By Dr. James M. Dahle, WCI Founder
Indexed universal life insurance (IUL) is an insurance product that seems to promise you can have your cake and eat it, too. Unfortunately, as with most things in life, there are no free lunches. The devil is in the details, and when you really examine them, it becomes clear that these are products designed to be sold, not bought.
What Is Indexed Universal Life Insurance?
Indexed universal life insurance is similar to the more familiar whole life insurance policy in that it is composed of two basic pieces: first, a permanent insurance policy that will pay a death benefit whether you die young or old; and, second, a cash value account from which you can borrow money tax-free (but not interest-free) in order to pay for expensive items, educational expenses, or your retirement. The difference lies in how the cash value account grows.
IUL vs Whole Life Insurance
In a whole life policy, the insurance company determines the dividend rate. Each year, this announced rate is multiplied by your cash value and the product is added to your cash value. The insurance company is the sole determinant of what that rate will be, but it is generally considered to come from a combination of the insurance company’s portfolio returns, surrender fees, and the extra money available when people live longer than actuaries project.
With IUL, the crediting rate for your cash value is determined by a formula, instead of being at the insurance company’s discretion. The specific formula is outlined in the policy documents, but, in general, is related to the performance of the stock market.
Unfortunately, if you don’t listen and read carefully, you’ll misunderstand how the policy works and assume you’re going to get stock market-like returns on your cash value or, worse, on your premiums, not all of which goes to the cash value account due to the costs of insurance. The basic premise is that when the stock market goes down, you’re guaranteed a crediting rate of zero to 3%. When it goes up, you get to “participate” in that increased return.
Why Indexed Universal Life Is a Bad Investment
Your insurance agent is sure to point out all of the benefits of purchasing one of these policies; this article will show you five reasons why buying IUL is generally a bad idea.
#1 You Don’t Need a Permanent Death Benefit
The vast majority of Americans, and especially high-income Americans like physicians, will, at some point, no longer depend on their earnings from work in order to live. This is called financial independence. Once you reach this point, you generally no longer have a need for life insurance.
IULs are, by definition, permanent life insurance policies. Term insurance is very inexpensive: less than $350 per year for a $1 million, 30-year level term policy bought on a healthy 30-year-old. The reason it is so inexpensive is that people are unlikely to die before 60. If everyone died before 60, those policies would be much more expensive.
Since everyone eventually dies, permanent life insurance must be priced so that there is enough money to pay a death benefit to everyone. As such, the insurance component is very expensive. The portion of your premium that pays for the insurance component cannot go into your cash value account. The more the insurance costs, the less you’ll have in the cash value account. You don’t need a permanent policy to insure against a temporary risk.
#2 Complexity Does Not Favor the Buyer
IULs have many moving parts. The more complex the policy, the less likely you are to really understand how it will work in the future. The less you understand, the more likely you are to be disappointed when you eventually compare the steak to the sizzle you were sold. Also, the more complex the product, the fewer competitors it will have, and competition drives prices down.
Like any insurance/investing hybrid product, you need to hold a IUL for the rest of your life to achieve even a low return, and you are far less likely to do this when it turns out you bought something that isn’t what you thought it was. Those who sell these commissioned products are highly trained, but not in finance. Their training is in sales, and they are generally very good at what they do.
You may have noticed that the best products in life generally sell themselves. If a highly-trained sales force is the only way to sell something, buyers should probably wonder why.
#3 IULs Don’t Count the Dividends
You have probably heard that “the stock market returns 10% in the long run”. While this figure is approximately true—at least on a nominal (non-inflation-adjusted) basis—it includes the stock dividends, not just the change in the index value. IULs, however, only pay you based on the change in the index.
“So what’s the big deal?” you ask.
The big deal is that if you go back to 1870, the average dividend yield of the stock market is over 4%. Even now, at historically low yields of around 2%, the dividend still accounts for one-fifth of the market return. So if an index mutual fund goes up 10% (including a 2% dividend), an IUL may only credit you 8%.
#4 IULs Have Cap Rates
To make matters worse, IULs usually have a cap rate. That means if the stock market has a really great year, such as the 30% index return in 2013, your return is “capped” at some lower figure, often in the 10% to 15% range.
How much does that matter? Well, imagine if your policy had a cap of 12%. Any time the S&P 500 index returned more than 12%, you just get 12%. How often does that happen? Since 1928, the S&P 500 has had an index return over 12% 44 times, or about 52% of the time. It happens more often than not.
Even if you only go back 15 years to 1999, during this supposedly terrible period for equities, it has happened seven times. If that cap wasn’t in place, an IUL purchaser in 1999 would have had 69% more money than he really ended up with.
#5 IULs Have Participation Rates
If that wasn’t bad enough, there is also something called a participation rate. If your participation rate is 80%, that means that if the stock market goes up 10% (not counting dividends) you get 8% credited to your cash value account. After 30 years, a nest egg growing at 8% instead of 10% ends up 42% smaller.
Adding It All Up – Are IULs a Good Investment?
So how can IULs offer “market returns” while still guaranteeing you won’t lose money, at least on a nominal basis? They don’t.
You simply don’t get anywhere near the market returns due to the costs of the insurance, the additional fees, the loss of the dividends, the cap rates, and the participation rates. These products don’t pass the common sense test.
How can an insurance company give you most of the upside of investing in stocks while eliminating the downside? They don’t have any magic investments; they have to invest like anybody else. In addition, they have to generate enough money for profits and to pay hefty commissions to their sales force.
These policies are likely to provide a return very similar to that of whole life insurance (with the possibility of much worse performance), which is easily seen to be in the 2% to 5% range long term for a policy bought today and held for life. While it may have the word “index” in its title, an IUL has much in common with whole life insurance and almost nothing in common with a high-quality index mutual fund.
While guarantees are always nice, you don’t want to overpay for them. With IUL, you are doing so in the form of much lower returns.
Do you own IUL? Are you happy with your purchase? Why or why not? Comment below!
Always interesting to read replies.
I have zero invested interest in whether anybody buys insurance or not. Doesn’t matter to me. Nor do I own any publically traded stock in any financial company.
I don’t think much of IUL products nor would I buy one but I won’t tell you to buy it or not. That is a personal decision.
I do like permanent products and I do stand by assertion that there will always be a need for them. I have an adult child that is brain damaged. It is my responsibility to see to said kid’s care after I am gone. Using a combination of strategies one of which is permanent LI seems to be the right thing to do as said child might outlive me by 50 years.
Only an uberrich can plunk down $5M into a perm product. That sure would not be me. So I didn’t qualify for a PPLI plan either. But I do have a decent WL product and it will contribute to the pool of money/plans that will support my kid after I am gone.
I stand by my comment “LI is not an investment.” It can be treated like an investment but it isn’t. It is an asset. I don’t need Webster’s to figure that out. I am not “outlaying my money for profit” although after the cost of the insurance, there is that possibility. There is a cost to LI. Every year X amount of that premium goes towards paying for the insurance portion. I don’t bemoan that cost. If I die at any point, my estate (and therefore my children) self-finishes funding and my beneficiary will receive the insurance benefits.
I have a $2M policy and I do not pay $20,000 yearly in premium. More like less than half of that. I was smart enough to do this when my disabled child was younger.
Google “studies that buy term and invest the difference” and read all the stuff that comes up. I particularly liked the few studies done by the Wharton School and a few other famous people that found that almost all did not consistently ‘invest the difference’ and furthermore, didn’t have the stamina to stick it out during bad times. Turns out being human was a very important factor into the market psychology part of all the studies and reviews.
There is downward pressure on doctor’s salaries. You are in the industry so you know that. If you think everybody coming out of medical school nowadays is going to hit the financial jackpot, you must live in NYC and have no student loan debt. The rest of this country does not make the big bucks like a generation or two ago. insurance carriers made sure of that. You think it is gonna get better? I wouldn’t bet the farm on that. The last medical procedure I had, the doctor billed Blue Cross for $6000. BX threw out $5600 of it and paid them $300 and I paid the other $100. I have a few associates that don’t even go see a doctor anymore and I understand that. I myself have put off things. With an $1100/month BX premium + an $8900 annual out of pocket, I don’t go running to the doctor much myself these days.
I also stand by .. “things can change.” You bet they can. Why should a medical professional believe that 100 year S&P averages never change but .. somebody totally healthy for 50+ years goes to the doctor for a yearly check up and a week later comes a phone call .. it’s malignant .. so yes, you bet, things can change, and in a heartbeat.
The best one of all that you wrote to my statement “The world is full of people that will need some kind of life insurance in place on the day the die …” and you wrote ” .. Sorry, but that’s WRONG.”
REALLY.
Thanks for the judgment.
I didn’t write EVERYBODY must have some kind of life insurance nor did I write ALMOST EVERYBODY must have some kind of life insurance .. I wrote ” .. the world is full of people that will need …” Well guess what, the world IS full of people that will need some kind of insurance in place on the day that they die. People with dependent, ill spouses, people (like me) with disabled or brain injured children, people that will suffer when one of two incomes is suddenly lost cuz one can die at any age, not just old age .. yep, I will stand by statement that the world is full of people that will need some kind of life insurance in place on the day they die. I didn’t say what day, year, age they would die, I just wrote, well you saw what I wrote.
Please don’t make remarks that can be so misinterpreted. Everybody’s situation is different and in this world of billions of people, yep there are plenty that will need to have something there if they lose their life.
I did not advocate for WL and I did not advocate for Term, I simply wrote a post and your last line of reply is “but for the vast majority of the 99.99% – it’s TERM LIFE and invest the rest.”
Well in my book (I’m an Epidemiology/Biostatistics demographer & Clinical Psychologist but not licensed anymore cuz I’m done but I still read everything for fun) that is what I would (sadly) call a Dave Ramsey type remark. Please don’t go there. If a lot of people read this and decide that 99.99% of the world’s population or as you say .. vast majority .. takes that as advice .. then you are doing a disservice to many that will suffer the consequences when (1) their term policies run out (2) the S&P doesn’t give them what they are counting on (may or may not happen, I don’t have a crystal ball and I’m out of the prediction business) and (3) don’t have high paying lucrative jobs that will allow them save a few million bucks so they do have real needs for some kind of permanent planning that will assure them the money will be there when it is needed.
Which is most of the people I know. All my school teacher friends have not managed to save even $250,000 after 25 – 40 years of working. And you know what else, I have a physician friend that just filed for bankruptcy. Go figure.
But of course this thread is for high earning doctors. I get that.
Whole life is an even worse deal for middle class earners than high income professionals. If you have a need for permanent insurance (which you very well might) then you may have to suck it up and buy it. But don’t pretend it’s a great deal/investment/asset/insurance policy/whatever you want to call it. It’s not. Don’t buy insurance you don’t need and get the best price you can on insurance you do.
Jamie you took me to task on this: “The world is full of people that will need some kind of life insurance in place on the day the die …” and you wrote ” .. Sorry, but that’s WRONG.”
You were right to call me on this. I was wrong to say it. I apologize to you for it. You may’ve noted I even contradicted myself, because elsewhere in my long answer to you I say that some people that need a “nanny” policy should get Whole Life from a highly-rated Mutual. I wanted to go back and edit this sentence after posting. But of course it was too late.
Jamie, for the middle market (i.e. not the uberrich), from a purely financial standpoint, Whole Life will always be a poorer option. Term and Invest the Rest will always be the better choice. But WLs enjoy an enduring place in the middle market due to the human condition you mention. If you look at FINRA’s numbers, WL in the US holds consistently at 35–40% of share per premium dollars. In Japan, the country with the highest per-capita LI ownership, WLs, and their endowment policy cuzzes, reign supreme.
About xULs, they allow carriers and B/Ds to abuse them so much they become increasingly radioactive. Carriers, especially mutuals, are already starting to drop them. A few carriers (maybe this includes NW Life?) never offered xULs to begin with.
Corrective events will force life insurance back to its pre 1913 tax-shelter roots–Term and WL. Much of the world–especially in unitary states not federal states like the US and Canada–never strayed far from those roots. In Asia and Europe, you often buy policies through “bancassurance”–meaning you buy it from the teller where you do your banking. This incurs only a relatively nominal commission, compared to the $3–$5k comm a typical xUL policy triggers in North America. Thus the client endure less sales pressure to buy and overbuy Perm Life. xUL is strictly a North American phenomenon, allowed to persist do to relatively cumbersome insurance regs because of their primacy in/devolution to the states and provinces. In America and Canada, we’ll rely on class-action suits followed by Congressional and Parliamentary outrage to rectify the matter. That’s already started with “Feller v Transamerica” and the class-action that Lieff Cabraser is working up.
Jamie, in my sentence “…for the middle market (i.e. not the uberrich), from a purely financial standpoint, *Whole Life* will always be a poorer option…”
I meant to say *Perm Life* in general, not Whole Life. From a purely financial view, WL is a inferior option for ALL folks, regardless of their economic level. However, the uberrich can greatly benefit from VULs in PPLIs.
Hello Real IUL Man .. you certainly have very strong opinions on a lot of stuff. Why are you like that? If you are an MD and i go to you for up to date, precise medical information, I want you to have a very strong understanding and opinion of what in my body is going to kill me.
But when it comes to insurance .. you take this stance and say interesting stuff.
There is nothing wrong with Whole Life. Again, I have to disagree with what you wrote .. it is not an inferior option for ALL folks. I don’t know where you come up with these strong opinions and that is exactly what they are – your opinion.
The world is also full of COLI and BOLI whole life products. For those that don’t know what that is, it stands for Corporate Owned Life Insurance and Bank Owned Life Insurance. Banks use BOLI as part of their Tier 1 Capital requirements. You gotta ask yourself .. why would they do that? Why do they have over $20 – $30 Billion of whole life on their books? Well .. perhaps to guarantee that a certain amount of money will be there for customers and can be counted on. Same goes for the COLI, which is used to fund retirement plans and pensions. Why do they use Whole Life and not a Universal Product?
Because .. they must count on the money being there when the time comes for it to be accessed.
That’s the advantage of Whole Life. You can count on it being there. You pay more for it but nothing in life is free. If you absolutely want to count on X amount at the least being there, then this is your product.
This is exactly why banks and corporations don’t use Universal products to fund their benefits and perks. You cannot, you totally cannot count on money being in a Universal product when you might need it. Universals can .. and have .. self destructed. Whole Life will not.
So there is a use for it.
And in places in the world (you know my favorite line .. the world is full of people ..) there are individuals that absolutely totally “must” be able to count on the money being there. And not just parents with disabled kids. Single people too, that never married, have no kids, and one would think have no needs for insurance, which for most they don’t. But single people also have a strong need to be able to count on X amount of money being there.
For many people, there is nothing wrong with that. And never would I say “it is a terrible product, don’t even think of buying it.” I can’t speak for my neighbors. I can only speak for me.
I will speak however for people to keep open minds about all of this.
If you have a good market run, you should do well or well enough with a Universal product. If you have a bad market run, you will pull your hair out of your head. Oh yes the advertising materials say, you won’t lose anything .. but you will. There are costs, fees, expenses, and the ever increasing cost of insurance that comes out of the IUL product. If you live long enough, it may or may not matter. It may grow to the moon or might self destruct and cause tax issues. I have no clue what 30 years down the road will bring with an IUL. I just know, I didn’t buy it.
But the world is full of people .. like the banks .. and the corporations .. that insist on counting on the money being there when it is needed. Hence a very active Whole Life market.
Personally, I’m glad two of my banks are the two largest owners of BOLI. I am far more comfortable knowing that X amount of that money IS in place and I can count on it. And personally, I do have a Whole Life product because I have to be able to count of X amount of funding for my kid.
But I have other things.
What I don’t have, is any annuity product. I am in no mood to give my money away to never see it again. I hate annuities but again, I would never tell anybody to buy or not to buy. When asked my opinion, I say, here are the pros and here are the cons and if you want to look further, here are two people that really know this stuff. It is not my place to advise others ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and I won’t do it.
I do have a ROTH IRA which I have managed magnificently but (and there is always a but) when one can only put $6500 yearly into it (when over the age of 50) .. just how much can the darn thing grow to? Well since I converted my regular IRA in 2003 to a ROTH (which according to everything I have read, less than 6% of IRA’s have ever been converted .. kinda sad I have to think) but I’m up 700% on it. Not bad for 13 years. But I will be lucky when I hit age 70, 72, whatever age I choose, to take out $1500 per month and be able to count on it doing that for me for 30+ years. Won’t cut it for me but luckily it is only one piece of my pie.
I don’t mind the long term Whole Life averages of 30+ years at the 4.5 – 5.5 – 6% range of growth. If I take money out, it is taken out tax free. That says a lot. I have looked around this earth and tried hard to find every which way from Sunday to get as much as my stuff tax free as possible. That is the name of my game. If the current dividend rate on my WL stays about the same or at least maintains a 5.5 – 6% dividend minimum in the next decade, I will be able to get out $60,000 yearly tax free but it will be safer for me to get out $45,000 – $50,000. Tax free? Oh I will take it. Cuz my goal is to have at least 2/3rd’s of my income after I’m 70 or 75 to be tax free.
I like my goal.
So there is nothing wrong, in my book, with Whole Life.
When I read threads like this, I love it, but I also feel sadness. The world is full of people that read a thread and take it for gospel. The sadness is for the fact that I read for information, keeping in mind that there are X amount of posts here that give me X amount of information. It is then my job to go discover the truth, the real truth, and nothing but the truth.
This thread is full of medical professionals and most of the people that comment seem to be in the medical profession. That means you are experts in your fields of specialty and I would hope so cuz when I pay to go see a doctor, i want the BEST that money can buy cuz literally, my life just might depend on it. But this site was founded to assist medical professionals mostly MD’s .. to assess and discuss financial topics especially for high earning doctors. I love this site. I find it very interesting. What I really want to see though, is a sharing of information .. not strong opinions on subjects that seem, for most here, not their primary source of their brain power. I would wish that the site used all these opinions disguised as facts and encourage people to get professional financial help and talk talk talk till you get it. I cannot participate in discussions where one can’t distinguish between fact and opinion.
Lastly, my older sister and her husband took out two Whole Life policies on themselves over 33 years ago, putting $20,000 a year each in it. Three years ago they stopped putting money in and they are just letting it grow more. People think you have to pay your whole life for a Whole Life but you don’t if you don’t want to. There is so much money in these policies it makes my head spin. And the “bank on yourself” policy designs didn’t even start till the early 2000’s. Imagine if they had had those from day one. But I have to say .. they ordered in-force illustrations last year showing them starting to withdraw money when they are 72 and .. they will each be taking out $120,000 yearly which is .. tax free. Not bad for ages 72 – 95. Do the math. That comes to $2,760,000 in withdrawals. Not bad for putting in $600,000. Even at a 5% dividend rate, if they live to see age 95, they will still have almost a $1M left in life insurance. I am in total awe. It taught me that there is a value to whole life especially when you are young. And this is only one piece of their pie. In a well thought out financial plan, there are a number of moving parts. There is nothing wrong with what they did. They have funds and real estate also but the easiest thing they ever did .. was to write a check to the company once a year for their WL policies and not look back. I believe there is peace-of-mind value in that alone. They have pulled their hair out of their head with some of their industrial buildings, they have run a big business that during the last recession almost went under and they have funds (why they have funds, god only knows but they do) that have gone up and down and been all over the map. So when I showed my brother in law this thread and he glanced at it, he said .. if only people knew .. that for all I did and I don’t regret all I did but I have to say .. the whole life thingy has been the easiest, the simplest, and when all is and done, the ‘only’ thing that actually has guaranteed that when I need my money, it is there.
So that is my personal bias. I’ve seen it up close and personal. And I own a policy myself. I can’t make up for time but I can make it up with larger deposits. So it works for me and it is working .. just fine. And I’ll continue to add other things down the road too. I have real estate also and it is not easy but it has been lucrative. It all adds up to one pie. And trust me, I am not uberrich as I’ve stated before but I am comfortable. Anybody can find value in any product that is well structured.
It’s been interesting. Have a nice day!
Not sure why you’re surprised that putting $20K a year into an investment for 33 years adds up to a large amount. Especially given what stocks, bonds, or even whole life was paying 33 years ago.
Jamie please get your facts straight. BOLIs and COLIs are Universal Life, not Whole Life. These things you say: “…The world is also full of COLI and BOLI whole life products…” and “…This is exactly why banks and corporations don’t use Universal products to fund their benefits…” have it backwards.
https://www.newyorklife.com/content/dam/nyl-cms-dotcom/pdfs/amn/Straight-Talk-BOLI-Understanding-the-Products-Chassis.pdf – See chart headers on page 2.
https://www.bolicoli.com/frequently-asked-questions-about-coli
“…Q: How are typical COLI policies structured? A: Typically, companies purchase variable universal life insurance (“VUL”) policies…”
Jamie, you can’t fully equate retail Perm Life to BOLI/COLI. Banks and corps use BOLIs and COLIs for many of the same reasons high net worth folks get PPLIs: The UL/VUL structure offers greater cost efficiencies (e.g. lower relative fees), greater effective yields and more transparency for large-volume high-premium accounts. E.g. BOLIs and COLIs have lower or no surrender fees and BOLIs let you choose between General and Separate Accounts, or to go for a hybrid of the two.
Jamie, this you say: “…Banks use BOLI as part of their Tier 1 Capital requirements…” So we’re clear, banks don’t *have* to buy any LI to “fulfil” Tier 1 requirements. Indeed, banks have limits how much of their Tier 1 capital they can devote to LI:
https://schiffbenefitsgroup.com/boli-consulting-2/faqs-boli/
“…A bank is only allowed to use up to 25% of its Tier 1 and allowances for loan and lease losses to buy BOLI. In addition, the bank may only purchase up to 15% of its Tier 1 and allowances for loan and lease losses or 1% of the banks total assets with any single insurance company because of the concentration risk…”
Jamie I took you suggestion and did the math. So far it’s looking a little interesting. The carrier fees seem low.
Maybe I misunderstood some things you said? If I did, please I hope you will correct it.
Let’s revisit what you say:
“…my older sis and her hub took out two WL policies on themselves over 33 years ago, putting $20,000 a year each in it. Three years ago they stopped putting money in and they are just letting it grow more…they ordered in-force illustrations last year showing them starting to withdraw money when they are 72 and they will each be taking out $120,000 yearly. Not bad for ages 72 – 95. Do the math. That comes to $2,760,000 in withdrawals. Not bad for putting in $600,000…”
Lessee Jamie. You are saying each puts in only $600,000 total over 30 years, for a total $1,200,000 between them? And each takes out $2,760,000 starting 30 years later, for a total of $5,520,000? Do we have that right?
I put that data into this Future Value calculator you can use in Google Sheets:
= fv (rate, number of periods, -payment amount , present value, [end or beginning]) I normalized all inputs to a month period.
Here we populate this formula:
RATE: You mention an annual dividend rate of 5%. That’s a monthly of .05/12 = .0041667
NO OF PERIODS: Since you say each put in $600k total making $20k per year payments. That comes to 30 years = 360 months.
PAYMENT AMT: $20k per year comes to $20k/12 = $1,667 per month.
PRESENT VALUE: Starts at 0 (zero)
END/BEGINNING: Set default of 0 (zero) for payment at end of period.
After we feed all that data in, you get a net Future Value, for a total of $1,200,000 paid in over 30 years, of $5,548,391. You claim you sis and her hub will realize $5,520,000 from ages 72 to 95.
Jamie, are you suggesting then that the carrier takes out only $5,548,391 – $5,520,000 = $28,391 in fees to the carrier over those 30 years? That comes to only $946 per year–$473 per year each for your sis and her hub–in fees.
Gosh, that’s only $39 per month each for only 30 years for a policy that’ll pay out $2,760,000 each?! You pay at least that much in fees for a modest $500k 30-year Term Life policy!
If your sis and/or her hub die before age 95, do the amounts not paid out to them in their lives then go to their beneficiaries? E.g. if her hub dies at age 85, does this add $120k per year x 10 years = $1.2m to his death benefit?
Jamie, who is this carrier your sis and her hub use? And what are the specific names of the policies they bought? I think we’d all like to learn the makes and models here and dig more into this. Thanks very much.
I’m aware of the ColiBoli site and have read it. I used Barry Van Dyke’s books as the source of most of my information.
He doesn’t break down ‘permanent’ life products between WL, UIL or VUL. He classifies them all as ‘permanent.’ But one thing he does discuss is that ‘at least 25% of the permanent products’ are MECS and the reason he gives is that a bank doesn’t care if it is a MEC since they plan to hold it till the death of insured. However, he doesn’t give the proportions of MEC WL and MEC UIL and MEC VUL and .. is there even a MEC available in the Variable category?
I can’t give you a link to the book as it isn’t on the internet but pages 135 – 178 deal with this issue.
While the ColiBoli site says ‘usually’ a company uses the Variable product .. there are no guarantees in a Variable product. So when a bank discusses in its footnotes that there is X amount of money they have in Tier 1 .. Tier 1 cannot be more than X amount of money that has no guaranteed value ‘tomorrow.’ Once can only extrapolate. So the VUL product has to be separated out – some in the Guaranteed Account and some in the Variable (Non-guaranteed) account. It is probably why the banks flocked to the UL products but before that, and even still, there is WL in there, placed from years ago, and some still placed. The guarantees are higher and for the X percentage of Tier 1 that must be guaranteed, I am pretty confident that with all I have read, there is a mixture of everything. Please note that I see I mistyped when I wrote the line about Why do banks use whole life and not universal life? I didn’t mean to say that. I meant to write permanent life. And I also left out a zero when stating that banks had $20B in force in Boli. I meant to write $200B and that is the figure from the end of 2015. I don’t know what the ending figures for total amounts will be come the end of 2016. (And no, I don’t remember what site I read that on but I did read it over the summer.) Sorry for the confusion.
I have read elsewhere that banks do not use much in the VUL category anymore & I suspect they lean more towards the IUL as the guarantees have more meaning (vs the VUL.) That is just my opinion tho. But I did read in the Van Dyke’s book that both the WL and the UL products are used. The professional management behind the insurance company manages the bank’s insurance holdings and the banks are happy to have them. So even when they use a Variable product, they use the life insurance company to manage the variable portion of the policy.
I have never read that banks do only UL products, Variable or not. I have only read they use ‘permanent’ products. I don’t know what the ratios would be. My suspicion is that each case depends. There might be cases where a WL is a better choice especially since a few companies have come out with a product named High Cash Value Whole Life to compete for more business and it is a very high cash value right out of the gate. We ran illustrations using MM HCV WL and I did consider that policy but passed because the HCV was only in the first 10 years. After year 11, the regular WL outperformed the HCV WL.
The differences between the WL and the UL products were the underlying guarantees. The MM WL policy guaranteed no less than 4% contractually and the UL policy guaranteed no less than 1% but had a cap on the upper end of 10% I seem to remember .. and it also stated, in a Fidelity & Guarantee Life policy I looked at, that the UL minimum guarantee was 0% but the upper end cap was 12%. I’m pretty sure that one was Fidelity & Guarantee LI Company. (Not to be confused with the behemoth Fidelity Investments Co .. no relation.)
So if you need a guarantee that has meaning, 4% minimum and in the case of MM with a 2017 6.7% dividend or a NYL with a 6.2% last year (can’t find the declared rate for this year) .. there is a place for a WL product. For people that need a guarantee, or people that WANT a guarantee .. there is nothing wrong with Whole Life. For people that can actively manage and pay attention to what is going on in the world, then an IUL is a good product for them. The biggest difference is that with an IUL, you can never go to sleep behind the wheel. You do have to pay attention to it. If you are with a major company like NYL, MM, NWM, etc, and have a WL product, you don’t have to do anything. For aging people that are widowed or single or losing their marbles, there is nothing wrong with a WL permanent product. You know every year exactly what you have and what you will most likely have all the years left in your life assuming the dividend stays around the same. If the dividend goes up, you will do better. That is why companies run illustrations with current dividend rates and midpoint dividend rates. Shockingly the difference between the two was only a few bucks.
This thread was started with the title “5 Reasons Not To Buy IUL” .. and has been a very interesting discussion. But it is getting too technical now. Permanent insurance products are Up Close & Personal, to steal an expression. Some need LI, some don’t. Some say they want it only during the years their kids are growing up and some say they want it to protect their spouse or kids if they die at any point in life. I can’t comment on the ‘why’s for most people, I can only comment on my world. My spouse had life insurance and it was permanent. WL actually. I loved it, of course I loved it, I got the money on said spouse’s death. But we got divorced and I did not get ownership of it in the divorce. My next spouse had 20 year term which just expired and guess what, said spouse is not insurable anymore. That is the risk and said spouse didn’t want a permanent product back then. We are not married anymore (but not for that reason.) Now the task of caring for our disabled child falls on me since ex-spouse does not care and I don’t wish to leave my adult child in the care of the state if I get hit by a drunk tomorrow. So I can tell you, I pulled my own hair out of my head over this decision – WL and IUL. The IUL illustrations were great and even with the down years of since 1998 (which is all every company illustration would run) .. well, if one just takes the last 10 years and repeats it for the next 40 as is how the illustrations are run .. I will be Rich Rich Rich when I die.
But I don’t trust it. And since my kid is a loving but damaged adult now, if I die, I want my adult kid in a nice enough life, not some cruddy state institution.
I read the discussion of the 100-year average for the S&P and I have to tell you my own bias – I don’t trust the 100-year average of 8% or more. The most I will trust is the last 30 years because .. I will most likely live for the next 30 years (according the life insurance company, who wrote me Super Super Super Duper Ultra Preferred Plus after seeing lab results that said I was 23 and not really 63) .. and last night I had some fun. I took $100,000 and compounded it at 5% for the last 16 years .. came to $218,000. I chose 16 years because somebody from American Equity gave me a chart of the performance of the S&P since 1998 vs their IUL .. and their chart showed their product being worth $214,000 since you don’t lose money on the down years. And the S&P results? $183,000 and for that you had to ride the ups & downs and pull your hair out of your head.
My mythical $100,000 at 5% beat the IUL product AND the S&P. I’m with an insurance company that has a declared dividend rate of almost 7%. I’ll take it. Because even at 5% .. I beat the last 16 years of the S&P.
If you take each 10 year period starting yesterday for the S&P and look at the 10-yr percentages of return .. you will notice that the S&P is compressing. It is getting smaller. There are reasons for that. We had Explosive growth in this country in the 1980’s. After the correction early in the 1990’s, we had another decade of fantastic growth. And then came the Tech Wreck and nothing has been the same since. The fuel in the real estate markets was money printing. The growth in the country (and world) since the 2008/9 melt down, has been from money printing. It is going to take a few decades most likely to work all this out. So for me .. I am only interested in the last 15 years and the next 30 years. The 100-year averages don’t matter to me. A 20-year old might care more about the last 100 and the next 100 years, but at my age of 63, I don’t.
I really have no clue the percentages of WL and UL / IUL and/or VUL that a bank or company uses. Nobody is required to disclose on their financials that breakdown. They just list ‘Permanent’ somewhere in their footnotes. But I have read that banks and companies use combinations of all of them. I read heavily for several years before I purchased my first permanent policy.
As for my sister and brother in law, I love your math but I can only tell you they won’t allow me to post their statements. I read what I wrote right off the in-force illustration. I will say they have Mass Mutual policies and from 33 years ago, MM had high dividends paid out. Try this link:
https://fieldnet.massmutual.com/public/life/pdfs/li7954.pdf
Page 4 has their dividend rates. MM has had some wild years. From 1984 – 1995, they were never lower than 9% and most of the 90’s, 8.4% – 9.5%. So my sis & bro-in-law had terrific growth for the first 17 years. Even in the first decade of the 2000’s, they had 7.5% – 8.4%. That is terrific, tax free growth. These have been excellent policies for them.
I’m going out of town tomorrow and so I am now exiting my comments on the site as I won’t be on the internet. I hope I answered your questions and I hope I contributed to the essence of the discussion which has been, to say the least, most interesting. Thanks to the host who started the thread .. and Happy New Year to everyone. I wish y’all the best.
Lol. Happy Holidays Jamie.
The last 10-15 posts on this thread qualify as TLDR. When your comment length exceeds that of the post, you ought to consider whether it should be submitted as a guest post instead. If you can rattle off five comments like that, you ought to consider whether you should start your own blog instead!
I mean, I try very diligently to read every comment posted on the site, but sometimes it is just too much so I just scan it for profanity and ad hominem attacks.
Hi James. Each time I think about launching a blog, life sweeps me up into a maelstrom and I”m out of commission for long stretches. But if you’re open to a possible guest post here and there, I’d very much like to talk to you about that. I’m sure we’ll see lots of lively exchanges with insurance salesvolk.
Nothing to talk about. Here’s the guidelines:
https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/contact/guest-post-policy/
OK James. I get the message. Thanks.
[Ad hominem attack deleted.]
This is a really funny spam comment, so I’ll leave it. Nope. No monetizing here.
Hello WCI,
Full Disclosure. I am an insurance agent that is looking at getting his series 6.
I spent 3 hours going through all 155 comments and your article. (and by visiting several of the linked articles and videos) My conclusion is that people in their 50s and younger should unquestionably invest in the lowest cost insurance and invest the rest. But my gut and experience tells me that most people don’t invest the rest. Permanent Life is successful more because of this part of human nature than anything else. You can call it a “nanny policy,” and that makes it sound bad, but unfortunately a lot of people need a nanny. It would be nice if the world was rational, but in sales, facts tell, stories sell. I fight this reality all the time, but at some point, I’ve got to just embrace the fact that most people buy on emotion. So I want to find a solution to this conundrum, but don’t want clients to pay a loaded mutual fund fee of 5%
Can you please tell me what is required to get fees as you mentioned that you charge? (below) And whether somebody with a series 6 could get the same fees and make a little money off of steering somebody to invest the rest? My approach would then be to contractually put a “nanny” structure around it just like the insurance companies do. Just a private contract between me and the payor that includes an incentive to prevent them from not making their monthly payments or to take out early withdrawals. Most people I meet with don’t even know what a Roth is, and would never have the funds to max out a Roth. I would start with that as the vehicle at $50 to $500/month. If I could create the Nanny structure and get sub 1% fees this would incent them to leave the money in and let it grow. Essentially “forcing” them to do what is absolutely in their best interest for retirement while putting in place a current safety net (term life). If they run into cash-flow issues; they just have to be of the same philosophy as me that suck it up now, so you don’t have to suck it up later. Feel the pain now. I think a lot of people need that. Especially if they can see the size of the penalty now and that the reward is going to likely be much greater in the future. Basically the same tactic as cash value. Just show them the same schedule only difference, when they put in $500. the whole amount is still there’s, but contractually I tell them, they lose it if they stop in the first year, etc. Everything about it would taste and smell like an IUL, but it would be a lot better, because the reality is, I’m buying them the cheapest insurance possible and investing the rest.
If the fee was .5% I realize I would only make 25 cents a month if they paid $50, and only $2.50/month for $500. A far cry from the $300 to thousands of dollars I would make upfront from just doing an IUL. But I want to bring the best options and structure to my clients that I can. I’ll make money off the term, then I essentially do the rest as a gift. Why? Because they REALLY, REALLY need it.
Insurance is unfortunately akin to somebody saying if you ever fall into a pool and can’t swim we will be there to save you, but you have to pay for it. Well in most cases, the people I meet with make an average $50K a year for their household, and their dependents will be screwed if they don’t get life insurance. So they are in essence already in the pool drowning, and here I am with a life preserver saying I’ll throw this to you, but you have to pay me money first. Feels crappy to me, but what other choice do they have? Then when I sell them term insurance, I feel guilty if I leave there without them having a good retirement plan in place. Why? Because I’m guessing insurance companies pay the death benefit on term life for maybe 1% of all term policies. In other words, I just sold them something that has a 99% chance of doing nothing more than taking their money for a term and giving them nothing. So I feel like it is irresponsible to leave them this way, which leads me to my best two option at the moment being an IUL, or recommending them to a financial planner. But if I recommend a financial planner, I know they will fall into the trap of not “investing the rest.” You have to trust me on this. If you don’t close somebody in that first sitting, the likelihood that they will do anything you suggest that is in their best interest drops from about a 50% chance while you are in the room to about 5% chance after you leave. I’m sure the percentage goes up over time, but now they have lost a year, or 5 years or more of investing during the most important years!!!!
Last thought, I know people will pull cash out of their Roth no matter what I say, if they end up in a bind. Just another unfortunate reality. So I’m not delusional in thinking I’m going to contractually force them not to. But this is where sales skills come in. : )
Thank you in advance for your response!
here is what you said…
“I’ve done the math. My TSP funds have an expense ratio of 0.02%. My Vanguard funds are in the 0.05-0.3% range. Just because there are fees doesn’t mean they’re anywhere near comparable to those from the cash value life insurance industry.”
Just because a term policy didn’t pay out, doesn’t mean it did nothing. If your auto or health policy doesn’t pay anything do you feel like you wasted your money? You had the insurance. You didn’t need it. That’s great.
You might be intersted in my article on how to simply and dynamically look at life insurance needs before retirement and life insurance positioning during retirment.
https://lifegoesonconsulting.blogspot.com/2008/10/life-insurance-needs-in-less-than.html
Separate from the question of what credit rates to expect in a cash value life insurance policy, a policy (particularly xULs) often needs to be adjusted in retirement to be truly permanent. My hope is that companies will improve guidance on how to adjust the benefit or premium. If not properly managed, what you think is perm can become term in retirement and not fit your changing needs.
Chris, one answer is refreshingly simple–AVOID all retail xULs. These include *ALL* IULs. Folks should stick to Term Life and, if they absolutely must have a nanny policy to force them to set aside money each month, a Whole Life policy from a reputable mutual life company.
Aside from your remarkably unclear explanation, the overriding failure with your model is that you *can’t* set aside “…the question of what credit rates to expect in a cash value life insurance policy…” because these credit rates are so very low and bad. At least you can’t do this for retail xULs that the industry flogs to Ma and Pa Kettle and to many of their upper-middle class cousins. For retail xULs, the carrier dictates how to invest your cash value.
When you say “xULs” Chris, you’re really talking about IULs. You won’t find any of the original (interest-based) ULs any more–interest rates have sagged way too low since the 1990s. You won’t find many carrier-based Variable ULs because Ma and Pa Kettle hate downside risk.
The IUL–a retail xUL by definition–is the current industry favorite pig-in-a-poke that agents ply to the mainstream market. IULs are uniquely awful. Over the long term–the 40, 50, 60 years and more you expect to hold your IUL–you can expect only 2.5%–4% compound annual growth rate (CAGR). Please see the white paper at the link below that explains in detail why this is the case. And that 2.5–4% CAGR is *before* the carrier extracts its percent or more of fees each year, wreaking massive opportunity earning cost over the life of the policy. Your actual CAGR over the long term could fall well below 2%.
Given that agents vastly and even de facto fraudulently overillustrate IULs at 6%, 6.5%, 7% and higher CAGR, it’s small wonder you’ll struggle to find an extant IUL that’s even 10 years old!
Again, it’s simple: AVOID all retail xULs like the plague they are!
Thank you for reading this.
https://thebishopcompanyllc.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/indexed_universal_life.pdf
Real IUL Math – please reread my comment and the article in the link. I did not say that crediting rates are not important. I was focusing on how to look at life insurance needs and positioning with the transition into retirement. My parenthetical note on xULs is actually a caution on these products as they often need to be adjusted and need to be caredully managed. Your clients who follow your advice will not have to manage these plans.
My retirement transition model suggests that a better design for term insurance would be to go to a decreasing term benefit after the level benefit period. Due to the high cost after the level premium period, these term policies are often dropped. They do not cover a transtion in needs.
Whole life does have a decreasing term component and can be converted to a reduced paid-up policy in or near retirement. This provides a transtion in needs whether or not long term you can do better with buy term and invest.
Term blended whole life and xULs have the added challenge of managing the net insurance amount to avoid what you thought was perm becoming term.
Hi Chris, good morning.
If you’ll kindly reread my comment, I made crystal clear that IULs have no place whatsoever in anybody’s portfolio of life insurance policies. IULs are not for anybody. Not ever.
The fact that you include IULs at all in your–I’m sorry to say–obfuscatory and even incomprehensible plan shows that you endorse these thoroughly broken and wealth-destroying polices that suffer a disastrous near non-existent survival rate since Transamerica debuted them 22 years ago.
As such Chris, you do all life insurance clients and prospects an enormous disservice.
Thanks for reading.
Also thanks for the article. Please let them know they should add a date for when it was written.
Chris, maybe you didn’t read the article closely. The authors gave a time frame: 2012. You find that year at the bottom of each and every one of the seven pages.
Not much has changed in the market since then. Agents still vastly overillustrate IULs at 6%, 6.5%, 7% and higher, when real compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) comes in at under 4% and even under 2% after policy fees .
This fantasy-land illustrated rate fixed the insured’s premium payment way too low, causing him to chronically underpay into his IUL month after month, year after year, until skyrocketing Cost of Insurance (COI) charges gobbles up whatever little cash value he managed to accumulate. This in turn prompts a massive cash call from the carrier which the insured likely can’t pony up. Thus he’s busted out of his IUL and loses EVERYTHING–his death bennie and the many thousands he poured into this toxic slo-mo time bomb.
Chris, I’m afraid to say the story is as simple, shocking, and terribly sad as that. Nobody should ever buy an IUL for any reason whatsoever. Please stop including these fundamentally broken policies in your models. Thank you.
I saw that the copyright for the company is 2012. That does not tell you the article date. It could even be after 2012.
My model for needs does not say whether or not to buy an IUL. It provides a framework for how to adjust any life insurance policy. Let’s say term insurance were the only life insurance available. Do you see the advantage of having a decreasing benefit as a retirement transition after the level benefit period?
How often do healthy insureds keep term policies after the level premium period?
Chris, with respect, your ostensible obtuseness and pointless distractions are getting tiresome.
Did you look at the time-based charts in the article? Look at Figure 2. That includes realized (as opposed to projected) data to 1 January 2013. How about Figure 3? That realized data goes through 2012.
As I said in my previous comment, not much has changed since 2012. I notice that you didn’t rebut that.
In fact Chris, you fail to rebut my evidence-based charges that IULs are thoroughly and even uniquely terrible instruments that no-one should ever buy at any time for any reason.
Again I ask you to please remove the fundamentally broken IUL policy from your models. Then please get an editor to read your model methodology and edit it for clarity. Then I’ll be happy to take another look at it.
Chris, the more you persist in your above behavior, the more you suggest your industry bias and the clearer idea we get of your pro-industry angle, even if the industry exploits clients. And the insurance industry *does* exploit clients, comprehensively and ruthlessly, the worst we’ve seen in modern times.
Thanks for reading.
Chris, best I can tell, your stated goal is to help an insured assess and adjust for his accumulation vs protection goals and needs, based on a deep analysis of his income, as he inches closer to his retirement years. E.g. at age X with income Y, does he buy more Term or not? If he buys it, then how much face value? And for what term?
Do I understand you right?
If so, have you tried to write a spreadsheet to do these calcs? A sheet that includes a decision-tree series of questions that the prospect answers? To supply the spreadsheet the data it needs to generate the guidance?
If you haven’t yet programmed this sheet, you should try it. You’d find the exercise very revealing. Especially for cash-value life insurance (Whole Life and xUL). You’ll find that, esp for xUL, you need to rely on many forecasted numbers and conditions–the industry euphemistically refers to these data as “illustrated”–and also on cash-value contract terms and conditions that vary greatly.
Taken together, this ever-shifting dune mountain of variables and complexities–especially in xULs–make it virtually impossible to meaningfully calculate the correct protection/accumulation shift as you transition into retirement. At least without hiring a team of researchers to work full time to analyze and account for each and every one of the hundreds of different cash-value contracts you find in the market now, with new ones coming out all the time. Add to that, some of the language in these contracts is remarkably unclear and so subject to interpretation–especially the language in the Long Term Care and Accelerated Death Benefits riders–that these sections defy any meaningful quantitative analysis.
And Chris all the above assumes the carriers didn’t design IULs to fail. Yet that’s *exactly* what the carriers do–they design IULs to crash and burn at a time the insured, in his late 60s to early 70s and on a fixed income, can least afford to pony up a sudden and massive carrier cash call of $10,000 or more.
We circle back to the starting point. The typical client, at least in the middle market, shouldn’t mix insurance and investments. Period. Even deprived of the cash policy’s tax shelter, over the long term he’ll grow his money far more in traditional investments–especially in ultra-low load index EFTs like VOO–than in any cash-value policy. Most cash-value policies impose high fees that more than offset any tax advantages.
Ideally, the client sticks to Term Life and develops the discipline to invest the money he saved; the hundreds and even thousands of dollars each month he didn’t shell out for fee-larded cash-value policies infested with complex, opaque and “gotcha” contract terms.
By focusing on term insurance, it easier to see a model for protection needs making a transition into retirement. By separating this need from an accumulation plan, the calculation is fairly simple. At some point, the loss of income or economic value at death decreases or even goes away. It could increase for a while due to inflation of income to replace, but eventually decreases due to the remaining years to replace.
Term insurance would be a better fit for this transition if it went to a decreasing benefit after a level period. An example would be a 45 year old that wants to replace 50k a year for 20 years. To keep it simple, assume for now an offset in interest and inflation so that the current need is 50k x 20 = 1m. After about 15 to 20 years, the benefit could decrease each year over 5 to 10 years until gone or converted to perm.
Cash value life insurance has a term component built into that should also eventually decrease. In retirement, an increasing term component puts the policy at risk of lapsing even if the credting rate and past costs have been reasonable. Then in your view where those factors are typically not good, the risk makes things worse. The term component (aka net insurance or net amount at risk) needs to be managed.
I do not know of any other model that looks at how needs change over time. Often there is an assumption that a level benefit should be maintained even when the values are not there to support it long term.
Due to the effects of inflation, term life insurance actually does have a decreasing benefit over time! Which is fine, because as your assets grow, your need generally decreases over time.
Very few people have a NEED for a death benefit in retirement.
You should read my article
https://lifegoesonconsulting.blogspot.com/2008/10/life-insurance-needs-in-less-than.html
In this income replacement model, very few people need the term component of life insurance in retirement. The need for this component is based on net income or other economic value lost at death. Increases to this income may increase the need for a while, but eventually decreasing years until retirement decrease this need. The need rapidly decreases as you get close to retirement. Protective’s Custom Choice Term is very low cost and stays at the same premium after the level benefit period by switching to a decreasing benefit. This is roughly the pattern the model shows. This is much better than a level term benefit that jumps to ART premiums that can be 20x the premium in the first year of ART then continue to increase.
Most people will drop the term policy when it goes to ART premiums, but the need did not drop from the face amount to zero on the policy anniversary. The need may have decreased prior to going to ART, but the low premium typically is a good value compared to the level benefit.
A person with a high net worth may choose not to cover this income replacement need, but the need is not reduced by net worth. Conversely a person with low net worth does not have more income to replace unless he or she decides to retire later.
if you can find a particular life insurance policy that effectively builds cash value in retrirement, then it is a tax-advantaged asset. However, as you and Real IUL Math caution, too many cash value policies take on too much of a term component risk in retirement. As it increases, there is a high risk the policy may fall apart before death and be of no value.
I agree that people don’t need term life insurance in retirement.
I disagree that they need permanent life insurance in retirement. Absolutely the need for life insurance is reduced by a higher net worth as heirs can live off the investments instead of the insurance benefit.
The model you are using projects net expenses for your family after you die and reduces this capital need by net worth. One flaw with this model is that it results in a high life insurance need even in retirement for a low net worth client. You may be able to adjust by reducing expenses or retiring later so that it shows no need in retirement.
The income replacement model recognizes that a high net worth client typically has a loss of net income at death prior to retirement. The client may choose to cover this loss and allow net worth to grow beyond the capital need (similar to how it would grow if the client did not die early).
Permanent life insurance in retirement is not based on this income replacement need. It is a question of asset positioning and whether it should or should not be an asset class as part of your net worth. You say it typically should not. Where we can both agree is that too often people have policies in retirement they think are permanent, but they are not and have a high risk of lapsing or requiring impractically high costs to maintain long term.
I’m not worried about a loss of net income. That sounds like a formula designed to sell more life insurance.
I’m worried about having sufficient income/assets to cover expenses. Once the portfolio can handle that, there is no need for insurance.
I also find permanent life insurance to be an unattractive asset class.
Here’s this from CK’s bio: “…Since 1982, Chris has developed an expertise in life insurance and annuity dynamics and disclosure. He served as an advisor to the NAIC…”
Hm. So what are the chances that Chris Kite is truly independent and not just an industry shill? Esp if he earns income from an org with an inherent bias to bolster all life insurance products, including perm cash-value policies? Perm cash-value policies that include xUL, a diabolically complex series of iterations over the past four decades that’s always been, and always will be, designed to sell, not buy.
NAIC stands for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Its made up of those commissioners from each state–the vast majority of whom came from the industry. You’ll be hard pressed to find a biz sector in America more riddled with conflict of interest.
A great example of NAIC’s conflict of interest: AG49 that this org issued in 2015. That arcane guideline still suggests that B/Ds can go ahead in good conscious to illustrate IULs at 6% and greater.
This prompts a blindingly basic question: What class of investment on G*d’s Green Earth will deliver anything remotely approaching 6% CAGR over the 40, 50, 60 and more years you expect to hold your IUL?! Yes, I’m asking this rhetorically. You’ll find NO such investment class. Yet these commishes actually advocate these de facto fraudulently high illustrated rates!
Bottom line for the life insurance shopper: Get. Firm.Premium. Guarantees. Stick to Term. If, and *only* if, you need a nanny policy to force you to save $ each money, then consider a Whole Life policy from a reputable *mutual* carrier. That’s the only perm cash-value policy you should ever waste brain ticks on. Never, ever, ever, ever consider an xUL. If an agent suckered you into one of these slo-mo time bombs, then in the great majority of cases, you should bail out of your xUL ASAP.
https://www.figblueprint.com/author/chris-kite/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Insurance_Commissioners
You act like it is a big surprise that insurance industry insiders come on here making their arguments for insurance, either using their real names or anonymously. A couple of weeks ago I had a vice president from one of the big mutual insurance companies on here.
There’s real money in insurance and the internet is almost universally pro-cash value insurance thanks to all of the articles written by the industry itself.
Forget individuals like McKnight and Kite who try to muddy the waters and throw up distracting shiny objects. What shocks me is how blatant is the corruption we find at the *regulatory* level. Via AG49, NAIC gives its blessing to 6%+ illustrations on IULs, and that’s without factoring in the onerous policy fees that impose hefty earning opportunity costs. This means the policy should earn 7.5–8% to hit that illustration and not cause cash value to fall behind and implode the policy. NO major class of investment ever in the history of humankind has ever consistently delivered anywhere near that over the very long term, the many decades you expect to hold your IUL.
In short, the authorities give their nod to the carriers and B/Ds to make IULs nearly *guaranteed* to fail.
Trusting credulous American customers waste well over $2 billion per year on IULs, on what amounts to remarkably poorly hidden de facto fraud. That’s staggering.
The income replacement model focuses on getting more term insurance before retirement and reducing the amount as you get near retirement.
For retirement, the question changes to asset positioning. I understand why you do not like life insurance as an asset for retirement based on your judgment of credit rates and costs. I have not been making a judgment on these issues in my comments. I have focused on why carrying too big of a term component in a life insurance policy in retirement results in a high risk of the policy lapsing with the policy not being permanent. This is consistent with your concerns.
You seem to be using a capital needs model for needs. If you use that model consistently, you would recommend a lot of life insurance for low net worth clients even into retirement. This is because projected expenses for survivors are much greater than the net worth.
I agree that carrying term life insurance (or really any insurance) in retirement is also not particularly wise unless you have dependents that are currently being cared for by SS or a pension.
Chris why do you keep artificially distinguishing between “income replacement” and “capital needs?”
They are thoroughly interlinked. Capital generates income. More capital generates more income.
Chris, please stop taking the simple and making it incomprehensible.
Get Term to last you long enough for you to earn enough to self-insure.
Avoid all cash-value perm policies. Except maybe a WL policy from a reputable mutual if you absolutely need something to force you to save.
Never ever ever ever touch retail Universal Life. This includes *all* IULs. If an agent suckered you into a retail xUL, bail out of it ASAP and cut your losses.
That’s it.
Very simple.
The methods are very different. Capital needs estimates a lifetime of expenses and income for the surviving spouse. Net worth is then subtracted from the present value of needs (which can vary widely depending on assumptions) to get the life insurance need. This is based on as if the insured dies right away. To see how the need might change at an older age, you would have to estimate net worth and present value of needs at the older age.
If net worth is low near retirement, the life insurance need based on this model can be quite high and continue into retirement. You might stop using the model at this point and typically not recommend life insurance in retirement. The client could decide to retire later if possible or find a way to lower expenses.
How would you adjust or abandon the capital needs model in or near retirement when there is a low net worth?
Let’s say the surviving spouse would need $1,000,000 today if the client died. If net worth is $1,000,000 then capital needs says there is no life insurance need to meet the expense projection. That’s good to know. In contrast, the income replacement model is first focused on a neutral position of the spouse being in the same financial position whether the client lives or dies. In this case, the income replacement would mean there would be a cushion for expenses and/or a likely estate remaining whether the client dies today or lives a long life. The client may choose not to provide this cushion in case of death now and not get life insurance.
See how the math then works for low net worth. The capital needs model would typically show a need for life insurance in retirement. Before retirement, it would typically be a plan for the spouse better off if the client dies early.
Low net worth means you’re living on SS and/or your pension. If what is left of those isn’t enough for a spouse, I agree that a case can be made for life insurance in retirement. I would hope that would not apply to a single one of my readers.
Chris, that you “…do not know of any other model that looks at how needs change over time…” is because we don’t need such a coverage slope-off model. The 20–30 year term policy works beautifully to achieve this. Inflation steadily lowers the real value of the dollar. Thus, in real terms, your coverage automatically slopes off–and so do your premiums.
I like to study serious creative efforts to solve genuine financial issues. But in this case, you’re trying to fix a problem that ain’t broken.
Chris, how about you apply your energies to fix the profoundly broken and disastrously executed Indexed Universal Life (IUL) model? To figure out how to make IULs actual viable instruments for the insured, instead of utter disasters they currently are? At this time, IULs are silent slow-fuse time bombs designed to implode years and decades hence, wiping out the death bennie and all the thousands of dollars that the insured faithfully poured into it. Thanks for considering it.
Please see my comments above as a reply to White Coat.
I have 37 years of experience working with the calculations of how xULs work. My approach has been that the benefit should be decreased when needed to keep the policy value from decreasing. This solves the implosion problem as the policy value becomes the minimum and permanent benefit with a decreasing term benefit on top. Most of these policies were sold when inflation and interest rates were much higher. So similar to what you say, with adjustments for inflation, a decreasing benefit can be appropriate. And I am fine with a buy term and invest separately strategy that is managed and funded properly.
See my article on how to fix xUL design flaw of the term component:
https://lifegoesonconsulting.blogspot.com/2017/04/how-to-correct-universal-life-design.html
You say “…My approach has been that the benefit should be decreased…”
Chris, to be clear, you can’t lay first claim to that approach. That was one of the intents of UL inventor G.R. Dinney (see SOA link below).
Problem is, the very rich and then the carriers have misused and abused xULs from the start. First in the ‘80s as an absurdly easy tax shelter until Congress cured that problem with 26 U.S. Code § 7702 and § 7702A. Then xUL as a concept for carriers to flog to Ma and Pa Kettle who never have a hope in hell to understand how it truly worked–more like *didn’t* work–for them. Even Aegon CEO Wynaendts admits as much (see FT link) :
“…the head of one of the world’s biggest life assurers has admitted his industry suffers from a credibility problem because it has sold over-complex products to savers. Alex Wynaendts, chief executive of Aegon, in effect said life assurers had boosted profit margins by selling complex products [xULs most of all] …”
The xUL has so many moving parts than relatively few experts truly grasp them–much less your typical life insurance agent. And much much less the middle-market customers who fail to see the exorbitant fees carriers extract from xULs nor the ridiculously high fantasy-land illustrated rates of return at which agents configure them.
Chris no wonder that, even though xUL have been around since 1979, and IULs since 1997, you’ll find remarkably few of these policies that are even a decade old. They’ve all imploded causing the insured to lose everything!
To recap: From the start, its conceiver built into the UL the mechanism to decrease the benefit (the “net risk”) as the insured ages–IF the carriers and agents design them properly. Which they NEVER do.
Chris, please stop reshuffling the Titanic’s deckchairs. Please start looking for solutions in the right places. Thanks.
https://www.soa.org/globalassets/assets/library/research/actuarial-research-clearing-house/1978-89/1982/arch-1/arch82v120.pdf
https://www.ft.com/content/c3d1c76e-b947-11e1-b4d6-00144feabdc0
Thanks for the link to Dinney’s 1981 article. Here is a link to the Mass Mutual ad he mentions:
https://lifegoesonconsulting.blogspot.com/2019/01/wall-street-journal-1981-vs-2018-on.html
Regulators should set limits on the max benefit that policy values can support to avoid gambling in retirement with perm effectively becoming term.
In page 258 of Dinney’s article, he talks about UL stripping away complications. (not really true). Page 264 talks about simplicity yet infinite design variation. Page 268 talks about term, savings and settlement features. Page 270 talks about solving for monthly income amounts. I do not see anything that relates to my approach to correct the design flaw in UL. My approach underwrites a schedule of net insurance amounts that decreases in or near retirement depending on funding. See this article:
https://lifegoesonconsulting.blogspot.com/2017/04/how-to-correct-universal-life-design.html
This design correction would prevent the Titanic from hitting the iceberg whether or not it is the best ship for the trip.
[DINNEY, xULs, PPLI – PART 1 OF 4]
Hi Chris, good morning. You’re welcome for Dinney’s piece. I’m glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for the Mass Mutual ad. Alas, I can’t read the text below the giant “9 Billion…” hed. That body text is too fuzzy.
Let’s start with this you say: “…Regulators should set limits on the max benefit that policy values can support to avoid gambling in retirement with perm effectively becoming term…”
Chris, first and again, one should never, ever buy or retain a retail xUL. For. Any. Reason. Ever. Retail xULs are henhouses run by wolves. I’ll explain why soon in another comment. I’m trying to address your comments in order AMAP.
“Retail” means an xUL in which the carrier controls *all* aspects of the policy. The carrier invests your cash value in the instruments it chooses. The carrier decides how much or little it will credit your index and fixed accounts. You DON’T want the carrier to do those two things! Again, I’ll explain why shortly.
The only two types of “perm” policies any shopper should ever consider are:
1) Whole Life from a highly rated and reputable mutual carrier. And, if you have sufficient net worth and income;
2) a Variable UL (VUL) bundled within a Private Placement Life Insurance (PPLI) wrapper
Chris, about death benefit (DB) limits, how do you propose to set them for a given client? Do you run a credit report on the client to see what he can afford? Good luck getting the hugely conflicted and compromised insurance industry to agree to that!
[DINNEY, xULs, PPLI – PART 2 OF 4]
Chris, about what you say: “…perm effectively becoming term…”
Newsflash: xUL *is* term! Already and always!
The xUL is a 1-year term policy that resets every year. The only thing “perm” about it, e.g the IUL, is IF you manage to keep up with the skyrocketing premiums due to skyrocketing Cost of Insurance (COI) charges. That’s a monumental “if.” OR in the very rare case your agent sets your IUL for the Level DB option from the get-go AND if you had the foresight to request a realistic illustration–2.5% to 4% MAX–AND the discipline to pay a realistic premium from the get-go. This, so you can build up enough cash value to steadily drive down the at-risk amount enough to keep future premiums down to manageable levels if not ever truly level.
Chris, we almost NEVER see the above desired scenarios come to pass. Agents almost always set IULs to the *Increasing* DB option which keeps your at-risk amount high. Agents almost always egregiously and de facto fraudulently overillustrate IULs at rainbows’n’unicorns-level CAGRs of 6% and higher. Such bad configs set the stage for virtually every IUL to go bankrupt and the insured LOSES his IUL years down the line as roaring later-life COI firenados blitz and burn through his cash value.
The proof’s in the pudding: IULs suffer near total failure rates. The industry started selling IULs in 1997, 22 years ago. Try to find us even *one* IUL that’s even a decade old and in decent shape. You’ll be hard put to find that mythical beast.
[DINNEY, xULs, PPLI – PART 3 OF 4]
Let’s delve a bit into PPLI vs retail xULs. For policies with cash values and DBs in the low millions and up, the cash-value policy’s tax shelter starts to matter. In this case the high net-worth life insurance shopper should consider to hire and use his own asset manager–NOT the carrier!–to invest and manage his VUL’s cash value.
A PPLI is a complex bespoke product you set up through an attorney who specializes in them. But it can be well worth it. In the PPLI, you hire your own manager and pay him a percent of the PPLI’s assets. This motivates your manager to keep growing the death benefit and keep the likewise-growing cash value snugged right up against the Cash Value Corridor wall that the gov’t defined in 26 U.S. Code § 7702 (see link below). This, in order to squeeze in every last dollar of cash value for a given DB without MECifying your contract and losing tax shelter and the advantageous FIFO accounting when you borrow against the policy.
In retail xULs, which include all IULs, we see the opposite and negative effect . Your “account manager”–in this case, your carrier–is motivated to push your IUL to FAIL over time. Your carrier is the patient wolf “guarding” your henhouse. Shocking but true!
Why on Earth does your carrier want your IUL to (eventually) go teats-up? Simple: the carrier won’t have to pay out a dime on a policy for which you paid exorbitant premiums over the years. That’s why carriers shell out such high commissions for IUL sales. IULs deliver near pure profit to carriers.
The carriers, B/Ds, and the industry including the NAIC, all set the stage for your IUL’s early demise. This, because they:
1) give you very weak 0–2% crediting guarantees. This removes virtually all motivation for the carrier to invest your cash value beyond investment-grade bonds. Also they;
2) make you, the insured, a captive client by imposing very long 10–15 year policy surrender fees. Finally they;
3) turn a blind eye to, and even encourage, agents to set IULs to the Increasing DB option and egregiously and even de facto fraudulently overillustrate these policies at rainbows’n’unicorns-level CAGRs of 6% and higher. Your never-decreasing at-risk amount coupled with the artificially high illustration together conspire to make you pay an artificially low premium. Thus you chronically underfund your IUL. Like undiagnosed diabetes, your insidious IUL’s pathology can silently fester and grow for years and even a decade or more before any symptoms appear, typically a cash-call letter from your carrier demanding many thousands of dollars, stat! By this time, your IUL suffered grave and even fatal damage. Chronic underfunding sets the stage for your IUL to go belly-up when you age into your 60s and your yearly-resetting COIs start to blast into orbit.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7702
[DINNEY, xULs, PPLI – PART 4 OF 4]
Finally, let’s look at this you say:
“…I do not see anything [in Dinney’s 1981 paper] that relates to my approach to correct the design flaw in UL. My approach underwrites a schedule of net insurance amounts that decreases in or near retirement…”
It’s there Chris. You apparently missed it.
You told us: “…Page 268 talks about term, savings and settlement features…”
Hm. Chris, somehow you skipped over Dinney’s 4th item, “conversion” 😉
Let’s return to that page and page 269 to review his list in full. There, Dinney sums up the four components of his new policy type:
1) Term
2) Savings
3) Settlement
4) Conversion
See where he defines the “conversion option” as one which “turns your savings into a paid-up life insurance policy?” Implicit in Dinney’s statement: With the cash-value portion of your premium payments, you decrease your net insurance (aka “at-risk”) amount. “Paying down” your policy is an inherent feature of the Universal Life policy as Dinney envisioned it.
Its developers intended Universal Life to allow the carrier/policyholder to dynamically adjust these three things:
1) premium amount and frequency
2) death benefit amount
3) investment mix
Policy types before the xUL’s debut in 1979–Term, WLs, VLs, etc–made you pay a regular level premium.
Chris, what if carriers and B/Ds actually designed, configured and managed xULs properly? Then you, the xUL holder, would steadily offset your at-risk amount with an ever-growing cash value, such that your premium *would* remain more or less level until you die or until you’ve “paid off” your xUL whichever comes first.
Note I quote “pay off.” I’ve never seen an IUL that actually endows. What if you actually manage to get your IUL to the point where your cash value exactly matches your DB and thus leaving you with a zero at-risk amount? The carrier still bags you hundreds of dollars per month for “Index Account Charges”!
Chris, the gov’t allowed the possibility for you to pay a level premium and to “pay off” your xUL when it enacted 26 U.S. Code §7702 in the ‘80s (see link in my third post, above, and scroll down to the Cash Value Corridor table). The problem is that the carriers–by design–chronically poorly implement Dinney’s concept of the Universal Life policy. I agree with you that the industry should look into the idea to dynamically adjust DB amount in a timely way to help keep an xUL from imploding. Carriers should consider the feasibility of such a backstop ALONG with addressing the xUL’s other numerous and more serious flaws. These other flaws include too-high policy fees, too-low crediting guarantees, overillustrated rates of return, defaulting to auto-increasing (as opposed to level) DBs at policy issue, and too-long-term surrender fees.
Take all those flaws together, and the industry practically *guarantees* your xUL will fail. That’s exactly what happens. IULs fail constantly. Very few, if any, IULs survive over the long or even medium term. Again Chris, I invite you to try to find for us a healthy IUL that’s even a decade old.
But you know what Chris? You and I know the industry will never meaningfully fix these problems. Like the AIDS virus, the xUL constantly mutates, but its pathogenic variants keep offering a better sales story. It’s easy for agents to talk up the IUL’s dreadful “upside without the downside” myth. The entire North American insurance industry is in on this near pure profit center, and has been for well over three decades. The industry will keep tweaking the xUL shell–the original UL, then VUL, then IUL, etc–to stay ahead of the hopelessly fractured, conflicted, and overburdened regulatory structure and a woefully uninformed public.
CEO Wynaendts of Aegon N.V.–the parent company of Transamerica and World Financial Group (WFG)–essentially admitted that companies benefit from complex products like xULs. “Simplicity and transparency usually brings margin pressure,” he allows (see link).
Chris, have I mentioned that you should never ever buy or hang on to a retail xUL? For. Any. Reason. Ever? 😉
https://www.ft.com/content/c3d1c76e-b947-11e1-b4d6-00144feabdc0
Hope you enjoy the humor in my article on this topic:
https://lifegoesonconsulting.blogspot.com/2008/10/life-insurance-needs-in-less-than.html
It explains my method and how net worth does not decrease the need for the term component to replace income or other economic value.
I disagree with the ideas in the article. You list a “rule of thumb” that “term costs rise 5-10 years from retirement.” That simply isn’t the case. The closer I got to financial independence, the less need I had for life insurance at all. The insurance I had was level premium, and cost less every year on a real basis. The cost certainly didn’t go up and wouldn’t unless you didn’t buy enough level premium term to get you to FI or if you were using annually renewable term.
I agree that a level premium costs less every year on a real basis relative to the increasing chance of death with age. The ART costs after the level premium period are what go sky high and you may be OK dropping the term policy at that point.
What my article says is:
Use low cost term or term riders equal to 4-8 or more times income until 5 to 10 years of retirement.
I may need to clarify. I am talking about how much term insurance you need and not what the premium is. As you get near retirement, your need as a multiple of income decreases. Make sense?
I’m not seeing why you would not want term those last 5-10 years until financial independence. It works just as well then as before.
You do need term in the the last 5 or 10 years until retirement. The multiple of income you need is reduced.
You might need 10 times income at age 45 with 20 year to planned retirment and then 3 to 5 times income in 5 to 10 years of retierment. You may do laddering of term policies, eventually reduce the benefit, or use the Protective term policy I mention that goes to a decreasing benefit. Adjustments depend on changes to income and changes to planned retirement age.
I appreciate the idea behind an average return. Unfortunately, while the market shows an average return of 12 or so percent over 100 yr period, what if I had needed to retire during 1985, 2002, 2008, 2016 etc. what I would have relied on for retirement was essentially knocked in half. Those people, like my father-in-law, were not able to retire. Instead, he had to work an additional 12 years to recoup his losses. Had he put his money in a safe retirement vehicle, his return might not have been that of a 100 year market investment average ( as if he would live that long to enjoy it), it would none the less have been there when he needed it.
Could be worse. You could have only 1/4 as much to retire on due to the crummy returns inherent in “investing” in life insurance policies.
First of all, Full Disclosure: I work for a firm that works with Advisers. We design IUL plans for them that take Qualified Money and move it into an IUL plan at no out of pocket cost for the client. We have been doing this for over 17 years and have gotten extremely good at minimizing the COI. I am going to provide you with an example of how we do what we do then I am going to address the 5 points in the original article. Finally, I will provide any clients looking at this product with my advice. There are too many false statements in the comments (both for and against IULs) to address each of them.
In short, what we do is drop the death benefit by 70-80% one year after the final premium payment is made. On average, this results in a COI of between .65-1.5% per year. One specific case that I am working on right now has a gentleman taking $300K out of his 401k and putting it into one of our specifically designed plans. He is currently 60 years old; we forecast with 95% Confidence that between ages 69 and 79 he will be able to withdraw at least $23,000 tax free per year. The “traditional” approach would have him keeping the $300K in a 401K. To make sure that we are comparing apples to apples, our software shows the advisor what keeping the funds in a 401k would result in. Our model predicts that this gentleman would deplete his 401K account in the middle of his 78th year when withdrawing $32,857, the amount required to net $23,000. Total net distributions from the 401k policy, assuming that he lives to age 100 (big assumption; I know): $217,930 (remember that taxes are due on any withdraws from a 401K; also, the period of returns that our software uses encompasses 2000-2018; not the strongest returns for the market). Total returns from the IUL policy: $1.3 Million.
Okay…lot to unpack there. Just a few more points. Few people have brought up what we consider to be the biggest selling point of IULs namely, you are able to pay your taxes at today’s rates. If you wait until 2026, when Trump’s tax rates are set to expire or if the Democrats win the White House, you can bet that taxes are going to increase. So moving funds in a tax infested qualified account allows you to pay the taxes now, while they are on sale, before they increase. The analogy that I use all the time is that if Trump anounced in the next 15 minutes that he was going to put a tax on the cost of gasoline in the amount of, say $10 per gallon (work with me, here….unrealistic, I know…) what would you do? That’s right, you would fill up your car. You would fill up your spouse’s car. And your daughter’s. Heck, you might even see if you can store some in the garage….the point is, if you know that the price of something is going to increase and you know that you are going to use it, you buy as much of it as you can. The exact same thing holds true for taxes. For more on this subject, I urge you to read David McKnight’s book :The Power of Zero”. You can also watch a video on Amazon Prime about it.
Okay…now that is out of the way, let’s talk about the 5 points made in the article:
First, the fact that you do not need permanent life insurance. We could not agree more; the fact that this is a life insurance policy is secondary. We think of these policies as a super charged Roth account. The DB is secondary. Any properly designed IUL would have the minimum amount of DB to allow you to put in the maximum amount of premium. Also, because we are able to decrease the DB by 70-80%, you largely decrease the COI. Our policies typically have an average COI less than that of a 401k. The one referenced above has a cost of 1.41% per year.
Secondly, the notion that complexity does not favor the buyer. This one is spot on. Do not buy one of these from somebody that you are not completely comfortable with. You should meet with your adviser several times before you purchase it. Ask questions; make sure that they know EXACTLY how the policy is designed. When these policies are not designed correctly, they can be HORRIBLE for customers. Even some companies (many of which you are familiar with) have cost structures upwards of 3-4%. I know of one company that everybody reading is familiar with which has a cost in excess of 8%.
Third, the notion that IULs do not count dividends. Partially correct. Lots do not; the policy above does include a static 2% dividend. BUT IF YOU ARE BUYING ONE OF THESE POLICIES MAKE SURE TO READ THE DISCLOSURES.
Fourth, some IULs Indexes do have cap rates. The policy referenced above does not. Most Carriers have one or two uncapped indexes. Again, make sure that the adviser with whom you are working knows their stuff.
Finally, IULs have Participation Rates. Again, it varies from index to index. The one referenced above does in fact have one…but it is currently 120% (and guaranteed not to drop below 100%). So our clients are all for Par rates!
Finally, some quick thoughts on several of the comments that I have seen:
–It might sound weird that I work in the industry and yet I believe that every person above that has had a negative experience is telling the truth. These policies are EXTREMELY complicated; the run of the mill advisor has not chance in designing and creating an efficent policy that will generate the highest possible income at the lowest cost. 98% of the policies that have been written by advisors associated with our firm in the past 17 years are still in force. That is because the policies that we design perform as illustrated (or better) allow me to explain….
There are two primary reasons that a policy could perform dramatically better than illustrated. The first is arbitrage the second is called AG49. First, arbitrage. I am sure that you are familiar with the concept of arbitrage in general. In an IUL, when you borrow from your policy, the monies that you borrow are charged an interest rate. HOWEVER, what i have not seen discussed is that you still earn money as if the loan was never taken out. You can, if the policy has been created correctly, elect to effectively have noi interest charged, but then you would also not get any index crediting. Historically, the average rate of arbitrage has been 2.61%; but in illustrations the rate of arbitrage is capped at -1%. So that is a built in benefit. The second reason policies can out perform is something called AG49. In short, recently it was mandated that Carrier X has to illustrate all of their policies at a certain rate depending on the caps and floors and historical rates of return of the S&P 500. So even if you are not using that as your index, the illustration will be based on that number. I know, it is stupid. Blame the government. Our illustrations are run at a standard rate of 5.65% while the index has returned 7.45% over the past 20 years. At the very least, I believe that this provides us with enough of a buffer to say that the policy will perform as illustrated.
These policies, when designed incorrectly, are horrible wastes of money (unless tax rates jump 10-15% or more…which is not out of the question. Take a look at a graph of the top historical marginal tax rates to see where we could be going. Obviously, forget the rates around WWII as that was an anamoly) . However, if correctly designed, there is literally not a better way to save for retirement. If people knew what I knew about these policies they would be lining up around the block to buy them.
I hope that this lengthy post answered some questions….
I think your disclosure kind of says everything readers need to know. You have a serious conflict of interest with everything else you say.
It’s not a “supercharged Roth IRA.” Not even close. I have one of those. It’s called a MegaBackdoor Roth IRA and its way better than IUL.
https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/8-reasons-whole-life-insurance-is-not-like-a-roth-ira/
I agree that some are structured worse than others. I have no idea how a naive purchaser is going to be able to tell the difference though. Why don’t you guys just quick selling the crappiest ones?
These have been around for a few years already. They are not performing as illustrated.
“IUL Believer,” a few quick questions for you:
1) At what annual rate of return do you illustrate your IULs? 6%? 7%? 8%? higher?
2) You say you’ve been selling these things for a number of years. What’s the oldest surviving IUL for which you can give us a current in-force illustration?
3) What’s your real name and for whom/with whom do you work or contract ? WFG?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Yup. It’s a week later. **Crickets** from obfuscating, shuckin’ & jivin’ “IUL Believer” who apparently can’t answer a few simple questions.
Why am I not shocked? 😉
Sorry about the delay. We illustrate at 5.65%. I am posting this on my phone and will add more this weekend.
One of the most abused words in the insurance industry is “return”. When they speak about a “return” they are NEVER talking about internal rate of return or annualized return on investment. They are instead either talking about merely an accounting ledger that is used as the basis for determining income payment rate at some point in time OR they are talking about initial income payment rate. What they don’t tell you is that this high income payment rate is fixed. Compare that with the 4% spending rule that grows with the rate of inflation and eventually should easily surpass any insurance product. Also the income payment rate can be lowered (lower caps, spreads, etc) after the fact. Also, pay attention to the principal. The insurance company may keep the principal once you die.
Since insurance products are so complicated, the best way to determine if they’re a good deal or not is to look at the insurance company’s own investment profile. In 2015, the industry averages 76% in bonds. They cannot pay out more than what a bond heavy portfolio returns minus agent commissions, expenses, profit, etc! The bottom line, traditional investing is easily and consistently better.
OK “IUL Believer,” I’ll wait for the rest of your response before I answer. Thanks in advance for that.
Got another comment today from someone who bought an IUL 7 years ago. Surrender value is $0. Basically an infinitely negative return despite holding for 7 years during a great period for equity returns. He’s not so happy as you might imagine.
If an IUL was purchased 7 years ago and has a surrender value of zero somebody royally screwed up. The annual returns of the S&P 500 over the past 7 years have been 31, -4, 21, 11, 1, 13 and 32. Even if this policy was an extremely aggressive policy that is using multipliers to juice returns (Pac Life is the worst at this…as long as the returns on the S&P are positive, Pac Life customers are okay. SHould we get three years of negative returns, there will be a ton of PL clients that are hurting. The multipliers “multiply” the return of the index, as long as it is positive. But that comes with a cost which eats into cash value during zero years.) All of this stems from AG 49; in essence, the govt said that the rate at which any carrier can illustrate is based on a stochastic method of the historical returns of the S&P 500 and what their caps and floors are when illustrating. Even if you are not allocating to the S&P. Make sure that the advisor that you are working with knows what they are doing.
Here are some tips to make sure that your policy is designed well:
Make sure that the index options have a no spread, no fee, 100% (or therabouts) partcipation index that is uncapped. This is imperative.
Make sure that the policy includes an Overloan protection rider which prevents you from getting a 1099 should you mistakenly withdraw too much. The last thing that you want is to get a 1099 when you are 85 years old in the amount of $400,000.
Make sure that the policy has two loan options, minimum. The first needs to be a variable loan. This is the loan that allows you to earn the difference between the rate credited to the index and the rate at which you are charged. That rate has been 2.61% over the past 10 years. You are in essence earning between 1 and 3% on money that you have spent in retirement.
Make sure that the policy allows you to switch back and forth between loan typers for new loans AS well as existing loans. The fixed loans will typically have a cost of 1% for the first few years, until they become a “wash loan” meaning that you will be charged 0%. When you want to delevarage your risk, you move any loans and take new ones at the fixed rate, thereby not risking that bad market performance will cost you.
Finally, and most importantly, make sure that the policy allows you to decrease the death benefit after you put in your final premium. Otherwise, these types of policies are too expensive. The cost of Insurance (COI) is directly related to the death benefit and as you age that COI can eat all of your cash value. Make sure that the policy explicitly states that you have the right, at no cost, to decrease the face amount to any level. Obviously, decreasing it too far would create a MEC so make sure that your adviser knows what they are doing. Typically, carriers would not allow it to be decreased to a point where it would create a MEC, but I have seen it happen. Decreasing the face is literally THE ONLY WAY that these types of policies become affordable.
Finally, I am not going to post my name nor an in force policy. I would hope that I have shown that I have a decent understanding of how to correctly design these policies. I have my Master’s degree in Finance and I have passed the CFA examination (but never earned the designation…long story.)
I will leave you with this thought (for now…). The fact that has been rarely brought up on this message board is the fact that taxes are literally at all time lows or close to it.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-marginal-income-tax-rates
So you have an option if you have money in a qualified account. You can pay taxes now, when we know what the rates are and we know that they have rarely been lower, or you can wait until the Trump Tax cuts Sunset in 2026 or Biden becomes President and raises taxes (take a look at the recent WSJ article about his tax plan). Wouldn’t you rather pay the tax now and move the money to a tax free account? Before you say that you can do the exact same thing with a Roth, remember that if you convert to a Roth you either have to come out of pocket for the taxes OR you lose the interest earning power of the amount that you speand on the taxes. Think about it this way…If Trump said that at midnight tonight, gas was going to increase by $10 per gallon, what would you do? You would most likely fill up your tank, that of your wife and that of your kids. Because you know that you are going to use that gas. Same principle applies here.
I will not respond to snarky comments by uneducated people. I have designed and taught advisers how to correctly sell in excess of $100 Million of Target Premium of these policies. I agree that World Financial Group agents are selling pieces of poo that people are getting ripped off by buying. But when properly structured they are the most powerful tool in retirement, especially for clients with excess of $1 Million in qualified accounts.
I agree. Two people royally screwed up. I wish it didn’t happen so often. But I keep running into docs to whom it has happened.
If you can’t trust the agent to structure it correctly, maybe it shouldn’t be bought at all.
“IUL Believer,” here’s where we’re at:
1) We don’t know you from Adam (or Eve)
2) You won’t–perhaps CAN’T– show us proof of even ONE extant IUL policy of any age, much less one that’s even a decade old.
3) You (claim to) illustrate IULs at 5.65% which is still FAR beyond the 2.5–4% these policies will earn on average over the 40, 50, 60 and more years the insured expects to hold her policy. This means the IUL holder will chronically underfund her policy causing it to implode years down the line, leaving her with nothing to show for the thousands of dollars she poured into it. That’s already happened countless times and we’ve already seen the class-action suits on xULs (e.g. Feller v Transamerica) and more to come e.g. from Lieff Cabraser. Search on “Life Insurance Surrender & Hidden Fees Investigation” for details on the latter.
Why does the IUL generate a paltry 2.5–4% annual return, despite the wildly inflated claims we constantly hear (but never see proof) from carriers and agents? Like commenter “Rick” alluded to two days ago, the industry uses the cash portion of the premium to buy bonds. This, in order to generate enough income to meet the 0–1% fixed account return that the carrier comments commits to. The carrier uses anywhere from 75% to 95+% of the cash part of your premium to buy investment-grade bonds to honor that fixed account commitment. Whatever little cash is left over, the carrier uses to buy options, like index options, which may or may not pan out. If they don’t pan out, it’s the policyholder NOT the carrier who has to make up the diff with higher premiums.
No snark here “IUL Believer.” Just facts. The IUL is an unmitigated disaster, massively rigged against the policyholder. Nobody should ever buy an IUL under any circumstances.
https://www.thebishopcompanyllc.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/indexed_universal_life.pdf
One more thing…
Read Douglas Warren’s book “IndexedUniversal Life Unleashed” for a better analysis of how to structure policies. Warren explains it better than I ever could. He will walk you through how to design a policy (or allow you to make sure that your adviser knows what they are talking about)
On the “screwed up” IUL policy, what indexes were chosen? I am struggling to determine an index selection that could generate a 0 surrender value after 7 years given the return that we have seen.
As for your comment about maybe they should not be sold unless the advisor understands what is going on, I wholeheartedly agree. I cannot tell you how many advisers are clueless about how these things work. We 1035 more policies out of badly designed IULs than I care to count. It ticks me off to no end when you have an advisor that sees the six figure commission and does not take the time to understand how these things work. They are extremely complex. If you are working with an independent advisor, that is a good start because they will be free to work with all the major carriers. I have purposefully not mentioned the carrier we “normally” work with nor the name of my firm so that I cannot be accused of trying to profit off posting on here. I have literally nothing to gain by posting these comments. However, just because an advisor is independent does not mean that they know what they are doing. Ask them tons of questions and ONLY proceed if they can show you how they are able to get cost below 1-1.5% per year over a twenty year period. less if you are younger than say 60. For the love of God, make sure that they are decreasing the face amount and that you have the option to do so and it is in writing in your contract. Otherwise your annual cost will most likely be around 4% per year. Unless the carrier uses Multipliers in which case I have seen it above 8% per year, assuming a few negative years in the beginning of the policy.
Pretty amazing huh? I don’t have an in-force illustration, I’m just taking the doc at his word.
IUL floggers often blame “clueless advisors” who work up “badly designed” policies for the bad rap that the IUL so richly deserves. But no agent can magically “design” away the intentionally fatal flaws in these pernicious slo-mo time bombs.
For the vast majority of IULs, the only variable the agent and client can “design” in are:
1) face amount;
2) illustrated rate (%);
3) allocation of cash parts of premium to fixed and index accounts;
4) death benefit option (level or increasing), and;
5) various riders, e.g. for LTC and Accelerated Death.
That’s it folks! The carrier and broker-dealer decide the rest. Crucially, the carrier determines the income-generating investment mix they buy with the cash part of your premium. Overwhelmingly, these are investment-grade bonds that, over the decades the insured expects to hold her IUL, return under 5% *before* you deduct the IUL’s onerous policy fees, some well in excess of 2%. See the Chicago Fed PDF below to see what insurance companies buy with your premium dollars.
I’ve never seen an IUL illustrated anywhere near low enough to match its actual average annual earning rate of 2.5–4%. Even at the comparatively tame 5.65% you claim you illustrate, you *still* guarantee, at the far-too-low generated premium, that the IUL policy will implode some years down the line, wiping out every penny of the thousands of dollars your client-victim faithfully poured into it. No amount of perky palaver about index account “spreads,” “participation limits,” and “loan rates” can change that very simple and damning math.
The proof’s in the pudding–or lack of it. Show us an in-force illustration for even ONE healthy IUL that’s even a decade old. You will NOT be able to produce this. It does NOT exist.
No-one should ever buy an IUL under any circumstances whatsoever.
https://www.chicagofed.org/~/media/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2013/cflapril2013-309-pdf.pdf
Why you should never ever ever buy an IUL.
Published nine days ago. Some excerpts:
“…indexed universal life insurance is being sold dishonestly. ‘They are complex products sold with false promises and deceptive marketing,” says Birny Birnbaum, director of the nonprofit Center for Economic Justice. “Stay away from them”…”
“…Options allow the holder to buy or sell the underlying index at a certain price at a certain time, which can rise or fall rapidly. If an option is exercised “in the money,” the payoff can be significant. But if the option expires “out of the money,” the entire investment in that option is lost. And this is why IUL is a riskier investment than traditional insurance. Critics say that risk is not properly disclosed and is borne by the policyholder. “Consumers should avoid IUL because the insurers and agents who sell the product have no obligation to work in the consumer’s best interest. Mix in massively complex products designed to juice illustrations with opaque and unaccountable features and you have the recipe for future financial disaster”…”
“…UL policies can include significantly more fees and costs than an average life insurance policy. One insurer charges upwards of 8% of the premiums and cash value in the policy in the first year alone, according to Steven Roth, president of Wealth Management International, an insurance analyst and litigation consultant. That’s more than most hedge funds. These fees threaten to drain your policy’s cash value during adverse periods when the market—or whatever index the policy is tied to—plunges. If internal costs cause the policy account value to drop too much, your policy is at risk of lapsing and you’ll have to pay more in premiums just to keep the policy intact…”
“…If you don’t keep paying the higher premiums to keep the policy in-force, you risk losing all previously paid premiums, as well as the death benefit going forward.
“…In one example cited by Veralytic, a person could pay $367,000 over six years on an IUL policy and get nothing back if the policy is canceled. When a policyholder tries to surrender the policy, the insurer might keep the entire first year’s premium since it has already paid the commission costs to the agent who sold the policy…”
“…IULs are not regulated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, unlike stocks and options. Insurance agents typically aren’t required to undergo the same training as stockbrokers to sell so-called “derivative products” such as options based on an underlying index like the S&P 500. Their only requirement is to be licensed by the state as an insurance agent…”
“…“The NAIC has been very active on the regulation of IULs, which continues to this day,” says the ACLI’s Dolan.
But not successfully, according to Birnbaum. “We defy any member of the Committee to comprehend and explain, so a purchaser of this product could understand how this product operates,” he says in a letter to the NAIC. “Regulators are not doing anything to stop the unfair practices,” he warns….”Why you should never ever ever buy an IUL.
Here’s a Forbes piece published nine days ago. Some excerpts:
“…indexed universal life insurance is being sold dishonestly. ‘They are complex products sold with false promises and deceptive marketing,” says Birny Birnbaum, director of the nonprofit Center for Economic Justice. “Stay away from them”…”
“…Options allow the holder to buy or sell the underlying index at a certain price at a certain time, which can rise or fall rapidly. If an option is exercised “in the money,” the payoff can be significant. But if the option expires “out of the money,” the entire investment in that option is lost. And this is why IUL is a riskier investment than traditional insurance. Critics say that risk is not properly disclosed and is borne by the policyholder. “Consumers should avoid IUL because the insurers and agents who sell the product have no obligation to work in the consumer’s best interest. Mix in massively complex products designed to juice illustrations with opaque and unaccountable features and you have the recipe for future financial disaster”…”
“…UL policies can include significantly more fees and costs than an average life insurance policy. One insurer charges upwards of 8% of the premiums and cash value in the policy in the first year alone, according to Steven Roth, president of Wealth Management International, an insurance analyst and litigation consultant. That’s more than most hedge funds. These fees threaten to drain your policy’s cash value during adverse periods when the market—or whatever index the policy is tied to—plunges. If internal costs cause the policy account value to drop too much, your policy is at risk of lapsing and you’ll have to pay more in premiums just to keep the policy intact…”
“…If you don’t keep paying the higher premiums to keep the policy in-force, you risk losing all previously paid premiums, as well as the death benefit going forward.
“…In one example cited by Veralytic, a person could pay $367,000 over six years on an IUL policy and get nothing back if the policy is canceled. When a policyholder tries to surrender the policy, the insurer might keep the entire first year’s premium since it has already paid the commission costs to the agent who sold the policy…”
“…IULs are not regulated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, unlike stocks and options. Insurance agents typically aren’t required to undergo the same training as stockbrokers to sell so-called “derivative products” such as options based on an underlying index like the S&P 500. Their only requirement is to be licensed by the state as an insurance agent…”
“…“The NAIC has been very active on the regulation of IULs, which continues to this day,” says the ACLI’s Dolan. But not successfully, according to Birnbaum. “We defy any member of the Committee to comprehend and explain, so a purchaser of this product could understand how this product operates,” he says in a letter to the NAIC. “Regulators are not doing anything to stop the unfair practices,” he warns….”
Bottom line? Never ever ever buy an IUL. Period.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/life-insurance/indexed-universal-life-insurance-problems/
I thought this video kind of funny- like that scene in Zoolander where he went to the day spa and brainwashed him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX89Rk5pr6A&t=6s
I don’t own an IUL or plan to get one, but why does nobody address the fact that funds that are loaned out of an IUL policy can still generate returns? That seems incredibly valuable. When comparing an IUL plan to any other retirement plan, it doesn’t really matter how much you end up with at retirement, what matters is how long it can last. If your money can grow even after it’s loaned out, wouldn’t that be a huge factor to consider?
This is not true, you will pay interest if your money is still in stock play. If you get loan against your policy and there is no interest like is some policies after 10 years then once you take loan then that amount is not in stock play and generating income as you are suggesting.
Thanks Kaeloce. So you’re saying that if you get a 0% interest loan from your IUL policy (which is typically available after you’ve owned the policy for 10 years) that the loan is no longer available to generate returns?
I asked the financial advisor and he said there are two options to take a loan out of the policy.
1. Fixed loan – Loan at a fixed rate of 4%. The insurance provider will move the loaned funds to a collateral account to hold until paid back (if ever). They would then credit you on the loaned portion based on the index returns but capped at 4%. After 10 years they consider it a wash loan and they remove the interest on the loan but also remove it from generating returns. This sounds like what you described.
2. Variable loan – Loan at a variable interest rate capped at 5% . The loaned amount generates returns based on the index it tracks. You get the difference between the index return and the interest rate. This sounds like what I described. The financial advisor says that they only recommend taking out loans this way.
Are you mistaking an insurance salesman for a financial advisor? Don’t do that.
Aren’t they usually one and the same… 😉
Most IULs are not “non-recourse” but if you have one that is, what you describe is obviously how it works. More details here:
https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/a-twist-on-whole-life-insurance/
I’m told they way they get around that is by reducing your death benefit by the loan balance upon death. Does that sound right to you?
Get around what? Yes, that’s how cash value life insurance works.
“Get around” was not the right way to phrase that. I guess I don’t really understand your original question. If the loan balance is deducted from the death benefit/cash value at the time of death and you never borrow more than the cash value, doesn’t that mean that the insurance company/lender will always be paid in full and have no reason to go after personal assets?
They won’t lend you more than your policy is already worth. That’s not really an issue. The issue with UL policies is that they may collapse if there isn’t enough cash value or premiums paid to cover the cost of insurance. They don’t come after you, they just don’t let you keep the policy and any gains you borrowed out become taxable at ordinary income tax rates.
Very important to understand all this BEFORE buying.
MG Miles, any purported policy loan advantages mean zip, zero, & NADA if your IUL collapses on you and you lose everything–your death bennie and the $1000s you dumped into it.
And *all* IULs collapse. Unless the IUL holder dies tragically young.
IULs have been around since 1997. 23 years.
Try to find a healthy IUL policy–hell *ANY* IUL policy–that even a decade old.
You WON’T find this mythical rainbows’n’ unicorns beast.
I actually spoke to someone this morning (friend of a friend) who has had a policy for over 10 years and loves it. His results after 10 years have actually exceeded the original illustration and he’s planning on opening another policy soon. Have YOU tried to find someone that’s had an IUL policy for over 10 years? It was relatively easy. I’ve also spoken to a few people that have had policies for about 5 years and they’ve both been happy as well.
I’m getting the sense that the reason there are so many negative reviews is because the only stories we hear are from those who chose to underfund or weren’t able to fund their policies properly. Sounds like if you have the ability to overfund the policy then you’d be safe and get all the benefits.
Please have your “friend” send me a copy of the inforce illustration and the original illustration. No pics or it didn’t happen. email is editor (at) whitecoatinvestor.com.
I’ll see if he’s willing to share them with me
I’ll watch for the email.
It’s so funny your only rebuttal to anyone who likes their permanent life policy contract is “show me the ledger/in-force” but all of your rebuttals have no concrete evidence whatsoever.
Talk about a double standard.
This is a Ludacris page propagating lies from someone who is as qualified to comment on life insurance or a financial situation as I am to perform open heart surgery.
Lumping all insurance brokers and agents into the “bad” category is like lumping all doctors in into medical malpractice category because a few screw up. Welcome to being human buddy.
And you’ve been on this soapbox for 10 years. What a hilarious shame.
I’m trying to decide whether to take someone seriously that not only can’t spell ludicrous but whose main qualification to sell insurance seems to be having a nice slapshot. Or is that a different insurance agent?
Just teasing. I think a pro athlete career would have been a lot of fun.
At any rate, despite all of these invitations, nobody ever seems to send in an in force illustration. What that tells me is that they’re probably exaggerating their claims. Feel free to prove me wrong. Send me a real 10+ year old IUL in force illustration that looks awesome and let’s calculate some returns. I’m not even asking for the average IUL return. I’m just asking for one.
MG Miles, and OF COURSE you have such a “friend of a friend.” Don’t they all? 🙄
It’s anything but “relatively easy” to find a person who’s had an IUL policy for over 10 years. It’s nigh near impossible!
MG Miles. We’ll never, ever see anything from you or any of your so-called “friends of friends.” Not ever.
The IUL is massively and thoroughly rigged against the hapless trusting policyholder, a diabolical long-fuse time bomb set to blow away her money not so many years down the line.
Nobody should ever buy an IUL. PERIOD.
What could I possibly gain by lying about a positive review of an IUL in the comments of a blog? Why would I lie about that? Or maybe you think it’s my friend that lied? Why would he do that? He’s not selling insurance, what does he have to gain from lying to me about his IUL? Why is it so hard to believe that someone likes their policy? You honestly think there isn’t a single IUL policy out there that has worked or is on track to work?
I got fooled in to buying IUL policies, I lost both policies and about 25k. Thats lot of money for a low middle class family. IUL is not made for a common men and its not a good deal 99% of the time.
That being said if you are buying your policy really early and over funding it to pay it out in 10 years then it may work but I have not seen anybody retiring on IUL yet that is what is being advertised. In any case there is much better ways of investing money then IUL so its not a good deal. I belive one should buy term policy and invest rest wisely as much as possible. Times change and its not possible to put 12-15k year for insurance year after year. IUL’s are very tough commitments in my opinion. Think about that before buying.
Karloce, what you said:
“… if you are buying your policy really early and over funding it to pay it out in 10 years then it may work…”
Actually, I’m sorry to report, that still won’t work well. If you “pay off” your IUL early, you MECify it (see link below), losing key tax advantages that cash-value life insurance policies offer. Even if you “pay off” the IUL following the “7-Pay” rule (see link below), this policy never vests! Carriers charge a pernicious IUL fee called an “Index Account Charge.” An IUL I recently reviewed for a client–an FFIUL from Transamerica–has this fee. In the illustration, the IAC is given at “only” 0.06% per month. Seems low, right? However, that comes to 0.72% per year. If you have a fully “paid off” policy with a $500k death bennie, you pay a whopping $3,600 per year to the carrier to hold and use your cash! Last I checked, most institutions pay YOU, the client, for access to your money 🙄
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-01-42.pdf
Karloce, please see additional comment below.
MG Miles, why would you lie? Hmm. Maybe because you sell IULs?
MG Miles. We have no idea who you are. We have no way to verify the personal details you tell us. For all we know, you are telling us nothing but total lies.
Send the *complete* original and inforce illustrations to the site owner. That’s a start.
But you will NEVER EVER send those. Not ever. Why? Because they don’t exist!
*All* IULs crash and burn. Unless the IUL holder suffers an untimely death.
It’s sadly simple: All prospects should AVOID IULs like the plague. They are consistently terrible places to put your money. IULs are the insurance industry’s most powerful black holes for client dollars. AVOID ALL IULs!
Unfortunately, we’ve had insurance agents sockpuppetting on this site for years. Beats me why since only about 8 people are reading these comments and they’ve all made up their minds about it long ago.
It’s an enduring mystery why most prospects–including high income/net-worth professionals– don’t bother to do a stitch of research on a product they plan to dump many thousands of dollars into over the rest of their lives.
There are remarkably few sites that sound the alarm on the IUL. Yours is the only one I know of that targets high income/net-worth folks.
A possible explanation: People trust the insurance industry far more than is warranted. They have zero clue how woefully broken that system is 😞
And Karloce, just wanted to say to you, I’m sorry for your awful IUL experience. I know it can’t feel good 😞
Unfortunately, many tens of thousands of other IUL purchasers in the USA share your misery and disappointment. In the USA, we see a perfect storm of dauntingly complex products; clueless and/or unethical broker/dealers and sales agents (the latter woefully undertrained on the products); and an inefficient and anemic regulatory structure that’s nearly totally confined to the state level and too often hobbled by conflicts of interest.
In the developed world, we see this sorry confluence of factors almost exclusively in America. Canada also suffers it, but to a lesser extent.
If you still have your policy paperwork, you can contact Lieff Cabraser and submit copies to them for their review. Lieff Cabraser is one of the country’s top plaintiff law firms. They may add you to the class-action suit they’re working up:
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/consumer/universal-life-insurance/
Clearly this is an old article which still comes up high on Google. First of all the person who wrote this article did not know enough about the IUL or never took time to understand. He says it’s complex, what exactly is that you don’t get it? IUL is much better than Whole Life, in my view Whole life is a black box. However, you can’t compare any perm life insurance with term insurance. Term insurance is renting an apartment and Perm insurance is buying the house. Yes, when you buy a house your monthly cost goes up due to property taxes and other costs, but you build equity over the time. If this was not true than all real estate investors are wrong. This is the reason you don’t rent an apartment for life. Anyway, IUL is the best innovation in recent decade, something has taken best of all, it provides high growth rate from market (not just stock market but it has indices of Real Estate, Precious metal, bond, etc.), money never invested in any high risk asset except some portion of hedging into options. Those you are interested to know more with real facts, pm me.
How does one PM you in a blog comments section? 🙂 Lol.
I’ve debunked the idea that term is “renting” and permanent is “buying” previously.
https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/debunking-the-myths-of-whole-life-insurance-part-5/
When you don’t need a permanent death benefit, you should “rent” your death benefit. It’s far cheaper. Very few have a need for a permanent death benefit, and once they understand the cost of it, they don’t even want it.
“Andy Bee” we obviously can’t PM you. Much as we’d love to get the “real facts” from you.
But you sound like an upfront fella who won’t mind spelling out the apparently straightforward IUL to all of us here in this forum.
Andy, it sounds like you sell IULs. So why don’t we start with this simple question:
** At what annual rate of return do you illustrate the IULs that you sell to your clients? **
That’s it for the moment “Andy Bee!” Should be easy-peasy for you to answer 🙂
Thank you in advance for your answer.
Looking back through the messages on this board, there are several things to address. But starting with the first post, there are several things that are incorrect. The first is that “You do not need permanent death benefit”. Correct; we minimize the death benefit once all the premium is in the policy. That is how we are able to keep total cost of the policy to less than 1.2% per year in the first 20 years of the policy. We will reduce the DB as low as the IRS will allow us without creating a MEC. The fact is that a properly designed IUL is a more efficent means than a 401K in terms of cost. The second statement that is wrong is that IULs have Partcipation Rates and Caps. Not all do; for example, one A rated carrier currently has an un-capped policy with 125% Participation (so I guess it does have a Par rate, but in this case that is a good thing). As for the fact that complexity does not favor the buyer, that is totally correct. I have written over $5 Million of Target Premium every year for the past 10 years, the vast majority of which has been for HNW clients. Just make sure that your advisor knows what they are doing. As for the fact that dividends are not included; that is also a true statement. We aim to earn between 5-7% on our policies and have repeatedly done so, When you consider all of the benefits of an IUL, I will go head to head with anybody who thinks there is a better way to save for retirement, especially for those making over $400K per year. I have not even touched on the concept of arbitrage and how you can earn 4% onthe money that you spend in retirement. Not going to be long winded becuase I know that few on this board will be open minded. Can a policy be designed improperly? Of course. But if done right it offers more control and returns than any other option out there.
That’s the problem though, with permanent insurance generally and IULs specifically only HNW individuals can properly utilize them making them highly exclusive, yet permanent life insurance accounts for 80% or more of policies in force. A HNW client has already made their money and is looking to shelter it. The average person needs to grow their pot and a 5-7% return is average, though not nothing. I’m fairly certain that 5-7% is not an absolute return though once all the other costs are factored in. I’m fine being wrong on that. Most UL and IUL that the average person buys will not survive, it will implode. If an advisor lays out all the options a client selects an IUL fine, but most life insurance agents cannot even sell actual investments and instead of sending the client to a fully licensed advisor, they sell them an IUL and make it sound like a good investment. This is highly unethical and it happens frequently.
Where’s the 80% statistic come from? I’m surprised by it.
I would not expect 5-7% out of a WL or IUL policy bought today, even in the long run. I’d expect 3-4% in the long run. Negative in the early years. 2% guaranteed in the long run.
Wise investments are not that hard to make. But calling an IUL an “investment” is fooling yourself. What they are, are training wheels for your first bike…… I’ve made a few losing investments to the tune of 60K, but my wins are now into eight figures. My biggest strike, a little company called Nvidia. I bought thousands of shares in 2000. A loss here and there is the price you have to pay for BIG WINS ! Why settle for scraps ?
My advisor offered an IUL with an Indexed Interest of 6.4%. My premium at the beginning is $60,000. I am told that I can use this policy to also pass through college tuition payments which will free me from the need to disclose the possession of a 529 college fund on financial aid applications. My simple question which my advisor has been dancing around it is: will I ever have to pay additional premiums if the market tanks, or go below the indexed rate of 6.4%? Or, for any reason. I see this IUL as a good policy for my wife, but that benefit is secondary compared to the potential increase in chance of getting a better college tuition offers.
That’s not an advisor, it’s an IUL salesman masquerading as one. If you need an advisor, go hire an advisor. Here is a list of good ones if you are having trouble finding one:
https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/financial-advisors/
At a minimum, go see one to get a second opinion on this recommendation. I can almost guarantee a fee-only advisor will recommend against the purchase.
I don’t know what you mean by “pass through” college tuition payments, but you can borrow against the cash value of your policy tax-free but not interest free to pay for college. I think that’s a dumb idea. It certainly doesn’t keep you from having to fill out financial aid applications accurately. That is, if you have a 529, you still have to put it on the FAFSA. Probably doesn’t matter though if you’re rich enough to be able to make $60K IUL premiums.
https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/why-most-doctors-shouldnt-bother-with-financial-aid-planning/
Read myth # 9 too: https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/debunking-the-myths-of-whole-life-insurance-part-2/
Yes, if the market does poorly and especially if you have borrowed a bunch against the policy you may have to make additional payments to keep the policy in force. This is an issue with all universal policies.
It’s unlikely this policy is a good idea for you or your wife. Remember with permanent life insurance it’s like getting married, til death do you part or it is going to cost you a lot of money. Do a similar amount of due diligence as you would on a partner getting married.
The reviews and comments about Index universal life insurance was helpful. I made my decision to run far away from this product. I spend hours reading and researching how this product works. I still do not fully understand . The ridiculous fees for such a product. I got screwed by an agent who sold me a variable annuity 8 years ago. I paid a surrender fee and transferred my money from one annuity into another annuity with a 10-year surrender charge. I still have a surrender charge of 5% on my money. The agent told me that I would get good returns on the variable annuity. To this day, I made nothing. The money is sitting with surrender fee. I hired a lawyer and sued the agent and the company who sold the annuity to me. I got a settlement for the switch and bait and dishonesty. I will not make another mistake. Do your homework before you invest in something.