Justifying a Whole Life Policy

[scagnt83]

I think they deserve an agent that explains all the options available and lets them decide. Not just assumes they are too stupid to handle anything other then a simple SIWL.

With all the talk surrounding the "ethics" of not disclosing info about the product.... I wonder how many SIWL buyers would have second thoughts if the agent "disclosed" to them that industry stats show that they are 5-7 times more likely to drop or lapse coverage in the first 3 years compared to if they bought a fully underwritten product?? I wonder what consumers would say to that?

I realize the reasons for the stats. And it is not all the consumers fault. Many people have SI crammed down their throats as "easy coverage". Then the people talk to someone like me who shows them they are paying close to double what they could be.


In fact, the stats suggest that there are far more unsuitable (or not as suitable) SIWL sales than any other Permanent Life Product.

 

[Larry Tew]

With all the talk surrounding the "ethics" of not disclosing info about the product.... I wonder how many SIWL buyers would have second thoughts if the agent "disclosed" to them that industry stats show that they are 5-7 times more likely to drop or lapse coverage in the first 3 years compared to if they bought a fully underwritten product?? I wonder what consumers would say to that?

I realize the reasons for the stats. And it is not all the consumers fault. Many people have SI crammed down their throats as "easy coverage". Then the people talk to someone like me who shows them they are paying close to double what they could be.


In fact, the stats suggest that there are far more unsuitable (or not as suitable) SIWL sales than any other Permanent Life Product.

I would have given this 2 thumbs up but the system wouldn't allow it.

 

[sman]

See what happens with a non-par WL if you skip a premium. It will go through that cash value pretty quick with no dividends to replenish it. It might last a bit longer than a GUL, but definitely not for life.

So are you saying you don't see Halle Berry in my future?

 

[VolAgent]

So are you saying you don't see Halle Berry in my future?

Pretty much.

I'm not bashing SIWL as some seem to think. There is nothing wrong with the product. It fills a role and is often all some people want, need or can even qualify for. Just like anything, there are times it is sold inappropriately. But every type of policy is sold inappropriately.

AARP will sell someone an increasing term for final expenses that terminates at age 80 and do everything they can to hide the fact it is increasing term and terminates.

There is nothing inherently wrong with UL. I'm personally not a fan of current assumption UL, but that doesn't mean it is a bad product. If I'm not doing a GUL, IUL or VUL, I'd rather just go with WL and get stronger guarantees. But that is just me. Also, unfortunately a lot of companies with strong WL are New York admitted, have to play by their rules and aren't the most broker friendly. So agents will turn to UL instead. Agents have to make a living. Selling a product that can't support you is just as unethical as selling a product solely for a higher commission. Part of buying insurance from an agent is having the support and service from that agent as needed. If he can't survive, then he is doing his client a disservice.

 

[TwiLight]

at what age is it hard to get life insurance

The Year after you attended you own funeral....