33 Y.O. WL Quote for Male in OH

[me112233]

I understand. Are they a fraternal? I ask because of the Association in the name. What is their Comdex? Thanks.

Yes, 130 year-old fraternal. I have never heard mention of a Comdex rating for them; a search produced no results. Might be because they aren't tracked by anyone other than AM Best (have to have more that one rating agency rating you to get a Comdex rating, which is based on the average of ratings).

The AM Best is B++, supposedly not higher because of WPA's relatively small size, but who knows. I agree that Best ratings are somewhat helpful, yet I also know that companies that got beat up with C and D ratings (e.g., Life of Alabama) by AM Best 20 years ago are going strong and steadily growing, while some rather notable A+ rated companies went belly-up while having an A+ rating in place at or right before the moment they were taken over by the the respective DOI's (e.g., Kentucky Central, Mutual Benefit, Executive Life, Mid-Continent Life). And we all know the debacle of AIG-- they had an A rating from Best immediately prior to the infamous bailout. (Maybe AM Best factors in "too big to fail" when making their ratings?) So, I just do my own due diligence, and move forward.

 

[WinoBlues]

Yes, 130 year-old fraternal. I have never heard mention of a Comdex rating for them; a search produced no results. Might be because they aren't tracked by anyone other than AM Best (have to have more that one rating agency rating you to get a Comdex rating, which is based on the average of ratings).

The AM Best is B++, supposedly not higher because of WPA's relatively small size, but who knows. I agree that Best ratings are somewhat helpful, yet I also know that companies that got beat up with C and D ratings (e.g., Life of Alabama) by AM Best 20 years ago are going strong and steadily growing, while some rather notable A+ rated companies went belly-up while having an A+ rating in place at or right before the moment they were taken over by the the respective DOI's (e.g., Kentucky Central, Mutual Benefit, Executive Life, Mid-Continent Life). And we all know the debacle of AIG-- they had an A rating from Best immediately prior to the infamous bailout. (Maybe AM Best factors in "too big to fail" when making their ratings?) So, I just do my own due diligence, and move forward.

I understand. 130 years old is pretty good. And yes Mutual Benefit was A+ rated, I think, and over 100 years old when they went toes up. I do not believe there were any benefits lost however.

I agree we should do our own due diligence. Part of mine would include looking at guarantees and who is backing the guarantees. I am not arguing against the company. Just asking a couple of the questions I would ask when looking at a company for a long term $1,000,000.00 policy. If I have a couple companies within a couple hundred dollars of each other premium is not really the determining factor.

As independents we have the advantage of having many choices. Being limited in choices would be much easier.

Mutual Benefit is a good example of the "it has never happened before" happening.

Again, not arguing against, just asking about a company I do not know.

Happy New Year.

Lee

 

[NJHealthBroker]

I ran a Mass Mutual WL100, with their LISR rider (rider that slowly converts over some term insurance every year), and the price came out to be $5276/yr.

 

[me112233]

I ran a Mass Mutual WL100, with their LISR rider (rider that slowly converts over some term insurance every year), and the price came out to be $5276/yr.

All manner of illustration wars can be engaged in. The thread is about low whole life rates for a 33 year old man. We all recognize that all sorts of hybrid and alternative products are available. The LISR wholly relies upon dividends of the base policy PLUS present-day expectations of future term costs in order to work . Might work out, might not. Of course the premium is lower than the premium of 100% whole life coverage (including 100% whole life from Mass Mutual).

----------

I understand. 130 years old is pretty good. And yes Mutual Benefit was A+ rated, I think, and over 100 years old when they went toes up. I do not believe there were any benefits lost however.

I agree we should do our own due diligence. Part of mine would include looking at guarantees and who is backing the guarantees. I am not arguing against the company. Just asking a couple of the questions I would ask when looking at a company for a long term $1,000,000.00 policy. If I have a couple companies within a couple hundred dollars of each other premium is not really the determining factor.

As independents we have the advantage of having many choices. Being limited in choices would be much easier.

Mutual Benefit is a good example of the "it has never happened before" happening.

Again, not arguing against, just asking about a company I do not know.

Happy New Year.

Lee

Reality is that virtually nobody has lost benefits when a company fails, at least not in the past 100 years. What is lost are the non-guaranteed portions of the policy: I've seen with own eyes the internal costs of a universal life go to the max and interest rates drop to the minimum guarantee (E F Hutton Life, A rated by Best one year before), and I've seen policies sold with one of those dividend options designed to help a base whole life policy deliver a much larger level-premium death benefit (as if it were a much larger non-par whole life at half the price) completely collapse upon the company being put into receivership -- insureds were ultimately given a choice of less coverage or higher premiums (Mid-Continent Life, A+ rated by Best one year before). With both companies, policy owners had limited access to their cash values.

30 years of experience tells me that (1) financial ratings are poor indicators of which companies might fail next year or five years from now, and (2) policy guarantees are of extreme importance when a company fails.

I don't take your comments as being argumentative. You are simply stating your perspective on things (which is the basic idea of the insurance forums site).

 

[WinoBlues]

All manner of illustration wars can be engaged in. The thread is about low whole life rates for a 33 year old man. We all recognize that all sorts of hybrid and alternative products are available. The LISR wholly relies upon dividends of the base policy PLUS present-day expectations of future term costs in order to work . Might work out, might not. Of course the premium is lower than the premium of 100% whole life coverage (including 100% whole life from Mass Mutual).

----------



Reality is that virtually nobody has lost benefits when a company fails, at least not in the past 100 years. What is lost are the non-guaranteed portions of the policy: I've seen with own eyes the internal costs of a universal life go to the max and interest rates drop to the minimum guarantee (E F Hutton Life, A rated by Best one year before), and I've seen policies sold with one of those dividend options designed to help a base whole life policy deliver a much larger level-premium death benefit (as if it were a much larger non-par whole life at half the price) completely collapse upon the company being put into receivership -- insureds were ultimately given a choice of less coverage or higher premiums (Mid-Continent Life l, A+ rated by Best one year before). With both companies, policy owners had limited access to their cash values.

30 years of experience tells me that (1) financial ratings are poor indicators of which companies might fail next year or five years from now, and (2) policy guarantees are of extreme importance when a company fails.

I don't take your comments as being argumentative. You are simply stating your perspective on things (which is the basic idea of the insurance forums site).

Exempt for the "ratings are poor indicators" part you are preaching to the choir. While ratings are more a history and snapshot of the the current status of a company. And can be manipulated to a degree. Ratings history and current ratings give me a look at the company beyond illustrations of what they might do.

Same as when someone says "X company is $XXX big" or "that has not happened in 100 years" whether it is a policy or certificate. I assume if it can be done it may be done. Can a company raise internal rates, lower dividends, raid/borrow cash values and lower death benefits.

Like you I have seen just about all of it. In my 31 1/2 years