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? 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. From an 80-page prospectus of their NYLIAC Variable Universal Life 2000 product:
- 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.
Say No To Management Fees
If you are paying an advisor a percentage of your assets, you are paying 5-10x too much. Learn how to find an independent advisor, pay for advice, and only the advice.
Jaymz says
A VUL can be the best investment vehicle out there if used properly on the right individual. Some people make too much money to qualify for a Roth IRA. I challenge any of you morons bashing VULs to find the right recommendation for someone with this type of income that wants tax free growth on their money. Furthermore there are high fees in the first 5-10 yrs typically on VULs. Then typically the policy is surrendur free. There is a reason for every fee. The M&E is charged in the 1st 8 yrs of the policy, TO PROTECT THE SOLVENCY OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY. Then fees can be credited back to the policy owner so that recoups some of the cost. Did any of you idiots look at an illustration? Did you look at the policy values and benefits pages. Oh yeah and idiots that think “no load funds” are the way to go, think about it real hard. The company charging the least amonut to manage your money is the best right. hahahahaha. If you were good at doing something would you charge the cheapest price? Hell no. Simply put the better portfolio managers are going to charge more, BECAUSE THEY GET HIGHER RETURNS, SO THE FEE IS WORTH IT BECAUSE YOUR NET GAIN IS HIGHER. No load funds typically track what the major indices do so they are easy to manage hence cheap. You get what you pay for. In a case study I have seen the average return for do it yourselfers is 3%/yr in a 30 yr sample. Wow you people dont need FAs and are doing a great job on your own. I cant stand people who only know a little bit about how something works and the try to advise people on how it works. You people realize that a VUL IS a Wall ST security and you have to be licensed to advise people on it. I challenge all you people to find your financial independence on your own.
William says
Taking the time to learn on your own about the variety of investment and insurance products available and which ones are suitable for you makes you the opposite of a moron or idiot. The fact is that VUL’s and similar investment/insurance products are sold to the wrong people. These people, after realizing the bad choice they made, will go on their own or be more discerning when choosing a new adviser. There are good, bad and mediocre load funds, no load funds and insurance/investment products. On your own or with an adviser you could end up with either one of them. You need to research before choosing. Even with an adviser. Don’t take anyone’s word. Among the true idiots and morons out there are those who resort to name calling when challenged.
Dan C. says
I feel sorry that these fees were not explained to you. With a bit more patience, the Cash Surrender value would equal the Market Value of the policy. In other words, you get back all the money you put into after surrender charges and deductions.
Dan C. says
You don’t withdraw the money! You take out a policy loan, which comes out of the death benefit when you die. You can also use the policy to leverage a third party loan (for a car, mortgage, business loan, or line of credit).
Zak says
@ Dan C.
Technically this isn’t entirely true. It can often make more mathematical sense depending on the loan structure of the policy to first make cash value withdrawals in retirement, up to the point of your cost basis (so that the withdrawals remain tax free), and then start taking policy loans after you have hit your cost basis. Or you can take loans right from the start; it’s your choice. But I wouldn’t make a blanket statement about not withdrawing the money.
Dan C. says
Any withdrawls will just affect the account value of your policy. A small amount could mean a difference of tens of thousands dollars in the years that you go to retire.
In comparison, if you were to take out a policy loan against the value, it does not have to be paid off until you die. It will be taken out of the death benefit + interest on the owed amount.
So why would I want to erode the effect compounding interest has on my savings?
Zak says
@Jaymz
“You people realize that a VUL IS a Wall ST security and you have to be licensed to advise people on it.”
No, a VUL is a life insurance policy, not a security. The sub-accounts are securities. You have some valid points (and some invalid points), but if you are going to bash people and look intelligent while doing it, at least make it sound like you know the subject matter well by using the correct terminology.
Zak says
Dan,
Haha, you opened up a can of worms on that one. 🙂 I’m not sure the exact situation where it works best one way vs the other. I think if the loan nets a 0% interest rate (which many do nowadays), it might make more sense to take loans only. Whereas some of the older policies used to charge a fairly high rate (many as high as 8%) and didn’t credit anything back. In that situation, I would think it would make more sense to take withdrawals first.
Anyways, not saying it isnt better to take loans only. I’m just saying that there are definitely situations where withdrawals first make sense. I think it just depends on the loan provisions of the policy (which has a lot to do with when the poliy was issued). My use of the word “often” may have been strong.
cj sax says
Maybe I am wrong. And someone please correct me. But in a VUL isnt some money going towards death, some towards cash value, and some to a seperate account. To my limited knowledge the cost to insure you goes up every year. Also more money has to go to the cash value to fund the policy lessening the amount in the sub account. And finally, upon death you get your death benefit less the loand plus sub account. So how much of your overfunding does your family actually see being that the cost goes up and a majority of the money goes to the cash value that you lose when you die? And please do not give me the line that the cahs value is a living benefit and goes towards the death benefit.
Zak says
@cj sax
Cash value and sub-accounts are actually the same thing. Sub-account is basically another word for “mutual fund”, except that sub-accounts are held in VUL’s and variable annuities. In a VUL you will typically have a choice of many sub-accounts (15-30) to invest your money in, much like a 401(k) would offer different mutual fund choices. The money in all the different sub-accounts together makes your cash value, just like the money in all the different mutual funds in your 401k makes up the overall value of the 401k.
Your second question was on cash value vs. death benefit. There are actually 2 ways to structure a UL (whether it is a VUL or regular UL). One is with a level death benefit and one is with an increasing death benefit. With a level death benefit, as you accumulate cash value, the death benefit to your family does not change. With an increasing death benefit, as the cash value grows, so does you death benefit. Which begs the question: Who in the world would do a level death benefit?
The answer to that lies in the intricacy of how the internal insurance charges operate. With a level death benefit, as your cash value grows, more of the death benefit is actually composed of YOUR cash. That means the insurance company isn’t actually “insuring” as much (they call this the ‘net amount at risk’). As a result of insuring less, the insurance charges drop over times (of course the fact that your aging counteracts this effect and actually just keeps them somewhat level). Imagine your originally had $100,000 of coverage and have accumulated $20,000 of cash value. Well, the insurance company (with a level death benefit) is only charging you for $80,000 of insurance.
Take that same scenario where you originally had $100,000 of death benefit and then accumulated $20,000 of cash value. Well, your death benefit is actually now $120,000 and they are still charging you for the $100,000 of “risk” that they are taking on.
Zak says
To clarify, that last paragraph of my comment is referring to an “increasing” death benefit. The scenario in the paragraph prior was referring to a level death benefit. I need to learn to proofread….
cj sax says
So if I have a 100k VUL and I have 20k in cash value then my wife sees 120k if I die. And are you sure the cash value and sub account are not to different things. I only ask because I was going to get a license and it seemed to me to sell a VUL you need a securities license but for a UL and whole life you didnt? Just asking and by the way this has been a great forum
smartMoneyGuy says
If you selected the increasing Death benefit, the DB includes the DB you purchased as well as the cash value. In a level DB setup, the 100K VUL and the 20k Cash would provide a 100K DB… the 20k Cash plus the remaining 80K in DB.
Cash Value and Sub-Accounts. In VUL, you need a securities license because you are selling “mutual fund” type investments inside a life policy. The value of the sub-accounts make up the cash value. In regular UL or IUL, there is no such underlying investment choice… it’s all interest-based accounts with various crediting methods… hence, no securities license required.
Zak says
You will see the $120K of death benefit if your death benefit is set to be “increasing”. If it is set to be “level”, then you will still only have $100K of death benefit, even with the $20K of cash value.
Let me try to be more descriptive on the cash value vs. sub-accounts issue. “Cash Value” is simply the amount of money you have built up within a life insurance policy that you have direct access to while living. There is “cash value” in every type of permanent insurance, whether it be Whole Life, Universal Life, Indexed Universal Life, Variable Universal Life, etc….
Sub-accounts are specific to variable products. On the life insurance side of things (as opposed to annuities), the only type of life insurance with sub-accounts is the VUL. Sub-accounts are the investment options you have in a VUL. For instance, there might be some large/mid/small cap, international, quality/high yield/limited maturity bond, etc. subaccounts. These sub-accounts are often managed by other investment focused firms (T Rowe Price, Goldman Sachs, etc.). You choose your overall VUL investment by mixing and matching these subaccounts to create a blend that is appropriate for your risk tolerance and time horizon.
So, the sub-accounts are the investment choices you have. The cash value is simply the sum of money that is invested across these different sub-accounts. It is the sum of the money that you would have access to if you chose to remove it from the policy.
And finally, VUL’s are the only life insurance contract that requires a securities license to sell. Other insurance contracts only require the state insurance license.
Troll says
There are only THREE kinds of permanent life insurance:
Term-100, Whole Life, and Universal Life.
Term-100 does not have a CSV. It is also known as Level Cost of Insurance, because premiums never change.
Universal Life has three components that are priced separately. Premiums go into an investment account, which is then used to pay the administration cost, and the mortality cost.
Mortality costs are priced either as YRT (Yearly Renewable Term), or Term-100 (Level Cost of Insurance). YRT costs start dirt cheap but will keep increasing in a ball curve until they are too expensive to pay. LCOI starts out more costly, but you will be paying that same price when you are 65 years old. The benefit of YRT is compounding interest because you are front-loading your investment with more cash value.
UL premiums need to be invested properly otherwise additional premiums may have to be invested to keep the policy from lapsing. A good insurance company will use an excellent portfolio to keep your investment secure. My Equitable Generation IV policy (Equitable Life) is invested in a Franklin Templeton “Quotential” portfolio, which had very excellent returns last year.
UL has no spending value for at least 10 years. For instance, you will be charged a penalty if you withdraw any cash during this time. After 10 years, there is no penalty. Also, it takes a while for the CSV to build up, which you can then use to take out a policy loan (from the insurance company) or leverage the policy itself (to get a massive “ATM” loan from the bank).
This is all I can write for now, but UL has many advantages if you have the knowledge to use them. Speak to a competent advisor before you make any decisions regarding purchasing a policy or getting access to your policy’s worth.
Zak says
Technically Troll is right about the there only being three types of permanent insurance (although I am not as familiar with the term to 100). VUL, IUL, and the standard UL are all subtypes of Universal Life Insurance. Although insurance companies like to spruce up their products with different names that make them sound unique.
Although, as I said, I am not as familiar with the term to 100 product, I understand the concept as described by Troll and it basically sounds like a no-lapse funded UL (UL funded for minimum or no cash value that meets the minimum lapse prevention guidelines). One consideration with term to 100 is that the 2001 redrafting of the standardized CSO Mortality Tables required permanent insurance contracts to mature at age 121 rather than 100. The reason for this of course is based on our increasingly older population. This could be a concern with term to 100: a minority (but still good number) of people will live past 100.
Troll says
There are only three kinds and that is what it is.
There are no subtypes. What you are thinking of sound like different customizations / products. For instance, Transamerica’s UL product is called “Prosperity”.
“Mortgage Insurance” is actually decreasing “TERM” (note: Decreasing Term is not a subtype. It is just “term” with a specific customization, whereas the death benefit decreases over time)
I can write more about UL, Whole Life, and Term-100 later.
Note: Term is just a “temporary” insurance. Term-100 is just “temporary” insurance where coverage is until age 100, which is why it is grouped with Universal Life and Whole Life. What happens if the life insured reaches age 100? The policy matures and there is a pay out! Either that or the coverage is extended. Pretty neat, eh.
I’ve heard T100 is the cheapest of the three options, but it is also the cheapest in quality. It is like a Chinatown-style insurance where you get life coverage without any of the bells, whistles, and thrills of Whole Life or Universal Life.
More on this stuff later!
Richard W. Woody, CLU, ChFC, CFP says
I have been in the life insurance business for 29 years and have my CLU, ChFC, and CFP designations. I have been a life insurance agent, sales manager, home office executive for one of the top 3 mutuals and a General Agent current position in Kansas City). While my company has a VUL and UL product for sale, I do not allow my reps to sell them. Universal Life Insurance is the worst product on the market. It is sold as permanent insurance and the reps that sell it all know (or should) that unless it is tremendously overfunded, or gets an astounding rate of return year in and year out, that the contract is designed to self-destruct. By overfunding, you may be able to avoid this, however if you had put those same dollars into a good quality dividend paying whole life policy you would have come out wayyyy ahead.
Secondary Guarantee UL can be a very good product, but I still prefer Whole Life.
Traditional UL and VUL sales are as close to criminal as I can think of in our business and I wouldn’t sell one to my worst enemy. You just can’t outrun those tremendously increasing internal insurance costs in your senior years. A terrible deal, unless you plan on dying young. Ask yourself, “What are the YRT (yearly renewable term) rates for an 80-something or 90-something year old? Do the math, it makes this pretty simple… Traditional UL and VUL are a HUGE ripoff, especially when you could have so much better (safely!) if you had bought your permanent insurance with a participating Whole Life policy with all of it’s many guarantees and wonderful dividends.
I have taught classes on this subject for 18 years, however if you think that I am wrong please get an illustration to age 100 and do this simple math. It will show you the real costs of holding this contract every year. Choose a year in the future, say your age 85. Take the cash value from that year and add to it any premium for the year that the illustration shows you paying. Multiply the total by one, plus your assumed rate of return shown. For example a 12% rate of return would be a multiple of 1.12. Next subtract the next years (age 86) cash value. The number that you reached is the actual cost or charge coming out of your cash value for that year. How ugly is your number???
Troll says
Richard forgot to mention that Participating Whole Life costs a shit load of money just for the chance of getting some shiny “dividends”. These are not the same as stock dividends. They are a return of premiums if the company makes a profit. Most of the time, your future premiums are reduced. It works just like car insurance!
And that shit load of money is only paying for the chance that the company will overshoot its Quota. What happens if it doesn’t? Your premiums go up! They will charge you more on every month of the year because they did not meet their quota. No gain, more pain.
Whole Life is more expensive than Universal Life. No wonder Richard wants you to buy it 😉
cj sax says
Ok all of this is confusing. No wonder people dont buy life insurance. I did some research and from what I see Whole life is more expensive; but I sawsomething called an illustration where it said Gaurenteed cash vallue in both but the UL it went up then started going down and eventually the gaurenteed cash value and death benefit read zero. How does that happen? I am 30 years old and I make on average 120 a year. My wife makes 80k a year and is 30 also. We just got quoted 147/month for a 35 year term. We both max out our 401k. What would be the next route for investments and Why? I am still confused about Zaks comments about them insuring me for less and using the cash value as part of my death benefit. If I purchase 500k of insurance isnt that what I wanted. If I get a VUL can I ask them to insure me for what I bought and Leave my cash value for my dependents? Wow makes me wonder should i pursue getting in the industry.
SmartMoneyGuy says
Lot’s of confusion in the industry… like many others. Properly structured, an overfunded Index Universal Life policy would be an incredible solution for someone at your age and income level. This is just a rough depiction of how these things might work for you. Obviously, a more formal illustration should be carefully reviewed along with the council of a financial professional…
Say you put 1000 or 1500 a month into a solid IUL policy. (there are good and bad companies out there) Depending on how it was structured, it would purchase somewhere between 1 million and 2 million of ‘death benefit’ to protect the family. You want to set it up to purchase the LEAST amount of insurance possible for the premium you are depositing. This way, more of your deposit goes toward building a tax-free retirement for you and your wife. Fund this contract for 35 years (until age 65) and you’ll probably have 3 million to 5 million of cash value sitting there inside the policy. Then you begin taking $150,000 per year OUT of the contract as a Policy Loan, tax-free – without any requirement to ever pay the loan back. By the time you die at 85 or 90 years of age, you will have pulled 3 to 4 million OUT of the policy tax-free… and your heirs will still receive a tax-free death benefit of a couple million when you pass.
Properly setup, it can be a beautiful thing. (especially where taxes are probably headed… UP!) Go to http://www.TaxFreeBook.com and order the book Tax Free Retirement and learn about it on your own. A lot of the advice you will hear is “flavored” by a salespersons own belief system, the products they sell, commission levels, etc. (Before anyone asks… NO, I didn’t write the book. I don’t even know the author!)
Overfunding a IUL contract at your stage of life will absolutely “Rock Your World” and when you’re 65 years old, you will look back and realize that this was probably the smartest financial move you ever made.
William says
To cj sax,
You could each set up an ira in addition to maxing out the 401 k. Depending on whether you file jointly or separately your wife may be eligible for a roth ira. After maxing out the ira you could invest in tax friendly low cost no load mutual funds at Vanguard or another company with low cost no load investments. With this strategy and the term insurance I think your costs are kept to a minimum. I’m no expert but I think you are in the income range where you should maybe avoid insurance as an investment vehicle. Then again I’m biased and in a lower tax bracket.
SmartMoneyGuy says
Have to disagree with this last comment on several aspects.
1) Numerous studies will prove that maxing out your 401k is a mistake. There are other, more tax-favorable alternative. Taxes being considered, a properly structured IUL policy will provide a lot more net income for you later in life.
2) Your income level more than likely will prohibit you from contributing to a Roth IRA
3) The term insurance will work fine for protecting your family through the growing years, but will be more than likely, unaffordable to keep into your 80s to help pay for probably Estate Taxes.
4) Your “Income Range” (and tax bracket) is exactly WHY you should consider Life Insurance as a Retirement and investment savings vehicle. At your income, you’ll get killed on Income taxes over the years.
Again… just an opinion!
Richard, CLU, ChFC, CFP says
Troll, I’m sure that you are a nice person, however you seem to know just enough about life insurance to be dangerous. Whole Life premiums cannot go up because they are guaranteed in the contract to remain level for your entire life. This is one of the most basic components of the WL contract. Guaranteed premiums, guaranteed cash value, guaranteed death benefit and participation in the company’s profits through dividends. And no, through dividend’s your future premiums are not reduced. They can be, however over 97% of all dividend elections are for “Paid-Up Additions” which increase your cash value and death benefit.
Also, good mutual companies, like the top 4 (NYL, Mass, Guardian and NML), have paid their dividends every year, year in and year out since the mid-1800’s. Do your research and check their dividend histories… Personally, I wouldn’t buy whole life from any company but one of the top 4 mutuals and I would never buy a non-participating whole life contract. Non-par WL is garbage.
Whole Life is BUYING your life insurance. Term and UL are like renting your life insurance. WL costs more because you own it and gain equity as well as many other advantages. A simple fact of life is that you get what you pay for. If WL wasn’t well worth the price, they couldn’t sell it.
Lastly, permanent life insurance should be only a PART of most people’s financial plan. The majority of people cannot afford all whole life anyway, nor do they probably need all whole life. Term insurance and/or SGUL should also be a part of a properly crafted life insurance program. All of this should be implemented after the completion of a thorough needs analysis done by a competent professional from a quality company.
Remember, Universal Life is basically designed to implode and eat up all of your cah values. A simple COI on net amount at risk analysis proves that easily. Whole lifeis full of guarantees and is designed to get better and better the longer that you hold it. UL gets worse and worse the longer that you hold it.
I’m teaching a 2 week class on Financial Planning in April. Maybe you should attend…
Zak says
Wow, this comment section really got busy! 🙂
I always just like to provide feedback on what others have said, not that my knowledge or opinions are superior to any of yours. But it is very fun to see what everyone is saying!
@ Richard
I like your comment on life insurance being a PART of someone’s financial strategy. This is sooo true. It can be a fantastic part, but should never be the whole.
I disagree with your comments about the fact that VUL’s and IUL’s are garbage. There are many companies that have been around long enough to stabilize insurance charges later in life and, even illustrating a semi-decent return, will stay in force. It is the old VUL’s made in the 80’s and such that have the implosion issues. They have fixed a lot of these with newer products. That being said, Whole Life can also be a great product, but to get decent returns, you STILL need to overfund it with supplemental Paid Up Additions, so it’s really not that different from overfunding a VUL.
You probably should not mention offering financial classes. That sounds like you are holding yourself out as an advisor and trying to solicit business. To my knowledge, this is not FINRA compliant. Plus, it just doesn’t belong in a discussion forum like this.
@ SmartMoneyGuy
I’d like to see this study that says maxing out your 401(k) is bad. If you make a good chunk of money, why wouldn’t you max it out AND do some life insurance? Yes, if taxes skyrocket, you sort of screwed yourself. But even though that is likely, there are still folks that will be in a much lower tax bracket than they are now. My point is you are making a blanket statement. There are too many variable to that equation (although I would be interested in reading your studies, mind posting the link?).
See my comment below on Roth IRA’s.
@ William
This is phrased as a very standard argument against permanent life insurance, but you are partially correct. If they truly make exactly $200,000 joint and contribute $33,000 to their 401K ‘s, they would be at an AGI of $167,000. At $167,000, they would only be $1,000 above the start of the phaseout range ($166K). This means that, together they could contribute $9,000 to a Roth (versus the normal $10,000). You have to be really careful with that though so that you don’t make an illegal contribution on accident. I certainly would only feel comfortable doing that with the go-ahead from a CPA. Turbo tax leaves to much room for error in that department. All that being said, this could be a viable option for them.
But, you are neglecting to address a couple of issues. What if they want some permanent insurance? In that case, the scales tip. Also, what if their income is growing faster than inflation? They are pretty close to being fully phased out. Do they really want a $9000 Roth IRA floating around out there if they cant ever contribute again?
@ cj
I will say that this stuff is VERY complicated. I kind of enjoy it, which is why I comment on here so much. 🙂 From a purchase standpoint, you really want to understand the vehicle before buying it. It sounds like you could be a good candidate for some level of permanent insurance, but keep educating yourself until you feel like you have a good grasp of it all. I enjoyed tax-free retirement as suggested by SmartMoneyGuy. It is definitely salesy, but if you can ignore all that crap, it may help you understand the overall concept a little better.
SmartMoneyGuy says
Hi Zak,
Good stuff on here, for sure. Here’s an article that speaks of the negatives on 401ks… the main thing is simply this: they typically charge horrendous fees, usually approaching 5%, and in an overall market that has earned 10 or 11% returns over time (and probably far less going forward), these fees eat up about half your gains. On top of that, you build a big nest egg and it’s all taxable coming out.
My general advice is to fund whatever you have to in order to get the full ‘match’ from your employer, and then look at other more tax-favorable alternatives such as Life Insurance or Roth IRAs. Roth 401ks would probably provide an attractive alternative as well… just don’t see them very often.
One of the interesting things in this posting is that considering all the tax money you may have saved over the 20 or 30 year you funded a 401k… the taxes paid in the first few years of 401k withdrawals chew up that savings pretty quickly. If we see 50, 60 or 70% top income tax brackets again, the 401k and other qualified plans will look like big mistakes.
There’s no shortage of articles on the negative aspects of the 401k plan, from fees, to limited investment options, to the tax structure, and distribution upon death. Dollar for dollar, the same investment in a 401k plan or a properly structured Life Insurance alternative… the Life Insurance will blow the doors of off the 401k… and you’ll have Life Insurance all along to boot.
Richard, CLU, ChFC, CFP says
Zak,
thanks for the comments. You seem like a good guy, however no one will ever convince me that UL and VUL are good products. I just saw an illustration from Ameriprise that was unbelievably ugly, so nothing has changed as far as I am concerned. You just don’t want to buy a product that has a YRT chassis – major no brainer! This stuff gives our industry a bad name (as you can tell from the comments above).
Also, regarding inviting the Troll to my classes. I am not taking new clients right now and my classes are not open to the general public. I was being facetious…
Troll says
Richard,
I cannot comment further on the subject of Whole Life. We are from different countries. Furthermore, I don`t have access to the necessary illustration programs to really discuss numbers.
Univeral Life is a very good product here in Canada. I am on the same exact plan as the person that sold me the insurance, including the branch manager of the office he works out of. They recommend Equitable Life because costs are low and medical denials are a minimum.
The projection charts estimate an average of 7% after expenses from possible high and lows. The same default fund is in a global growth Franklin Templeton `Quotential` product. Franklin Templeton is worth $600 billion in global assets. They have a proven track record of proactive investing. The return for 2009 was incredible. I have seen the numbers first hand. If Universal Life was so horrible, why would the branch manager insure his own life, the life of his wife, and the life of his child.
One day, the compound growth on the Quotential plan will be high enough to sustain the expensive premiums we will have to pay later on in life. When they put these plans together, they plan for premiums to eventually be as high as 1400$ because of YRT.
The risk of negative debits from the investment account is basic knowledge to everyone in the industry. Projections are not guaranteed. That is why investments are done with a competent company with a proven track record.
Zak says
SmartMoneyGuy,
I did not like that article. He has some good points, but it is SO slanted. And he is just plain wrong in multiple parts. I’ll reference the last few sentences:
“Hint: Your 401(k) is part of your estate. It will be taxed until your heirs bleed.
E.I.U.L.s are not part of your estate. The balance transfers to your heirs — untouched — as in untaxed.”
OK, that is just flat out wrong. Life insurance proceeds are not exempt from your estate. No assets are automatically exempt from your estate unless you move them into a trust or give them away! And you can put pretty much anything in a trust, not just life insurance, so the ILIT argument isn’t really valid. Also, you can’t put life insurance in an ILIT if you are still pulling income from it. And because it is part of the estate, (unless you put it in an irrevocable trust) it is still subject to estate taxes (and who knows what those will do in the coming years).
One benefit is that it is not part of probate, because it is a direct contract. However, I’m fairly certain that 401k’s, if beneficiaries are named properly, is also not subject to probate costs.
Really the only benefit at death of life insurance over a 401K is that the 401k / IRA will be income taxable at death. Or, you could use a stretch IRA to solve that dilemma. 🙂
Anyways, just a lot of holes in their argument.
SmartMoneyGuy says
Hey Zak, you don’t have to love the article… the guy writing it is a little abrasive, but for the most part it is a factual article.
All that estate mumbo-jumbo? Have your spouse be the Owner of the contract and BINGO… the Life Insurance is now out of your estate. Benefits pass direct to heirs – no probate – no estate taxes. Problem solved.
And if you think there’s not a huge difference in the way 401k & IRA money is treated versus Life Insurance after you pass away… someone – probably your heirs – will be in for a big surprise down the road.
Add in the fact that half of your Qualified Plan will disappear to taxes while you try to live off the funds versus the tax-free distribution that is available with a properly structured IUL, and I see no real comparison.
Good luck to you, and Happy Easter!
Richard, CLU, ChFC, CFP says
Whoa, … having your wife own the life contract on your life does not keep the benefits out of your estate. our estate is her estate. Spousal owned life insurance has not been a taxed advantaged option for several decades. I believe that it was the TRA of 1986 that changed all of that. Also, FYI – Probate proves the validity of a will. (Life insurance, personally or ILIT owned bypasses probate because it is governed by contract law). Since the Marital Deduction was instituted many years ago, your surviving spouse pays no estate taxes upon your death. The estate taxes are due apon the death of the second spouse, thus creating the need for Survivorship life insurance – also known as “Second To Die” life insurance.
Lot of bad advice floating around out there… You also need to know that most Americans will have no estate tax issues. If you feel that you will, consult an Estate Planning Attorney.
Zak says
Not to pull the convo way off track into estate-planning land, but even given the marital deduction, with a large estate, it still makes sense to plan around the first spouse. Given the $3 million deduction per person (using 2009 data, not 2010 obviously), with a very large estate, if no planning was done around the first death, the deduction fell from a potential $6 million ($3m on each) to just the $3 million for the surviving spouse. In order to maintain the $3 million credit on the dead spouse, but still allow the living spouse to use the income generated from the assets, they created the Credit Shelter Trust aka AB Trust.
Also, in 2011 the credit is set to fall back to $1 million per person. Granted, $6 million estates are not “commonplace” in the U.S. But I’d be willing to bet there are a good number of $2 million estates.
smartMoneyGuy says
Hi Richard, I was confused by your comment about spouse-owned Life Insurance. I’m not a CLU or an attorney, but I’ve been making the spouse the owner of a Life policy whenever there was real money involved and where Estate taxes might be an issue.
So I did a little research… I suggest you do the same. Tried to post links here but the site rejects the posting as spam. Check out lawyers dot com and other estate planning sites and you’ll see that this is still being done… even though the attorneys would rather charge you $1000 for an ILIT.
Apparently, the estate planning attorneys agree that this is still done… and if you don’t own or never owned your the Life Insurance policy on your own life (having your spouse or children own it for instance) it will remain OUTSIDE of your estate and therefore incur zero estate tax liability.
Admittedly, those same dollars may be subject to estate taxes upon the spouse’s death… which is one of the drawbacks. But I believe we were speaking about keeping the proceeds out of your own estate.
Richard, CLU, ChFC, CFP says
In family owned life insurance, almost in every instance, your estate is her estate
(by law, marriage is considered to be a partnership). Estate taxes are due upon the death of the second spouse, therefore it rarely if ever makes sense to make the spouse the owner of the life insurance.
ILIT’s are inexpensive to have drafted and are an awesome tool for keeping the money away from Obama…
SmartMoneyGuy says
With all due respect Richard, in a previous conversation in comparing 401k to Life Insurance, Zak argued that Life Insurance proceeds ARE part of your estate… (just like 401ks are) and I commented back to him that this is not the case if you simply have your spouse OWN the policy, which in effect, is “giving it away”. You would have no ownership and therefore, there is NO ESTATE TAX DUE upon your death. The spouse and the family get 100% of the proceeds, tax-free to use as they see fit, which IS NOT the case with 401k plans.
Yes, upon the second death, assets currently owned by the spouse, whatever they may be, are subject to Estate Tax laws. (this may or may not include any remainder of the death benefit) This doesn’t necessarily make spousal ownership of Life Insurance a useless exercise… it does still provide an income tax and estate tax-free benefit to the surviving spouse.
To say that “spousal-owned Life Insurance has not been a tax-advantaged option for several decades” as you pointed out… is a bit of a stretch and at best – a little misleading as it does succeed in keeping your death benefits out of YOUR estate and free from estate taxes at YOUR death.
Admittedly, not as effective as an ILIT, but a simple and just as effective as far as providing for the remaining family is concerned, IMHO.
cj sax says
Ok I thought i was done. I saw my first VUL last night and it scared the mess out of me. My friend makes 100k a year and has a 250K policy that he pays $53 for. Seemed cool at first until we started to read the contract. COI said .2002/1000. My assumtion is you take .2002* 250 and that would tell how much his insurance costs($50.05). Now this number on page 3 goes up every year. I was like no big deal until I turned to page 12 where it staed COI is deducted from eac premium. Then there was a 6% policy fee charge deducted($3.18) a face amount charge .0803/1000(.0803* 250=20) then an administrative cost of $25. Then a net assett risk charge of .025%) And a Surrender charge of 100% for 5 years 95% for next 3 then 90for next 2. So. my question is if his payments are only 53 where are they getting the rest of the money for the policy. And if the COI goes up where do they get the money from then. If he does somehow get cash value(or policy value) does it mean he cant get any for first 5 years and if he terminates all the money is gone. And how much is going towards his”investments” His wife has exact same policy except she has option 2(benefit +policy value) she is 7 year younger and pay $7 more
Someone please explain to me how this makes sense for the client.?
Richard, CLU, ChFC, CFP says
The COI numbers that you are looking at are the Maximum Rates, per month, per $1,000 of insurance in force. When the COI goes up that addtional expense is taken from the account value. This is the “drain and strain” that UL and VUL place upon the account (cash) values of the policy. As a rule, if the contract has not been seriously overfunded, or has not received a terrific ROR (rate of return), or both, then the contract will eventually be drained of all of the clients cash and it will implode. Great deal huh?…
If your friend is looking at funding a $250,000 UL policy with $53 a month, he will have a real piece of garbage on his hands. He’d probably (duh) be much better off with a Level Term, SGUL or Participating Whole Life policy.
David says
Having been in insurance industry for past 20yrs, conceptually VUL designed properly will work to supplement one’s retirement tax-free. Forget the damn fees, if set up properly as a min non-MEC (meaning the least amt COI is being charged) the client is automatically max funding cash value….. That’s the key – case design. Insurance agents and the majority will still set this up in the traditional sense – to have the prem purchase the most coverage possible….screwing the client because they want to get paid commissions based on the higher amt of coverage purchased.
And let’s remember, it’s not for everyone. It works best for an individual who has already maxed their pre-tax/qualified plans, has the long-term prospective (10+ yrs) to let it compound and primarily isn’t eligible for Roth IRA…. for that individual it’s a good alternative solution (what are they going to put that prem commitment of $20k/yr for next 20yrs into a muni-bond making them 4%?). No income limitations to use VUL, no contribution limitations, no pre-59 1/2 WD penalty & no 70 1/2 RMD requirement….
Everyone’s going to find adv’s & disadv’s to everything – that’s why you get multiple opinions, but VUL’s shouldn’t be bashed if it’s for the right person….. and you have the right advisor managing it (because you have the flexibility to correct it in the future if things get off track)….. Remember, you use LI as a solution because of the way it’s not taxed, so case design is vital, then just have it managed….FLEXIBILITY people!!
william says
David,
I wish I had had an advisor like you. What would be the maximum one could contribute annually to the sub accounts of a VUL to maintain the min non mec status for a 250,000 policy? For example. Ball park.
David says
William – It’s going to be based on diff ages + when I work w/ advisors on this concept w/ their clients, we kind of work in reverse… meaning we work on getting an idea of the prem the client is willing to commit to and then show them the min non-MEC amt of insurance it purchases. This coverage amt again is incidental here because we focus on what the tax-free amt coming out the back end is….. if client wants to see more, there are two variables involved – premium & rate of return (ROR)….. so put more into it and you’ll see more come out tax-free or be more aggressive w/ sub-acct variable investments for better ROR.
In your example to set it up w/ $250k in coverage, a 45 yr old could put in $11k/yr…. an older individual would have to put in more (because insurance is more costly as you get older)… 55yr old would have to put in $17k/yr for same initial coverage…..
But again it’s a mute point because once the client understand the concept of using LI to take $$$ out tax-free, we start w/ client’s prem commitment first & show them what it purchases second…. because the client really wants to see what $$$ is coming out tax-free, then they’ll adjust that prem commitment…. And remember with VUL prem is flexible, so good case desgn is important – you could always put less into the contract (but prem + performance has to be good enough to keep the LI
inforce), but it would have to be built from the beginning case design to accept more $$$/prem… the contract needs to remain a Non-MEC to keep the tax adv’s…. if it becomes a MEC (Modified Endowment Contract), you lose the tax adv’s of LI and it acts just like an annuity (up to cost basis is tax-free, above that distributions/grwth is taxable)….
William says
Put another way. Say a mid to late 30 something in good health says to an advisor that he can afford a $500 a month premium. What would be the minimum face value /cost of insurance one could purchase to have the highest percentage of the premium be invested in the sub accounts. Again a ballpark. Also, the client approaches the advisor expressing a need to increase retirement savings, not increase life insurance.
David says
Let me say this, many financial advisors (unless insurance savy) don’t know how to use VUL to this advantage – they’re not insurance experts, it’s not what they do day-to-day…. they tend to focus on investments. And if not careful w/ an insurance agent, they’ll sell it traditionally meaning for that prem to purchase the most LI it can (still will build cash value, just not max fund cash value bucket) because they get paid more when more LI is purchased…. The other thing to consider – is the prem putting in worth the tax-free amt coming out on the back end? Only the client can decide that….
Let’s say 40yr old male (@ Stand) puts in $500/mnth to age 65….. it’ll purchase $160k of coverage initially… now set up to max the tax-free distributions, the DB option should be set up as Return-of Acct Value (ROA) to last prem pymt (meaning an increasing face amt until last contribution and then level – so coverage will be initial face amt + cash value). Let’s also assume 8% ROR. Now, for example, client takes distributions out from 65 to 85….. approx $30,500/yr tax free…. and when I look at age 85 and see how this solution has done, you can say individual put in total cost basis of $150k ($6k/yr x 25yrs) and took out approx $600k out tax-free ($30,500 x 20yrs)…. Now the key, it has to end as a death benefit/LI or else everything is taxable in one given yr if it lapses…. I like to have at least $100k in LI when distributions stop….. here you’re left w/ only $57k in coverage @ 85. So I would say more of a contribution commitment should be made…. Believe it or not, easier to fund it at h higher level than to say I’ll return 10% vs 8%…..
C.L. says
I’m a recent college graduate– 22 yrs, female, started a small business on the side, now thinking about seeking employment, and I plan to go to grad school in the next 2-4 years. My parents have already bought life insurance for me a long time ago when I was a child– it should work out in a way that I won’t have to make any payments when I grow old. I was wondering then, if VUL is right for me at this time or when I should invest in a VUL, if i should. I don’t have a ROTH IRA or any other investment vehicles. Also, don’t add in the factor that I will need money for grad school, I will have the funds. (Maybe David, you could answer this, since you are an experienced in the insurance industry and have been detailed in your answers. =D)
I have done my share of research but have yet to arrive at a conclusion on whether I should get a VUL. [My best friend in college, same age and gender, just recently converted her ROTH that she just opened a few months ago into a VUL and said its a better option. One of the difference in our background is that she will not be working and is going to be in grad school the next five years.] If I should not invest in a VUL, what should I invest in considering my background? I’ll appreciate all responses from people who are truly trying to help me and others out. THANKS!
william says
If you don’t have children you don’t need more life insurance. I say invest in a roth IRA in no load low cost mutual funds. You could set it up yourself. Just do a little research. If you have more to invest after you have maxed out the ira you can set up a retirement account through your business and save additional thousands a year. The nice thing about the roth is that you can withdraw from the principal amount tax and penalty free after 5 years. I say start reading and educating yourself now on personal finance and the pros and cons of various types of insurance and investment vehicles before you jump in to anything. Start with ” personal finance for dummies”. Good luck.
Me says
I have been offered a VUL by Metlife for $1.5 Million permanent life insurance for $19K per year. But the ‘good’ thing about it is that I pay the $19K per year for only 7 years. After that I do ‘not’ have to pay anything into the VUL, but I am covered until I am 125 years for $1.5Million [**which basically means my loved once will surely see the $1.5Million some day in the next 50 or so years (I am 35) **.] At the end of the 7 year ‘payment’ period and after the charges and cost, I will be left with a cash value of about $90K based on the 6% yearly return, that will continue to grow in the mutual funds sub-accounts. So basically will ‘lose’ total of $43K [7 times 19K – 90K left] of my investment from year 1 to 7 to fees and (build in) premiums, etc, but this has basically brought me 1$.5Million (plus addition cash value of $90K which will grow with market) of the life insurance for 125 years with nothing else to pay into VUL ‘ever’. I can borrow against the $90K anytime or let it grow at 6 to 9 % per year in that separate mutual fund account. I am already maxing out on 401K and IRA and rest I am paying IRS about 28% tax. Really looks too good to be true and seems like it is good in my situation. What else to ask Metlife before I buy this.
Harry Sit says
Me – Your proposed use of VUL is exactly the opposite of how it should be used. If a VUL is to be used at all, it should be for minimum life insurance and maximum funding allowed by law. Read the comments under this post.
Me says
TFB:
Appreciate your input.
I was illustrating how this can benefit me (or think how this can benefit me) by showing the losses upfront and then taking advantage of the tax benefit after that. Let ,me take care of my ‘obligations’ first and then I will worry about the benefits. Let us say – it is like trying the eat a cake with the crust/bottom portion first and finally reaching the top creamy layer.
I was impressed with my numbers, because it:
1. I never have to pay for any life insurance for life after I complete these 7 years. Keyword – “never”.
2. My loved ones are guaranteed a minimum of $1.5 Million [plus some cash – if I do not use it up everything] whenever the inevitable happens (say within next 50 to 60 years when I will be 85 to 95 years – hopefully not sooner.) – Keyword – “guaranteed”.
3. Now the most important point. I can invest as much or as little as possible into the sub accounts tax free up to 30K to 72K a year any year within the next 7 years OR until I am 65 years, depending on my income at that time. Keyword – “tax free investment”
4. No part of the investment ‘above’/after the $133K (7 times 19K) will go towards my life insurance premiums after 7 years, because the it was paid off in the first 7 years, and the rest investment goes straight to my sub account tax fee. It is with no load and less than 1% expense. The pain or loss is actually $43K [7 times 19K – 90K left in cash.] Keyword – “7 years of pain then lot of gain”
5. When I withdraw I pay at the tax rate at the applicable bracket when I retire which will be minimum (plan to withdraws only the amount you need, after using say 401k or IRA or social security [please feel free to ignore the last one, but I think I may get at least some after 40 years]) or at no tax if I take a loan against my account which according to Metlife is 0% interest. Keyword – “0% interest to myself”
So what I intended to show in my first post was the minimum amount that I “need” to part with or give away, but once I do that I will have a excellent tax free sub-accounts where I can invest as much as I can. Thanks…
Zak says
@Me:
I tend to agree with TFB’s comment, but I’ll give a little bit more feedback as to why. I’m not saying this agent or advisor has necessarily proposed a bad solution. Often times things get lost in translation between an advisors recommendation and a prospects retranslation. But the important thing is that YOU understand all the aspects of what you are getting into, so here is my feedback:
Issue 1 – The Guarantee
You have used the word “guarantee” a number of times. Typically the death benefit for a VUL is not guaranteed past about year 20. The assumption that the death benefit will be there at age X is based on the projected market returns on your subaccounts. You had mentioned a 6% return, which I personally think is pretty conservative and a fairly safe assumption. BUT, what if over an extended time horizon the market (or your specific sub-accounts) do not earn 6% annually? Are you comfortable having that policy potentially lapse? If you are truly looking for a guaranteed death benefit for legacy and estate planning purposes, I would go with some type of Whole Life or Universal Life policy that has an extended no-lapse provision…. one that you could extend up until whatever age you would consider your absolute maximum life expectancy.
On a side note, I think your 125 number may be off as well. To my knowledge, when the CSO tables were redrawn in 2001, the maximum endowment age was set to 121, but I could be wrong on that.
Issue 2 – The Investment
You mentioned being able to invest for the next 7 years or until 65. Neither of these numbers has any relevance; they are simply the numbers that the agent chose to use. You can invest into the policy whenever you want and at whatever age as long as you do not fund it too much annually (this will create something called a modified endowment contract and the policy will lose its tax benefits).
You also mentioned a “tax free” investment. While the investment benefits of a permanent life insurance policy do lie in the tax ramifications, the benefits are tax deferral, tax free policy loans (income), and tax free death benefit. They are NOT tax free investments. Because the money is coming from your bank account, you will have already been taxed on the money, just as you would have been investing into any other non-tax-deductible investment vehicle.
Issue 3 – The Growth
No part of the investment after year 7 will go to your insurance costs? No way. That is absolutely false. What he is probably showing you is that the “expected” growth may be far more annually than your insurance costs. That would be a fair statement. But insurance costs come out each and every year. That is the very reason WHY permanent insurance even has cash value…. so that insurance costs can drip out of it every year until you die. Eventually, this morphed into the investment reasons we see today.
You were correct in that you will not see a premium load. That usually only occurs on new premiums into the policy, often somewhere in the realm of 5-6%. But that is only on money as it enters the contract.
Issue 4 – The Income & Withdrawals
Most of what you said about the income stage is true, except for one thing. Your loans are tax free, but your withdrawals can also be tax free, to a certain extent. You are able to withdraw up to your cost basis without taking taxes. You also may not have to take any withdrawals. If that 0% net interest rate is guaranteed, why not just take loans?
Conclusion
I would really clarify in your mind why you are doing this. If the primary purpose is to acquire an investment vehicle with tax efficiencies and to leave some form of death benefit to your beneficiaries, a VUL can be a good vehicle. But you need to make sure you are overfunding it (and should probably do so for more than 7 years). If one of your goals IS leaving a sizable death benefit, you don’t necessarily need to fund it to the MEC limits, but you should at least overfund it. My guess is that your agent is already recommending this. I would just do it for longer than 7 years.
If you are super-set on that $1.5 million death benefit, I wouldn’t do a VUL, because you can’t be sure its going to be $1.5 million, especially if you are drawing income.
Hopefully that clarified some things. I know my comments tend to run long…
Harry Sit says
Zak – I thought @Me was describing a paid-up life insurance inside a VUL. That’s why he/she said it would be 7 years and done with the insurance part. I’ve never seen that kind of arrangement.
Me says
Zak and TFB, you are all amazing, giving Me your valuable time.
I would restate what I said.
Issue 1 – The Guarantee, the $1.5 Million is guaranteed from day 1 until I reach the age of 125 [or until death.] Nothing happens to that guarantee at the end of the 7 years. At the end of 7 years – the only thing that happens is that – premium is paid off – and I just do not have to invest anything ‘extra’ into the account. But if I chose to (and I will – that was the whole point of going this route) I can invest into the account with no part going towards premiums. Between now and my (Posthumous) 125th birthday, whenever I die the life insurance benefits to my family is $1.5 Million. If the $90K cash remains, it will be $1.590 Million. If it grows at 6% per year it will be $1.590 + what even the tax free growth is. If I use up the $90K, the guaranteed benefit is $1.5 Million. If the market collapses and the $90K becomes 0K, the guaranteed benefit is $1.5 Million In other words $1.5 Million is guaranteed, unless I take a loan against the death benefit and not just the cash value of $90K that is in my sub account.
Issue 2 – The Investment, You are right the 7 years or up to 65 years ahs no relevance, but the point was – I can invest anytime I have income to invest and this is what I find attractive also. Regarding the tax free investment, I though just like an IRA account the $5000 come out of my bank account – but my 1040 reduces the taxes on these. I was hoping something like this is also allowed for the VUL. If this is not the case – it is a great eye-opener for me that I need to check – thanks for this.
Issue 3 – The Growth – No part of the investment after year 7 will go to your insurance costs? This is true – the insurance does not send me an invoice after 7 years to continue the coverage, because the premium has been paid off in the first 7 years. If I ‘plunder’ the $90K cash by taking loan, the coverage is still effective, because the premium has been paid of in the first 7 years and I get no invoice. If I invest more, the new investment will directly flow into the sub accounts [it has the expense ratio of 1% but no load.)
Issue 4 – The Income & Withdrawals. Agree.
I will draw the income on the $90K, plus its growth, plus and additonal investment that I add between now and 65 years and its growth, but not on the death benefit of $1.5 Million, so the death benefit is going to stay from what I heard from the agent.
Sounds too good to be true – but after your feedback, need more of your help as to which ones do I need to get clarified.
Thanks…