We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!

wscdsdc

media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us

855.ask.wink

Close [x]
pattern

Industry News

Categories

  • Industry Articles (21,155)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (414)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (800)
  • Wink's Articles (353)
  • Wink's Inside Story (274)
  • Wink's Press Releases (123)
  • Blog Archives

  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • Whole Life Vs. Universal Life: UL Evolves into Legacy-Protector and Robust Wealth Generator

    September 10, 2013 by Guy Baker

    When I first came into the insurance profession in the early ’70s, the staple product was whole life. I loved whole life. What was there not to love? Whole life offered guaranteed premiums, guaranteed cash value and a long history of dividend payments that eventually could make the premiums disappear (based on dividend performance). Whole life had a guaranteed loan rate. NonPar whole life was a form of the word. It catered to the buy-term-and-invest-the-difference discussion. It was a way to have the guarantees, but at a lower premium.

    Historical Perspective

    Inflation raged and interest rates shot up significantly. Interest rates spiked, the policy loan rate was set at 5 percent and certificates of deposit rates rose to 18 percent. All this caused panic in the halls of many insurance companies. Called “disintermediation,” the company response was to instill variable rates and thus, risk was introduced into the hallowed institution of whole life.

    E.F. Hutton, a little-known life carrier, introduced a revolutionary new product called universal life (UL), which was designed to provide the ultimate in flexibility. UL allowed the insured to design their own premium and cash values. Dial it up and dial it down. Many of the old-line agents who mainly had sold whole life for their entire careers found they were competing with the low-cost UL products. The pressure to provide a competitive product increased. Some companies decided to convert their policyholders to UL. Most of the old-line companies stayed the course, but developed a more flexible form of whole life.

    Early on, I was fortunate to build a friendship with Lynn Miller, one of the key actuaries who designed the Hutton UL. He has long since retired. We sat down and had a very detailed discussion about the reality of UL. I walked away from that discussion convinced that the only difference between UL and WL was the assumptions. Whole life bases the premiums on the guaranteed interest in the product. UL bases the premium on the assumed interest rate in the product. Otherwise, the mortality costs were the same and the expense loads were, in some cases, less.

    So in the final analysis, and I think this is true today, the difference was never in the math. The difference is in the guarantees. With whole life, the insurance company accepts most, if not all, of the risk. It is heavy in guarantees. The policyowner’s only obligation is to pay the premium each year. Any improvement in mortality is reflected in the non-guaranteed dividends. This is also true of expenses. Improvements are reflected in the dividends. So while the initial, guaranteed premium is based on guaranteed mortality and guaranteed expenses, the dividend performance is fundamental to policy performance over time. Even though whole life is a bundled product (the policy expenses, interest earnings and mortality costs are not readily transparent to the agent or the client), it has been the historical dividend scale that provided the competitive edge.

    Shifting Risk

    With UL, however, virtually all of the risk is shifted to the policyholder. There are underlying guarantees: the mortality costs, expense loads and minimum interest rate. But the illustration is based on current assumptions for these three factors. Everything is unbundled and transparent. The “black box” of whole life was opened for all to see. With a high interest rate assumption, a UL illustration shows significantly lower premiums for the same face amount compared to WL. (With a low interest rate, not so much.) The premium differential between WL and UL could be 50 percent or more. With these types of “savings,” consumers were only too willing to trade in their “high cost” WL for a “low cost” UL with twice the coverage or more. When interest rates hit 18 percent, I saw several illustrations for 40 years based on this as the annual rate. Who wouldn’t buy that?

    Impact of UL on the Marketplace

    To protect the carrier’s book of business, some companies developed variable whole life. This combined the math of WL with the opportunity to participate in a more aggressive portfolio than the general account of the carrier. The ability to illustrate a “historic” 12 percent return gave WL agents a product to counter the aggressive illustrations used for UL.

    In some respects, this became a Pandora’s box. Existing WL policies became prey to the aggressive UL illustrations. The unintended consequence was 20, 30 and 40 years of WL renewals that were lost overnight as policyholders flocked to UL to reduce their insurance costs. To the unsuspecting and uninformed, this shift of risk was neither understood nor appreciated. It was not until interest rates dropped below 5 percent that the reality of UL became apparent. There really was no economic difference between WL and UL, except for the assumptions.

    An unintended consequence occurred from this. In order to add more return to the policies, these same creative agents and actuaries combined to engineer variable universal life (VUL). So both sides of the aisle had the same ability to offer eye-popping performance. And again, the net result was that agents further cannibalized the book of whole life policies that had offered proven stability for decades. Agents traded the future value of their renewals for the present value of a large first-year commission. The income security that was such an incentive for many agents virtually disappeared in a flurry of replacement activity.

    Indexed Universal Life

    Enter IUL – indexed universal life. Variable universal life had its heyday during the go-go ’90s, but when the tech bubble and credit bubble clobbered the market, variable life suffered significant losses. Indexed annuities and IUL became the logical middle ground between a general account product struggling with low interest rates and a variable product with wide swings. Having the ability to offer guarantees on the downside with unlimited upside potential (even if it was capped) became an acceptable risk for agents and insurance buyers still trying to recover from the market aftershocks.

    So is IUL the panacea the insurance industry is desperately seeking? It is hard for me to argue against market performance over the past 85 years. The U.S. stock market’s total return for more than eight decades is 9.8 percent. That includes the six “black swan” events. We had two of them in the 2000-2010 decade. But set those returns to 0 percent, using call options purchased with the interest on the underlying general account portfolio in the policy, and the returns jump significantly.

    The Future of Life Insurance

    No one has a crystal ball that can foresee the future, but we all have heard the past is prologue. Is it true of the stock market and its impact on IUL? Are there systemic factors caused by programmed trading, exchange traded funds, credit derivatives and an unsettled world that will circumvent the creative minds trying to drive higher returns? Can IUL answer the call 20 years from now?

    The real downside for any insurance policy is the yin and the yang. The positive with IUL is its flexibility. WL is not flexible. If you don’t pay the premium on a WL policy, the premium will be paid from the existing cash values. As long as there are cash values, the WL policy will continue with a death benefit adjusted by the outstanding loan balance. Cancel the policy and the owner may have a tax surprise. The same could be true of an IUL, but it is less likely to happen.

    The flexibility is the yin and the yang. The yin is the ability of the policyowner to stop and start premiums without incurring loans or interest charges. But the yang is the impact this flexibility has on the policy’s long-term viability. The real power of life insurance is the long-term compound interest effect on the cash value. Underfund the policy and you have a really expensive term policy that will fall apart when the insurance is needed most.

    The word of caution is to make sure the policyowner understands the lack of guarantees and the impact this will have when they reach 65 or older. I remember an elderly client and his penetrating gaze when he asked me, “Will this policy be here when I die?” He bought the insurance to benefit his family. He wanted to be certain that it would pay the death claim.

    Policyowners buy insurance for a variety of reasons. IUL is a very cost-efficient way to fund life insurance premiums until death, even if the policyholder lives longer than the actuaries predict they will. But if the policyowner does not pay the scheduled premium and expects the policy to deliver on the promised illustrated value, there is going to be a major disconnect. As agents, it is our responsibility to educate the policyowner as to the merits of the policy and its potential downsides.

     

     

    Guy Baker, MBA, MSFS, MSM, CFP, CLU, is a 44-year member of Million Dollar Round Table and 36-year member of the Top of the Table. He served as MDRT president in 2010 and developed The Box, a simple explanation of the mathematics of life insurance (www.aboutthebox.com). He is managing director of Wealth Teams Solutions, a family office offering wealth counseling and risk management for high-net-worth families and business owners. Guy can be reached at Guy.Baker@innfeedback.com. Guy.Baker@innfeedback.com.

    Originally Posted at InsuranceNewsNet Magazine on September 2013 by Guy Baker.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency