|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whole life posted by TVO on August 18, 2001 at 13:46:28:
: : Have enjoyed your posts, TVO (just curious -- are you also John?). Enjoy Rock's posts too. You guys are certainly much more stimulating than the "I hate Primerica" and "I hate the Primerica haters" crowd...but there's sure to be a reason for that too in the grand scheme of things. Thanks! hindi
: I am not john who has posted here but i know him.
Thought maybe you were. There are a number of extremely similar posts -- meaning spelling, use of language, conceptual similarities, etc. from
about five people. I thought you might be one, two, three or more of them. Doesn't matter though, I've enjoyed your discussions.
: regardless I believe you to be a competant and careful advisor Hindi,
Thank you very much. I try to be...and you appear to be much the same. You have excellent, indepth knowledge of issues most agents unfortunately don't even know exits.
and ultimately we agree on the same things -- we are just using slightly different language but we are fishing in the same pond.
Yes, on 90+% I'll bet you're right.
In my expierience ( 20 years in the business )
I've been fooling around with this for about 35 years now, as well.
I have seen alot of UL's blow up because the interest crediting, and low-premiums did not keep up with the mortality costs.
Now, you've hit the critter right between the eyes! Why did they blow up? Same reason today's Variables projected to earn 15% annually and funded accordingly are going in the tank one of these days (sooner rather than later, of course).
When interest rates were high, UL's were abused by greedy agents selling the stuff to equally-greedy customers. This is what happens when you treat life insurance as an "investment" product. It isn't. It's optimum role is in distribution, not accumulation.
I have always provided my cleints with WL and convertable term ( typically LP65, or 20-pay type plans, and ART for term -- no LEVEL plans . I do recommend waiver AND individual DI -- the reason being is simple -- in the event of a disability ( total )the client recieves both the DI payments and the growth of the insurance -- in this way I do not have to net the DI payments to keep his insurance in force. I have 6 clients in this situation.
We seem to do it quite differently, but as long as the customer's best interest is put before us and the company, we're doing the right thing. Thanks for the post. Take care. hindi
: More later