Dividend announcements

As for the mutuality argument, I used to buy the same argument you are making. Prudential a fine mutual life insurance company de-mutualized about 23 years ago. All the whole life holders at that time received shares. Today those shares are worth 8 times IPO price. I dont see a strong argument for mutuality anymore. Especially after experiencing what Ohio National did. For smaller whole life policies, I prefer a mutual company over stock company still.( Old habits)

Pru diversified away from WL. So did Met. That is why they demutualized and took the money grab. Warning signs.

Ohio National had piss poor financials, was a tiny carrier, yet somehow illustrated better than the rest.... no red flags there at all for an agent to see.... lol.

(same with Penn Mutual present day. IUL & Term are the bulk of their life revenue. Life revenue is lower than Dividends paid. Shady financials. Current dividend is only applied to recent blocks of biz. Yet "nothing to see here folks"....)

Those stories are exactly why mutuality and strong financials matter. I see it the exact opposite you do. Those policy holders bought a promise and got screwed (especially ON clients). I blame their advisors for not being aware of the situation with the carrier they are selling.

Anyone who has sold Penn Mutual but not read their state DOI financial filings. Is doing their clients a world of disservice. You cant pay more in Dividends than you make in Revenue and stay profitable long term. ON was no different.
 
Last edited:
Prudential a fine mutual life insurance company de-mutualized about 23 years ago. All the whole life holders at that time received shares. Today those shares are worth 8 times IPO price.

There were huge lawsuits about the losses those Policy Holders took with the tiny amount of Shares they received in relation to the Dividend promised.

8x means nothing if there is no basis of comparison.

And when you include the basis for comparison..... those policy holders got screwed.
 
Last edited:
As for the mutuality argument, I used to buy the same argument you are making. Prudential a fine mutual life insurance company de-mutualized about 23 years ago. All the whole life holders at that time received shares. Today those shares are worth 8 times IPO price. I dont see a strong argument for mutuality anymore.

And what is the basis for comparison concerning products?

UL? IUL? VUL?

They all transfer risk onto the Policy Owner.

You are speaking as if there is an alternative that equally compares to what a Dividend paying WL does.

If you have been in the life industry since the early 2000s. You should be aware of the increased risk to the client, that comes with PRODUCTS produced by non-mutual carriers.
 
Last edited:
Comparing dividends, dividend history, etc., and IPO/stock, performance, etc., is beyond a fallacious exercise. It's not comparing apples and oranges, but oranges and the planet earth. In addition, you are starting off with inaccurate information regarding dividend paying history -- consecutive, skipped years, etc.
 
completely agree. I just recall some bizarre theory from IRS that Life dividends arent taxable because they were actually priced into the product design up front. I recall an example given of a carrier who offered both a non-participating policy & participating policy. the participating policy charged nearly double the non participating policy & thus was the excuse that a substantial portion of the dividend was actually the overcharged premium planned (invested for many years) & given back

I never liked that entire justification as we have all seen carriers lower or discontinue dividends all together
The answer is simply because the IRS views Life Insurance as a provision for Beneficiaries - not the policy owner. So, no taxes are assessed on the cash value gains within a life policy - unless the policy is surrendered - that is "cashed out" by the owner this is why the insurance companies lobbied to classify them as a "refund of unused premium".
 
Back
Top