Life Insurance Objection
49 RepliesJump to last post
BB, for what it’s worth, a lot of insurance companies will underwrite someone based on either a multiple of their income (depending on their age) or one times their net worth. I have written a couple of cases where a business owner takes a modest salary, but a big net worth (usually tied to the business).
[quote=BerkshireBull] [quote=ChrisVarick]I disagree with the statement that ART policies are “risky” expecially in this economy. I just wrote a 55 year old with two daughters, one age 7 and one that’s age 2. One could argue that we need a 20 year term to at least insure the family until the children graduate from college, but they just started a business and can’t necessarily afford the 20 year term right now. This is due to the fact that the insurance need was $1.5 million and that the business was in its beginning stages and not necessarily generating any profits right now. In my opinion, the duration of the life insurance policy comes third in the sales equation. First is the life insurance NEED, second is the family’s budget and then we talk about the different types of life insurance after.
Anonymous, I'm very curious as to how you talk to your clients about permanent life insurance and how you're able to sell it.[/quote]Uhhhhhhhh.... This is the dumbest post of the day.
1. You're talking about a guy whose 55 when I said that I write 15yr min level for everyone under the age of 52. So my post didn't pertain to your prospect's situation.
2. Everyone knows it's commonplace for 55 year olds to have a 2 year old daughter. Thank God we have guys like you who know how to propose ART in that situation rather than some irresponsible SOB that would sell him a level term.
3. Is this policy issued or are you still in the process? Either you're going to get laughed out of underwriting for turning in a $1.5mil face policy on someone who doesn't have the income to justify it or this guy is making $150k+ and you sold him a $3500 ART when you could have just gotten him a 20 year level term for $8000 which he could very well afford on that 6-figure income.
[/quote] 55 year old client, 2 little daughters (Age 7, Age 2), $1 million mortgage (monthly mortgage is roughly $4500/month), grosses approximately $100k/year, no real business net worth as he just started up his business, wife does not work. Extreme Christian household family where his 7 year old attends an expensive private school. So lets break down the numbers, he takes home roughly 6k/month. After the $4500 month mortgage, it leaves us with about of $1500 disposable income. A 20 year term with my company costs about $800/month (he got standard rating). An ART cost him about $450/month. If we went with the 20 year term, it would've left a family of four with about $700/month to live off of for groceries, gas, utilities, etc. An ART policy costed us about $400/month. Granted he should of never bought a million dollar home in the first place, I did what I had to do to properly insure his family for the RIGHT amount of coverage in that particular situation. I firmly believe that an agent should ALWAYS solve for the right amount of life insurance coverage before deciding on a product. He was also underwritten by our company for the $1.5 million of coverage (and I work for a company with one of the strictest underwriting out there). Please do not mistaken this post as to me disliking long duration term, I tend to sell a lot of it. However, if you do look at the industry statistics, under 10% of term policies stay in force after a 10 year period. Quite frankly, life insurance rates get cheaper and consumers switch from company to company on a very frequent basis. As they switch from company to company, if all they would of purchased were long duration term then they would've overpaid for life insurance.
Underwriting Limits: All companies have their standard limits in terms of how much one can purchase based upon income and net worth. However, that doesn’t mean that one can’t purchase more than that. One certainly can get more than that as long as there is a good explanation of why the additional amount is being purchased.
Life Insurance Rates get cheaper: This is simply an incorrect statement. It was correct in the past. It's no longer true.[quote=anonymous]Underwriting Limits: All companies have their standard limits in terms of how much one can purchase based upon income and net worth. However, that doesn’t mean that one can’t purchase more than that. One certainly can get more than that as long as there is a good explanation of why the additional amount is being purchased.
Life Insurance Rates get cheaper: This is simply an incorrect statement. It was correct in the past. It's no longer true.[/quote] You're probably right on this, I have noticed that a lot of the stock companies are repricing their life insurance policies, especially the term product line. I wouldn't be surprised if it got cheaper somewhere in the near future when this whole economic mess stabilizes, especially when the payout of term life policies are so minimal.the cost of insurance is the same! in all insurance policies, you are paying an M&E fee. If it is called Mortality and Expense, policy expense, contract charge. it is there.
You have cost of insurance which is the annual cost to insurance your life for that particular year based on the mortality tables.
with me? here is where it gets different between whole life, Universal life and VUL comes in.
Whole life, you pay extra amount over the cost of insurance that he insurance companies keep on their books and invest as they see fit. They give you a minimum rate, often times dividends etc. Easiest to guarantee.
Universal life, you specify the premium over the cost of insurance and that gets invested in a seperate account often in treasuries or what not, giving you a fairly safe investment with a guaranteed minimum.
difference between the two, is with a Universal Life, you control the policy, premiums, and extra amount invested each month. Whole life, the terms are directed by the company. You either take the policy or not.
Next, Variable universal. Same thing. you start with the fixed contract expenses, M&E fees. etc. then, you pay the annual cost of insurance. After that, you add an addition for money to be invested in sub-accounts, that are once again held in a sepereate account that you control and invest as you see fit. You pay on each premium an extra load... often called premium expense that partly goes to pay the commission, and partly goes to the states to insurance the policies. the rest gets invested in sub accounts, for as low as 50bpts annual expense, as it is often subsadized by the insurance companies or fund companies.
In all of the policies. it is the same cost of insurance. No matter if you go with VUL, UL, Term, whatever, it is the same annual cost of insurance. It is easy to have it print on the proposal/illustration and is clear as night and day.
what you are talking about is the comparing an ART policy from company one, to a permanent one from a different company. Obviously they will be different. I am talking about getting a policy from the same carrier. They all base it off the same base mortality tables. What you are paying for is the extras.
ART policies are more expenses quite often because the company knows it will lose hte policy and it will not be converted, thus they charge a higher contract expense, or may base the policy off of older Mortality tables.
Once again, all life insurance is term insurance and all term insurance is annually renewable term insurance.
with a fixed term, you are just getting a level premium. It is the ART companies that add extra expenses to it to pay for fees.
I use term for most clients who need extra coverage for a fixed period of time. UL for clients who need permanent coverage. often, I use a 0 cash value UL, basicly term to age 120, or a No lapse guarantee to age 100. VUL I use seldom as unless the client can commit to a high premium and does not forsee a need for the money for at least 8 to 10 years.
there are some Whole Life products from mutual policies that are nice and pay very hefty dividends, and a few even offer 98% cash value of premium, without surrender, within a few years.
You have to compare the companies and the cost of insurance within a few, but it is impossible to say that company a's term is better or cheaper than companies b's UL. What is fair, is to compare company a's term vs company b's term.
[quote=anonymous]Underwriting Limits: All companies have their standard limits in terms of how much one can purchase based upon income and net worth. However, that doesn’t mean that one can’t purchase more than that. One certainly can get more than that as long as there is a good explanation of why the additional amount is being purchased.
Life Insurance Rates get cheaper: This is simply an incorrect statement. It was correct in the past. It's no longer true.[/quote]
Life insurance rates are getting cheaper. what is getting repriced are the riders, and policy expenses. the ones getting the most massive reprice are the Return of premium term policies.
Regular term rates have stayed the same or have fallen.
[quote=aeromaks]
there are some Whole Life products from mutual policies that are nice and pay very hefty dividends, and a few even offer 98% cash value of premium, without surrender, within a few years. [/quote] What kind of mutual policies would those be? single premium lump sum dump ins?[quote=aeromaks]
the cost of insurance is the same! in all insurance policies, you are paying an M&E fee. If it is called Mortality and Expense, policy expense, contract charge. it is there.
You have cost of insurance which is the annual cost to insurance your life for that particular year based on the mortality tables.
with me? here is where it gets different between whole life, Universal life and VUL comes in.
Whole life, you pay extra amount over the cost of insurance that he insurance companies keep on their books and invest as they see fit. They give you a minimum rate, often times dividends etc. Easiest to guarantee.
Universal life, you specify the premium over the cost of insurance and that gets invested in a seperate account often in treasuries or what not, giving you a fairly safe investment with a guaranteed minimum.
difference between the two, is with a Universal Life, you control the policy, premiums, and extra amount invested each month. Whole life, the terms are directed by the company. You either take the policy or not.
Next, Variable universal. Same thing. you start with the fixed contract expenses, M&E fees. etc. then, you pay the annual cost of insurance. After that, you add an addition for money to be invested in sub-accounts, that are once again held in a sepereate account that you control and invest as you see fit. You pay on each premium an extra load... often called premium expense that partly goes to pay the commission, and partly goes to the states to insurance the policies. the rest gets invested in sub accounts, for as low as 50bpts annual expense, as it is often subsadized by the insurance companies or fund companies.
In all of the policies. it is the same cost of insurance. No matter if you go with VUL, UL, Term, whatever, it is the same annual cost of insurance. It is easy to have it print on the proposal/illustration and is clear as night and day.
what you are talking about is the comparing an ART policy from company one, to a permanent one from a different company. Obviously they will be different. I am talking about getting a policy from the same carrier. They all base it off the same base mortality tables. What you are paying for is the extras.
ART policies are more expenses quite often because the company knows it will lose hte policy and it will not be converted, thus they charge a higher contract expense, or may base the policy off of older Mortality tables.
Once again, all life insurance is term insurance and all term insurance is annually renewable term insurance.
with a fixed term, you are just getting a level premium. It is the ART companies that add extra expenses to it to pay for fees.
I use term for most clients who need extra coverage for a fixed period of time. UL for clients who need permanent coverage. often, I use a 0 cash value UL, basicly term to age 120, or a No lapse guarantee to age 100. VUL I use seldom as unless the client can commit to a high premium and does not forsee a need for the money for at least 8 to 10 years.
there are some Whole Life products from mutual policies that are nice and pay very hefty dividends, and a few even offer 98% cash value of premium, without surrender, within a few years.
You have to compare the companies and the cost of insurance within a few, but it is impossible to say that company a's term is better or cheaper than companies b's UL. What is fair, is to compare company a's term vs company b's term.
[/quote] Let me quote myself from my previous post. "Before you attempt to argue with me look at the COI. It is much more expensive than anything that you could ever imagine selling your client. You wouldn't sell an investment with this pricing structure. You wouldn't sell insurance with this pricing structure. How can it then be a good idea to combine two things that are bad for your client?" Aeromaks, your post is consistent with most people who sell VUL. They talk about how the cost of insurance is the same. Yet, there is an absolute refusal to talk about the specific cost of insurance. The fact that all insurance may be based upon the same mortality tables does not mean that they charge the same. Here's a made up example based upon the policy specs that you have given. Tell me how Client B isn't getting screwed. Client A and Client B are very healthy 30 yearl old females have a level death benefit of $1,000,000. Client A has a $100 cash surrender value, so the net amount at risk is $999,900. Client B has $500,000 cash surrender value, so the net amount at risk $500,000. Client A is paying an M&E fee of $1 for $999,900 of coverage. Client B is paying an M&E of $5000 for $500,000 of coverage. Does this company charge healthy 30 year old females $5,000 (+ the COI for $500,000 of insurance + policy fees + admin expenses) for term insurance? Our job isn't to find the best product from Company A. It is to find the best product. That's why it is perfectly ok to compare one company's VUL with another company's level term product. If the client isn't buying Company A's VUL, he isn't stuck with Company A's ART. He is free to buy whatever product he wants. Don't post real numbers because if you do, your days of thinking that VUL is appropriate will be behind you. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. Go ahead and post. I've done it in the past using numbers from Ameriprise and it was no comparison.[quote=ChrisVarick][quote=aeromaks]
there are some Whole Life products from mutual policies that are nice and pay very hefty dividends, and a few even offer 98% cash value of premium, without surrender, within a few years. [/quote] What kind of mutual policies would those be? single premium lump sum dump ins?[/quote] Nope. a regular whole life policy, Mass Mutual high early cash value.[quote=anonymous][quote=aeromaks]
the cost of insurance is the same! in all insurance policies, you are paying an M&E fee. If it is called Mortality and Expense, policy expense, contract charge. it is there.
You have cost of insurance which is the annual cost to insurance your life for that particular year based on the mortality tables.
with me? here is where it gets different between whole life, Universal life and VUL comes in.
Whole life, you pay extra amount over the cost of insurance that he insurance companies keep on their books and invest as they see fit. They give you a minimum rate, often times dividends etc. Easiest to guarantee.
Universal life, you specify the premium over the cost of insurance and that gets invested in a seperate account often in treasuries or what not, giving you a fairly safe investment with a guaranteed minimum.
difference between the two, is with a Universal Life, you control the policy, premiums, and extra amount invested each month. Whole life, the terms are directed by the company. You either take the policy or not.
Next, Variable universal. Same thing. you start with the fixed contract expenses, M&E fees. etc. then, you pay the annual cost of insurance. After that, you add an addition for money to be invested in sub-accounts, that are once again held in a sepereate account that you control and invest as you see fit. You pay on each premium an extra load... often called premium expense that partly goes to pay the commission, and partly goes to the states to insurance the policies. the rest gets invested in sub accounts, for as low as 50bpts annual expense, as it is often subsadized by the insurance companies or fund companies.
In all of the policies. it is the same cost of insurance. No matter if you go with VUL, UL, Term, whatever, it is the same annual cost of insurance. It is easy to have it print on the proposal/illustration and is clear as night and day.
what you are talking about is the comparing an ART policy from company one, to a permanent one from a different company. Obviously they will be different. I am talking about getting a policy from the same carrier. They all base it off the same base mortality tables. What you are paying for is the extras.
ART policies are more expenses quite often because the company knows it will lose hte policy and it will not be converted, thus they charge a higher contract expense, or may base the policy off of older Mortality tables.
Once again, all life insurance is term insurance and all term insurance is annually renewable term insurance.
with a fixed term, you are just getting a level premium. It is the ART companies that add extra expenses to it to pay for fees.
I use term for most clients who need extra coverage for a fixed period of time. UL for clients who need permanent coverage. often, I use a 0 cash value UL, basicly term to age 120, or a No lapse guarantee to age 100. VUL I use seldom as unless the client can commit to a high premium and does not forsee a need for the money for at least 8 to 10 years.
there are some Whole Life products from mutual policies that are nice and pay very hefty dividends, and a few even offer 98% cash value of premium, without surrender, within a few years.
You have to compare the companies and the cost of insurance within a few, but it is impossible to say that company a's term is better or cheaper than companies b's UL. What is fair, is to compare company a's term vs company b's term.
[/quote] Let me quote myself from my previous post. "Before you attempt to argue with me look at the COI. It is much more expensive than anything that you could ever imagine selling your client. You wouldn't sell an investment with this pricing structure. You wouldn't sell insurance with this pricing structure. How can it then be a good idea to combine two things that are bad for your client?" Aeromaks, your post is consistent with most people who sell VUL. They talk about how the cost of insurance is the same. Yet, there is an absolute refusal to talk about the specific cost of insurance. The fact that all insurance may be based upon the same mortality tables does not mean that they charge the same. Here's a made up example based upon the policy specs that you have given. Tell me how Client B isn't getting screwed. Client A and Client B are very healthy 30 yearl old females have a level death benefit of $1,000,000. Client A has a $100 cash surrender value, so the net amount at risk is $999,900. Client B has $500,000 cash surrender value, so the net amount at risk $500,000. Client A is paying an M&E fee of $1 for $999,900 of coverage. Client B is paying an M&E of $5000 for $500,000 of coverage. Does this company charge healthy 30 year old females $5,000 (+ the COI for $500,000 of insurance + policy fees + admin expenses) for term insurance? Our job isn't to find the best product from Company A. It is to find the best product. That's why it is perfectly ok to compare one company's VUL with another company's level term product. If the client isn't buying Company A's VUL, he isn't stuck with Company A's ART. He is free to buy whatever product he wants. Don't post real numbers because if you do, your days of thinking that VUL is appropriate will be behind you. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. Go ahead and post. I've done it in the past using numbers from Ameriprise and it was no comparison.[/quote] Stop listening to suze orman. =) I never said that all insurance companies have the same cost of insurance. lets take amerirpise since you brought it up. the cost of insurance is is the same on term as on ul as on vul. M&E IS NOT COST OF INSURANCE! the M&E is going towards policy administration. btw... lets take your assanine example... Once that term policy expires in 20 years, ask your client, if they are happy they paid $5k a year to have cash value of 500k left over. Once again, you would not sell a VUL solely for the death benefit. if someone needs solely death benefit, for a fixed period of time you use term. If you need it for life, a 0 cash value UL. If you need another place to start putting away money on a tax deffered, tax free basis, creditor protected, and ability to use it as an asset on company books, you would look at a permanent policy. and oh yeah, this works well in capital transfer as well. There is a reason why Bill Gates has the world's largest VUL. As far as I am concerned, M&E fee is the same as they would be paying me to manage the money. Are VULs for everyone? absolutely not, and VUL's account for less than 10% of all insurance policies I have sold/sell.When you find clients with VULs and they’re heavily underwater (as they all are), do you replace them? Or just leave them alone until their cash value is out of surrender AND equal to at least their basis?
the main question is... do you need to replace the policy? i usually ask for an original copy of the policy which will have a copy of the original illustration. the first one is to get an inforce statement and current reprojection to see if the policy is going to lapse or not. many agents sell the vul's while projecting very high returns, in often cases 12 and up. Typically, I project 8%. the only times I replace policies is when the client owns a policy that is under water, and cannot put more money into the policy. but it is a very loaded question, and it is on a case by case basis. but I am not going to replace any policies if there are no reasons to. will do a change of agent on all of them of course..., but not going to churn a policy just for the sake of earning a commission.When you find clients with VULs and they’re heavily underwater (as they all are), do you replace them? Or just leave them alone until their cash value is out of surrender AND equal to at least their basis?
“Stop listening to Suze Orman”
I'm a huge fan of permanent insurance. I'm even a bigger fan of people understanding the costs of what they are selling. "lets take amerirpise since you brought it up. the cost of insurance is is the same on term as on ul as on vul" If that is the case, their clients are always paying much more than necessary. They charge a 35 year old male with standard rates $90/month + $4.50 sales load for $1,000,000 of coverage. This cost will increase every year. For the same cost, a decent agent can get $1,500,000 for their client and have the price remain level every year. Do they charge a 5% load on their term insurance like they do their VUL? "M&E IS NOT COST OF INSURANCE! the M&E is going towards policy administration." If you sell the product, you should know what this. Despite the fact that the insurance is already much more expensive than the client can get elsewhere the Mortality expense is, and I'm quoting from the prospectus, "The risk that the cost of insurance will be insufficient to meet actual claims." The Expense part of M&E is in case the policy fees and surrender charges aren't enough. In English, this is an extra cost just in case the costs that they are already charging the client isn't enough. You do realize, I hope, that not all VUL policies charge this extra M&E cost. "lets take your assanine example... Once that term policy expires in 20 years, ask your client, if they are happy they paid $5k a year to have cash value of 500k left over." You are missing the fact that the client is paying an extra 1% to get nothing of value. Why are they paying 1% on top of the expenses that they are already paying? Why are they paying for an insurance policy in which the COI is so much more expensive than it otherwise would be? Why are they paying a sales load with no break points? "As far as I am concerned, M&E fee is the same as they would be paying me to manage the money. " That's fair to look at it that way. The problem is that the answer to the following questions is probably "no". Do you ever put someone into a load fund (without waiving the load), not give them break points and at the same time, charge them a 1% AUM fee? Do you ever charge a 1% fee and only give your client a limited choice of mutual funds and nothing else? For the VUL policy that you currently sell, can you let us know the cost of insurance for every 10 years? How about age 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90? I keep asking about the COI and I can't get a straight answer from you.You are looking at the M&E for exactly what it is, policy administration. I am looking at the M&E as 1% that provides you all the rest of the benefits of permanent insurance.
Do you sell Variable annuities? They have the M&E in there as well. M&E in a permanent policy is to provide you access into the platform. M&E, call it the membership fee into Costco.... while you are paying that fee, you are simply getting the entrance to invest into the platform.
the extra 1% is of value. It is the ability to get into subaccounts that are cheaper than any mutual funds. It is the ability to borrow or take out money from the cash value of the policy. It is the ability to put away more money on a tax deferred basis. It is Creditor protection in most states.
Now while you personally may not find any of that of value, I bet you there are some wealthy individuals who do, who have maxed out their 401k's, dont qualify for roth iras, and dont feel like sticking after tax money in a 59 and a half lockup.
Once again, not everyone, hell, not even close to half of the people are ideal candidates for it, but it is worth alot to some.
The insurance cost is the same between the same. What dont you understand? If you have an insurance carrier, go call up your wholesaler.
Furthermore, if you took a few moments to read, digest and think, esp since you are saying you are a big fan of permanent insurance. Print up the cost of insurance page for a UL, a VUL, and term. You will then be able to compare them.
I dont have time over my lunch break to go spend an hour running illustrations from multiple carriers. When I have a client in this position, I will. =) The last 3 cases I did were UL, so no luck for you.
Ok, I entertained myself. The base cost of insurance was lower on a VUL than on a UL with one carrier. partly because the UL was based on older mortality tables. Within this one carrier, and even though their VUL sucks....
However, the VUL did have apx the same cost of insurance, ie the life insurance expense, as 5, 10, and 20 year term products. Only difference, once again, the VUL and UL's do have additional charges, $120 a year admin charge, a premium expense and sub account fees.
On a whole life, no fees are broken down.
I am going to attach one illustration in a bit or later tonight for the high early cash value.
once again, I do agree that the VUL is not the most efficient investment vehicle, it is not. But you are paying more for a swiss army knife.
Its not all about the price.
[quote=aeromaks]
You are looking at the M&E for exactly what it is, policy administration. I am looking at the M&E as 1% that provides you all the rest of the benefits of permanent insurance.
Do you sell Variable annuities? They have the M&E in there as well. M&E in a permanent policy is to provide you access into the platform. M&E, call it the membership fee into Costco.... while you are paying that fee, you are simply getting the entrance to invest into the platform.
the extra 1% is of value. It is the ability to get into subaccounts that are cheaper than any mutual funds. It is the ability to borrow or take out money from the cash value of the policy. It is the ability to put away more money on a tax deferred basis. It is Creditor protection in most states.
Now while you personally may not find any of that of value, I bet you there are some wealthy individuals who do, who have maxed out their 401k's, dont qualify for roth iras, and dont feel like sticking after tax money in a 59 and a half lockup.
Once again, not everyone, hell, not even close to half of the people are ideal candidates for it, but it is worth alot to some.
The insurance cost is the same between the same. What dont you understand? If you have an insurance carrier, go call up your wholesaler.
Furthermore, if you took a few moments to read, digest and think, esp since you are saying you are a big fan of permanent insurance. Print up the cost of insurance page for a UL, a VUL, and term. You will then be able to compare them.
I dont have time over my lunch break to go spend an hour running illustrations from multiple carriers. When I have a client in this position, I will. =) The last 3 cases I did were UL, so no luck for you.
[/quote] I'm not asking you to run illustrations. I'm asking you to answer specific questions. Illustrations won't answer any of the questions. What is the COI at age 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90? Let's make this real simple. Please show me one real world legitimate example of how someone would be better off with a VUL policy than they would be with BTID using the same side fund.[quote=aeromaks]
Ok, I entertained myself. The base cost of insurance was lower on a VUL than on a UL with one carrier. partly because the UL was based on older mortality tables. Within this one carrier, and even though their VUL sucks....
However, the VUL did have apx the same cost of insurance, ie the life insurance expense, as 5, 10, and 20 year term products. Only difference, once again, the VUL and UL's do have additional charges, $120 a year admin charge, a premium expense and sub account fees.
On a whole life, no fees are broken down.
I am going to attach one illustration in a bit or later tonight for the high early cash value.
once again, I do agree that the VUL is not the most efficient investment vehicle, it is not. But you are paying more for a swiss army knife.
Its not all about the price.
[/quote] If you are going to post crap like a VUL having the same approximate insurance costs as 5 and 20 year term, you need to back it up. A very healthy 30 year old male will pay $500 or less for $1,000,000 of 20 year term from 18 different companies. None will charge an up-front sales load. That's less than $10,000 for 20 years. I GUARANTEE that the insurance costs for your client over 20 years in the VUL are double that. Are you up for the challenge of posting them? A VUL is like the old cross training shoes. They are mediocre for a bunch of things, but good for nothing. Please take the time to prove me wrong. I want to be wrong on this stuff. Please don't be like the rest of the VUL salesman who refuse to get into the insurance costs.send me an email and I will email you the illustration.
for a 27 year old, cost of insurance for a VUL vs 10 year term.
VUL.
Year 1 - 360
2 - 360
3 - 368
4 - 361
5 - 354
6 - 347
7 - 350
8- 352
9 - 350
10- 350
Add in Premium expense of $91. Admin of $120.
Term from the same company, same rate class obviously, $340 for 10 year, $355 for 20 year.
So once again, the cost of insurance is the same. You are paying the premium expense and admin fee for the vehicle itself.
Anon,
I just showed you that the cost of insurance is the same. What the discussion is... and no one can be proved right or wrong is whether the added fees are worth the vehicle itself.
Personally, I depends on the client. If Paying an extra $200 a year is worth to them to have a policy in which they can invest, have the money creditor protected, growing tax deferred.... you tell me. Personally, to me it doesnt matter. I am fortunate that I can go to any carrier, and get paid fairly well. the comp on VUL, UL, Whole life is all the same to me.
I present all the options to the client, and they pick. Unless the client can dump alot of money into a VUL, I discourage them from going that route, esp if they havent maxed out other tax deferred vehicles.
For a client, last one I sold a VUL, actually, a second to die vul... annual income of $500k, maxed out roth 401k, and in sue happy industry. Has cashflow to support it, putting in $2k a month into the policy. Has the death benefit and growing tax deferred, and money will be passed on to kids and trust tax free.
To them.... it is worth it.