Asset Based Comp IUL Products

[DWPCL]

Last time I compared the two products (2 months ago), Midland had lower expenses on a fully overfunded early cash value IUL. Obviously expenses (and comparisons of them) will vary depending on the chosen Testing Option, Death Benefit Option, & Riders.

Either way, Midland most often produces a slightly higher CV and DB vs. its sister product with North American.

Midland has a small asset fee to support their higher caps compared to NA.

 

[scagnt83]

I was told the caps are slightly higher with Midland on their IUL product line.

Usually that is true for the normal IUL. It varies a bit more on the early cash value IUL product.

Currently, Midland is 1% higher on the S&P 500 annual p2p cap, but only for the normal IUL. They are the same for the ECV product.

----------

Midland has a small asset fee to support their higher caps compared to NA.

NA has an ongoing asset fee as well.

I suggest you do a side by side comparison of illustrations & Expense Reports using the same Premium/Age/Health/Rate.

Midland has a slightly lower "per 1000" (COI) charge, since you can get a slightly lower DB with Midland using the same premium vs. NA. It sounds like an IMO is feeding you a line of BS to keep you using NA.

And at the end of the day, internal expenses do not matter as much as the CV does. Compare the CV and DB... everything else is just static.

 

[wln417]

And at the end of the day, internal expenses do not matter as much as the CV does. Compare the CV and DB... everything else is just static.

Didn't you post some time ago that you preferred Allianz? It had something to do with their treatment of loans or accessing the cash, IIRC.