by Guest » Tue Feb 22, 2011 04:34 am
Max made the following statement:
These numbers are for a $1,000,000 policy for a very healthy 50 year old male with a well respected highly rated insurance company.
The premium with a no-lapse guarantee is $9,200. At $9,200, the policy is guaranteed to never lapse and the cash surrender value will be $0 every year.
What happens if we try to make the product “safer” by adding more premium? If we put in $15,000 instead of $9200, the policy will still have a cash surrender value of $0 at age 75.
What happens if we use the guideline 7 pay premium? This will be $54,900 for 7 years and the CSV will still equal $0 at age 74.
These policies are designed STRICTLY to give the greatest guaranteed death benefit for the lowest premium. Extra cash should not be put into the policies unless someone just likes paying more money.
The alternative is to use a UL that isn’t designed as a no-lapse product. The guideline premium for this company’s product that is more of a traditional UL product is $12,800. It will build cash, but on a guaranteed basis, it would run out of cash at age 74 and would lapse. Based upon the current interest rate, it would build several hundred thousand of cash.
So, Max, based upon what you have written, for the person who wants $1,000,000 of death benefit, $12,800 and no guarantee is better than $9,200 and a guarantee.
Like you said in another thread, you’d like the name of my clients so that you can replace these $9,200 premiums with your superior $12,800 premiums by explaining the contracts to them. I’m sure that they’ll be champing at the bit to pay more money to not have a guarantee.
At some point, maybe you’ll man up and stop pretending that you know everything. Your experience seems to come from teach WFG guys and they, as far as I know, don’t have these policies to sell.
No matter how much cash is stuffed into these policies, they are bad at building cash. Thus, when you talk about how people show illustrations with lots of cash going in, but then they get sold with minimal cash, it makes it painfully obvious that you truly don’t understand no lapse guarantee products.
UL is a perfectly good product -- if understood, and if properly funded. To make UL work as it is intended -- to leave a death benefit for those who need the funds -- the policy must be fully funded -- such as 100% of the Guideline 7-pay Premium in the first seven years, or the Guideline Annual Premium in all years. But, again, for most persons, those numbers are so large, they might faint when discussing them.
The no-lapse guarantees are recognition that the policies are designed to lapse . . . otherwise they would not be necessary.
These numbers are for a $1,000,000 policy for a very healthy 50 year old male with a well respected highly rated insurance company.
The premium with a no-lapse guarantee is $9,200. At $9,200, the policy is guaranteed to never lapse and the cash surrender value will be $0 every year.
What happens if we try to make the product “safer” by adding more premium? If we put in $15,000 instead of $9200, the policy will still have a cash surrender value of $0 at age 75.
What happens if we use the guideline 7 pay premium? This will be $54,900 for 7 years and the CSV will still equal $0 at age 74.
These policies are designed STRICTLY to give the greatest guaranteed death benefit for the lowest premium. Extra cash should not be put into the policies unless someone just likes paying more money.
The alternative is to use a UL that isn’t designed as a no-lapse product. The guideline premium for this company’s product that is more of a traditional UL product is $12,800. It will build cash, but on a guaranteed basis, it would run out of cash at age 74 and would lapse. Based upon the current interest rate, it would build several hundred thousand of cash.
So, Max, based upon what you have written, for the person who wants $1,000,000 of death benefit, $12,800 and no guarantee is better than $9,200 and a guarantee.
Like you said in another thread, you’d like the name of my clients so that you can replace these $9,200 premiums with your superior $12,800 premiums by explaining the contracts to them. I’m sure that they’ll be champing at the bit to pay more money to not have a guarantee.
At some point, maybe you’ll man up and stop pretending that you know everything. Your experience seems to come from teach WFG guys and they, as far as I know, don’t have these policies to sell.
No matter how much cash is stuffed into these policies, they are bad at building cash. Thus, when you talk about how people show illustrations with lots of cash going in, but then they get sold with minimal cash, it makes it painfully obvious that you truly don’t understand no lapse guarantee products.
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 05:52 am Post Subject:
Well, it seems to have something interesting while pitching a product worth $12,800 (with no guarantee) against another one worth $9,200 (with a guarantee).
The no-lapse guarantees are recognition that the policies are designed to lapse
Let's see what Max has to say while defending his views..
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 08:10 pm Post Subject:
I don't think that we'll get much of a response because he doesn't really understand the products and he's pretty bad at admitting the truth.
Add your comment