6 - 8% projections by other carriers were generous but closer to reality than the Williams group.

I suspect the home office critters that produced the 12% dividend projections knew they were blowing smoke.

But then, they were projections and projections are never guaranteed. If things didn't work out as planned, and they didn't, it was no big deal to cut dividends and simply tell policyholders they would have less cash and have to pay premiums longer than initially estimated.

Of course life insurance historical data was abundant, as were interest crediting assumptions and dividend histories.

LTCi actuaries were essentially working in the dark.

If you want to believe they were wrong, that is your prerogative. But I don't equate what they did with what Millico did with their life plans or Baldwin United with their annuities.

Both those carriers were so far off the mark compared to the rest of the industry that even Stevie Wonder could see there was something wrong.



"it is wholly irresponsible (and ignorant) of tlmarketing to tell a consumer who buys a policy today to expect a 60% to 90% increase over his/her lifetime."


Thank you for stating something that should have been obvious to anyone reading this thread.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but one thing that always bugs me is when an agent totally misleads others by acting as if they are an authority when in fact they have no idea what they are talking about.

You have exceptional writing skills.



mr_ed




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So....we would then assume that John Hancock's current LTCi rates are significantly higher now that they know what's up.

Can anyone run a rate and check? Can anyone here comment on today's Hancock rate based on last years?

just ran the PA rates.

current policy is priced 97.1% higher than the policy they sold about 8 years ago (62 year old married couple, $150 daily benefit, 5% compound, 90 day elimination period, standard health.)

the current policy is priced about 140% higher than the policy in PA that just got the 90% increase.

seems like the new policy rates have some extra padding to PREVENT future premium increases.

Did I post yet that it was wholly irresponsible and ignorant of somebody to post what he/she posted about rate increases on policies purchased today?


mr_ed

 

[tlmarketing]

To say they were wrong is to imply they intentionally used wag's to set rates.

When UL policies were sold, especially those sold by A. L. Williams minions with projected 12% growth rates, everyone knew those projections would not hold up. Even the 6 - 8% projections by other carriers were generous but closer to reality than the Williams group.

I suspect the home office critters that produced the 12% dividend projections knew they were blowing smoke.

But then, they were projections and projections are never guaranteed. If things didn't work out as planned, and they didn't, it was no big deal to cut dividends and simply tell policyholders they would have less cash and have to pay premiums longer than initially estimated.

Of course life insurance historical data was abundant, as were interest crediting assumptions and dividend histories.

LTCi actuaries were essentially working in the dark.

If you want to believe they were wrong, that is your prerogative. But I don't equate what they did with what Millico did with their life plans or Baldwin United with their annuities.

Both those carriers were so far off the mark compared to the rest of the industry that even Stevie Wonder could see there was something wrong.



Thank you for stating something that should have been obvious to anyone reading this thread.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but one thing that always bugs me is when an agent totally misleads others by acting as if they are an authority when in fact they have no idea what they are talking about.

How is a statement that John Hancock increased their long term care rates by 90% misleading? Especially if I am reading it off a letter from John Hancock to an insured?

What you do with your babbling b.s. is misleading...you try to confuse the issue by talking about life insurance, AL Williams, everything except the reality that there are people out there who are now well into retirement on fixed incomes who just received 90% rate increases from John Hancock.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You have exceptional writing skills.



mr_ed




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



just ran the PA rates.

current policy is priced 97.1% higher than the policy they sold about 8 years ago (62 year old married couple, $150 daily benefit, 5% compound, 90 day elimination period, standard health.)

the current policy is priced about 140% higher than the policy in PA that just got the 90% increase.

seems like the new policy rates have some extra padding to PREVENT future premium increases.

Did I post yet that it was wholly irresponsible and ignorant of somebody to post what he/she posted about rate increases on policies purchased today?


mr_ed

Mr. Ed - Thank you so much for your new PM. xoxoxo....honestly, how old are you, 3?

And shouldnt it be Ms. Ed if you are the Pres. local chapter of ABWA??

 

[scagnt83]

How is a statement that John Hancock increased their long term care rates by 90% misleading? Especially if I am reading it off a letter from John Hancock to an insured?

What you do with your babbling b.s. is misleading...you try to confuse the issue by talking about life insurance, AL Williams, everything except the reality that there are people out there who are now well into retirement on fixed incomes who just received 90% rate increases from John Hancock.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[/B]

TL

The reason you were asked if you sell LTCI, or what your expertise on the subject consists of, because you keep saying that agents and JH do not disclose previous rate increases to clients. This is blatantly false.

Any and every LTCI application has a suitability worksheet section that the agent & client go through. It lists every single rate increase the company has had on their LTCI products!
How is that anything but full disclosure?

 

[tlmarketing]

TL

The reason you were asked if you sell LTCI, or what your expertise on the subject consists of, because you keep saying that agents and JH do not disclose previous rate increases to clients. This is blatantly false. where was that said?

 

[Chuckles21]

No telling.

It was never a huge line for any of them, so they aren't going to have the exposure of JH or Genworth or even Met. Also, they started with substantially higher rates. They may just be willing to stomach the loss on some of the older series to be able to keep saying that.

At least, that is how Mass acted when I was there. Of course, that was a few years ago too, so that may have changed.

Last year NML LTC sales were pretty high overall in the industry. They have really made it a push to be a big part of their business. They are also paying a dividend on in force policies starting in year 5. No guarantees the dividend will always be there or that rates could not go up, but I am confident enough with their underwriting and assumptions to have hope that neither of those will happen.