- 10,361
You see what you did there?
I made a correct statement about a product.
He is wrong. While a UL will stay in force as long as the surrender value is not less than 0, that does not mean there are no premiums due.
The Minimum Premium is required, which is the same as saying that Expenses are required. But they are not required at set intervals or on any certain time period.
What BNTRS was saying is that there is no required schedule of Premiums above and beyond the Expenses. And those expenses can be paid on any schedule you wish generally speaking.
You can pay all the required minimum for the entire no lapse period and keep the policy in force, but only so long as that. You could even MEC it and do max single premium in the first year and still lapse the policy.
No Lapse periods have nothing to do with this. Not all IULs have a no lapse period.
Technically any policy COULD lapse. The point I was making that you failed to grasp, is that UL has no required Schedule of Premiums.
Read to lead! I said typically there is an additional charge for all premiums paid over a certain amount. I never said there was no charge to begin with. Additional
Well there is our disconnect. I have never sold an IUL that charges any type of extra charge on premiums above and beyond the normal Premium Load. Can you share which product does this? NA doesnt, LFG doesnt, Allianz doesnt.
What you believe to be true is not correct for all (or most) IUL products.
Contributing up to MEC leaves you with policy years that see no premiums paid in, and lower premiums paid in when premiums do resume to prevent new MEC status. MEC is based on a rolling 7 year period, but you know that. Many times, only the first 4 years are paid and the last 3 see no payments. Account values often drop or remain stagnant during this period. In later years past age 56, if this occurs the lack of fresh funds can really eat away at the policy on the guaranteed side and reduced interest credits will cause the policy to lapse earlier.
None of this is true if you design the policy correctly. You need to learn how to design a UL policy correctly.
If GPT is causing Premiums to be reduced, that means you are not using Opt 2. A properly designed UL can fund the policy right below the MEC limit and there is no reduction in Premiums or affect to performance. Funded up to the MEC limit is what maxes out the policy. You have a huge disconnect with how to properly design the policy.
Im not trying to be mean with this comment, but you dont know what you are doing and it could be dangerous to a consumer. I would highly suggest that you check out the "edutainment" section of the forum. Steve Savant has some good videos on there that cover the basics of how to design a UL policy.
Or you could take a few hours and use the search function in the forum to find threads to read. What you are doing wrong has been covered on here many times before.
Y
I agree. you and BTFNS are two of the most knowledgeable people on this site about UL's. That doesn't prevent you from making "salesy" statements like referring to required payments into the policy as "premiums". As if they don't exist. It sounds nice, but it's just not legally nor technically valid. Even minimally funded, these payments will generate nominal accumulation for at least a period of time. They are premiums.
So now you want to insult our professionalism?? AND incorrectly say that we are wrong???
What he said is 100% technically correct. Since this is a Forum for INSURANCE AGENTS, his comment was a technical comment and not a sales based comment. I would avoid calling out others when you are wrong. He made a technical comment that was correct. Not a sales comment. Often technical comments can be misleading or not tell the whole story for a consumer, which is why "generic" terms are often used in sales situations. But that does not mean the comment is incorrect from a technical or legal standpoint.
You are the one who is giving consumers incorrect information that could be dangerous to their financial situation.
So far on this forum, the majority of what you have said about IUL is incorrect or not totally correct.
Over and over you have made totally baseless and incorrect statements about how IUL works. At this point I dont expect you to take a step back and attempt to actually learn what your mistakes are. Instead of asking questions, you just make more incorrect statements that just expose your lack of knowledge even more.
It is ok not to know something. It is not ok to give consumers incorrect advice, and it is not ok to make snide accusations about other agents integrity while at the same time making incorrect statements.
Last edited: