Variable Universal Life insurance or in short VUL is sold by insurance agents as a smart investment to unsuspecting people. The pitch usually goes like this:
You invest in VUL. The money in the policy grows tax deferred. You get to choose what you invest in, stocks, bonds, international, you name it. It's like a super IRA, only way better. When you need money after you retire, you can first withdraw what you put in, then borrow from it, all tax free. When you die, your beneficiaries receive money tax free.
Sounds good? Tax deferred investing plus tax free income after retirement. Who wouldn't go for it? If you'd like to read the full pitch, here's an example: Variable Universal Life: Flexibility at Its Best by New York Life, whose slogan is "the company you keep." It's very enticing but you will see the real story at the end of this post.
VUL appeals to people who hate taxes (who doesn't?), especially to people who have higher income and therefore in higher tax brackets. After you hear about this wonderful clever way of avoiding taxes on your investment, you go "sign me up!" Uh oh, big mistake. Let's take a look at a real life example, from this thread on the Bogleheads forum.
Poster John and his wife each bought a VUL policy from a "friend" who works as a financial "advisor" at a "well known financial planning organization" (I'm guessing it's Ameriprise or formerly American Express Financial Advisors). After 9 months into their policies they put in about $5,000 each for a total of $10,000. Now they realize that their VUL policies have high fees and expenses, to the tune of $1,100 a year. But, if they get out before 5 years, they will lose ALL of the $10,000 they paid into the policies (?!?!) because the first $8,300 in each policy goes toward a "surrender charge" or better put, early termination fee like that on a cell phone contract. In other words, if John and his wife put $3,300 more into each policy, the policies will still suck it all in like a black hole with nothing coming out. They paid $10,000 into two policies but they only filled a little more than half way up the big hole that the VUL policies dug for them.
Despite all the help from other posters on the forum, John's options are still limited because the policies are designed to trap them in good with high fees and various charges. John and his wife can:
- Keep paying into the policies and get plucked by high fees (not good); or
- Cancel the policies now and receive nothing back (not good); or
- Stop paying premiums and let the policies wind down by themselves (not good)
None of the three options is good. The 3rd option is perhaps the least of all evils. Basically they will let what they already paid pay for the insurance and whatever is left over stays in some mediocre investment options with high fees. Every month more money is deducted from the investments part towards the insurance part and fees. After the 5-year surrender period is over, I doubt there will be anything left. Their policies may end even before 5 years because all the money will have been depleted by insurance charges and fees. That $10,000 is gone. They won't ever see it again. What an expensive lesson!
I feel really sorry for John and his wife. Having this done to them by a "friend" is even more sad. This VUL saga plays out over and over. It's almost always the same story. I personally know a small business owner who was sold a VUL policy by his "financial advisor" who is also an insurance agent. The "advisor" has nice sounding credentials like CLU and ChFC. The business owner was quite mad at the "advisor" after I pointed out the fees and expenses printed in black and white in the prospectus. Of course he didn't read the prospectus because he was busy running his business and he trusted that his so-called "advisor" would act in his best interest. The same "advisor" also sold him load funds, an expensive 401(k) plan for his business, limited partnerships that were impossible to get out of ... -- altogether the "advisor" cost him more than $200k.
Now let's get back to the wonderful VUL policies New York Life sells. Here's the 80-page prospectus (PDF, 476kB) of their NYLIAC Variable Universal Life 2000 product. Fees and expenses start on page 9.
- 4.5% - 6% charge up front for each deposit, like a load; plus
- $120 a year contract fees; plus
- 0.5% - 0.7% a year for M&E and admin charges; plus
- ~0.8% a year for expenses on investment options
Does it look like a good way of investing money? I like what poster ole meph said [1] on the Bogleheads forum:
"The only way you can benefit from this product is by dying fairly soon."
Oh wonderful. I'm sure the clients didn't want to pursue that route when they bought into the VUL policies.
[1] ole meph has been a veteran insurance agent and manager himself for over 40 years.

10 comments:
I almost got sucked into one of these when I was fresh out of college. I read the thing and the fees looked really bad and I said no. WHEW. There's some stupid tax I didn't have to pay! And trust me, I've paid plenty of stupid tax.
thanks for discussing this often misunderstood subject. indeed, this type of life insurance product is antiqued and oversold, mostly due to the high commission available to agents. i would in most circumstances throw annuities into the same pile!
It's very sad that you are posting such a mediocre criticism which only exposes your ignorance. I suggest you get a CLU designation or even maybe just a course in critical thinking before you bash products that not only save lives and businesses but also allow tax saving that overshadow the fees discussed.
By the way, if you run a comparison illustration of buying term insurance and then try to get your investment going you will get the benefits of a VUL. Until then do people a favor and shot up.
Anonymous,
May I have some more substantive criticism please? If mine was mediocre, I at least let the numbers speak, and readers can draw their own conclusions. Can I see your apples to apples comparison?
Did you bother to mention the amount of the insurance? Nope! Did you mention one company and use a prospectus from another? Yep! Did you mention whether the premium paid was the minimum or maximum? Nope! Did you bother the take a snap shot of the TOTAL financial situation? Nope!
I will agree that there are many financial folks that sell the policies in a hap hazard way. However, there are many including myself that don't. Thanks for giving me a black eye for a fight I was never in. Ignorant!!
These policies are right for the right reasons. They are sold to people at a minimum funding level while the client assumes the maximum cash value will be acheived by doing so. THAT is the reality!
If for any reason you have to question whether you can fund it appropriately, you don't do it. Thats the in your face test that very very VERY few do.
I suggest, Mr. Finance Buff, that you go back to school and learn the up-to-date strategies.
Whoa, calm down. Did a prospect of yours read my post and cost you a sale? It doesn't surprise me that the only people who like VUL are people who sell it.
I linked to the New York Life prospectus because I also linked the article from New York Life. If you want to see the prospectus from Ameriprise, here's the link:
RiverSource Variable Universal Life IV and RiverSource Variable Universal Life IV – Estate Series
Fees start on page 8.
* 5% charge up front for each deposit; plus
* way overpriced cost of insurance; plus
* 0.9% a year for M&E in the first 10 years, 0.45% a year for the next 10 years, 0.30% a year afterwards; plus
* ~1% a year for expenses on investment options
Now let's look at a real life case. I have a $500,000 term life policy which I need for the next 15 years. I won't need life insurance after that. I'm paying $225 a year for my policy (the Ameriprise policy above would cost over $800 a year). In addition, I have $1,000 a month available for investing. Please show me which VUL policy is better than my current arrangement.
You have two choices when it comes to long term investment gains:
1. Pay an insurance company (as per your example 5%+0.9%+~1%= ~7%.)
2. Pay the IRS 15% (capital gains).
The answer is likely not that simple though.
You are mixing one-time costs and annual recurring costs. In your (1), 5% is one-time, at the time of purchase; 1.9% is year after year. In your (2), 15% is one-time, at the time of sale. Simple math says after 5 years, money paid to insurance company exceeds taxes paid to IRS.
James Hunt, a life insurance actuary and former insurance commissioner, has evaluated thousands of vuls. He understands these beasts.
Per Mr Hunt, at one time a VUL might have be appropriate for a very small percentage of people.
http://www.consumerfed.org/releases2.cfm?filename=022403ror.txt
Obviously, Ameriprise and many other firms have oversold these things. And Ameriprise does not comparison shop for the best vul (like the low-cost Ameritas). They sell people the vul that they are told to sell. The one that makes them, and Ameriprise, the most money.
Currently ia vul no longer makes sense for anyone.
"Since the tax law changes of 2003,
which lowered taxes on qualified dividends and long term capital gains to a maximum of 15%, I have recommended against buying VULs – term life plus a low cost Vanguard stock index fund, say, should work better." - James Hunt
http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/fpaghv_2006_second_revision111306.pdf
If you currently own a vul and would like an evaluation at a very reasonable cost, go here:
http://www.evaluatelifeinsurance.org/
Sir:
There is a situation where I will sell a VUL. If my clients do not have Long Term Carte insurance I will do a non MEC VUL with a LTC rider. It is usually cheaper than LTC insurance or a hybrid like Lincolns Money Guard.
And, unlike pure LTC insurance, if you don’t use it your estate will get the death benefit.
Post a Comment