IUL vs. Roth 401k/401k vs. Roth IRA/IRA

[disneysteve]

Most importantly when an agent presents an illustration .. the fees are included. When someone tells you they get you 8% on an IRA .. the fees are as a percentage of your total investment so it costs Way more in the long run .. .

I love when the insurance salesman shows up .
Especially when they dredge up an ancient thread to post misinformation.

Rather than just deleting this post as spam, which is exactly what it is, I'll respond for the benefit of others who may read this.

If my IRA has an 8% return, that means I get 8% AFTER expenses. And the expenses on a good mutual fund are infinitesimally smaller than those of a whole life policy. For example, a Vanguard Target date mutual fund has an expense ratio of 0.16%.

Captain Save, why don't you share with all of us what the average annual expense ratio is on a typical whole life policy?

[Captain Save]

I love when the insurance salesman shows up .
Especially when they dredge up an ancient thread to post misinformation.

Rather than just deleting this post as spam, which is exactly what it is, I'll respond for the benefit of others who may read this.

If my IRA has an 8% return, that means I get 8% AFTER expenses. And the expenses on a good mutual fund are infinitesimally smaller than those of a whole life policy. For example, a Vanguard Target date mutual fund has an expense ratio of 0.16%.

Captain Save, why don't you share with all of us what the average annual expense ratio is on a typical whole life policy?

These "old threads" that you despise is what lead me to the forum anyway... normally I wouldn't join a forum because of one thread.. but since this forum is geared toward savings.. I figured that I would find more like minded folks on here... I need to improve on my own savings..and I admire the whole "money mustache" type savers. .


Iul does not charge a fee based on your cash value.. as a matter of fact.. the greater the difference between your DB and your cash value... the lower the cost of insurance.. and the cost of insurance it's not a fee.. you are buying death benefit.

anyway if you're getting 8% return on your investment that's great... I don't doubt it.. but that's more than double the average investor .. what you must realize is that IUL or whole life has a different risk profile ... and since this forum is about "saving" rather than getting rich quick ...

keep in mind that I'm not even getting into how a 6% return on an investment that is tax free and has a guaranteed floor is way easier to get distribution ... than a more volatile investment vehicle that has earned 8% during the accumulation period..

[disneysteve]

Iul does not charge a fee based on your cash value

Really? There are zero expenses on the cash account? No management fees at all? I highly doubt that.

keep in mind that I'm not even getting into how a 6% return on an investment that is tax free and has a guaranteed floor is way easier to get distribution

Whole life is NOT an investment. It should not be sold or promoted as being an investment. And there have been huge successful lawsuits against the industry for misleading customers into believing it is an investment.

What typically happens to the cash value when you die? Does it all get paid out to the beneficiary along with the death benefit?

[Captain Save]

Really? There are zero expenses on the cash account? No management fees at all? I highly doubt that.



Whole life is NOT an investment. It should not be sold or promoted as being an investment. And there have been huge successful lawsuits against the industry for misleading customers into believing it is an investment.

What typically happens to the cash value when you die? Does it all get paid out to the beneficiary along with the death benefit?

Permanent life not being an "investment" is actually great for the consumer... it's all semantics.. because it's not considered an "investment" .. it cannot be taxed as such.. same thing with a dividend from the whole life policy.. the insurance company deems it as a "return of excess premium" ..therefore it cannnot be taxed as such.. the tax benefits are the greatest feature of a life insurance policy.. so the insurance industry will never want to lose that..

You may say that hurts the insurance company because they 're losing out on some sales because of the way it's marketed but the insurance company will lose even more if they lose that benefit.. the big corporations and banks buying policies (COLI and BOLI) will lose out ..and that will drastically hurt the business

as far as the cash value/death benefit question .. you have to make sure that if you 're buying a permanent policy as an investment .. it needs to be either a maximum funded IUL (the maximum the IRS will allow because it know it's a great savings (not "investment" lol ) vehicle ) or a blended whole life policy .. both of these reduce the death benefit as much as you can ... and as the cash value increases the DB does as well .. so if you started with a 200k policy and your cash value is now 100k .. your DB becomes 300k ... so technically you are not "getting the cash vaue" but your new DB is the cash value plus the initial death benefit anyway.. so again ..it's all semantics ..



I don't know what your policy is regarding posting links .. but there's a great podcasts from 2 people who used to be financial advisors and decided to leave after 2008 because they realize that their clients could not handle the volatility of the market .. PM me if you want to know what that is ... but you should definitely learn more about the intricacies of life insurance and make a decision rather than just accept the status quo from the mainstream media

It's not just the mainstream media hurting the industry .. LI agents do as well .. maximum funded IUL's and blended whole life .. decrease the insurance agent's commission .. so many agents don't sell it as they should ... in turn clients don't see the great benefit of it...

IUL will have a premium load fee a flat policy fee and a cost of insurance charge (which is not a fee because you're buying life insurance)


Edit: there's also the surrender charge if you cancel the policy early .. usually that goes away after the first 10 years

again when someone 's showing you an illustration . all those fees are already included .. (although there are still ways to embellish an illustration but I won't get into that)

[Petunia 100]

Permanent life not being an "investment" is actually great for the consumer... it's all semantics.. because it's not considered an "investment" .. it cannot be taxed as such.. same thing with a dividend from the whole life policy.. the insurance company deems it as a "return of excess premium" ..therefore it cannnot be taxed as such.. the tax benefits are the greatest feature of a life insurance policy.. so the insurance industry will never want to lose that..

It's not taxed because it is a return of your own money; it is not a profit. If you were to actually make a profit, it would be taxable. But no need to worry, that is not going to happen.

That's not a tax benefit, it is not some wonderful benefit provided to you courtesy of the insurance industry, and it does not magically make something a good investment.

I don't know what your policy is regarding posting links .. but there's a great podcasts from 2 people who used to be financial advisors and decided to leave after 2008 because they realize that their clients could not handle the volatility of the market ..

"Financial advisor" is just another term for salesperson. It is not any sort of credential. If a "financial advisor" has a real credential, such as CFP, they use it.

again when someone 's showing you an illustration . all those fees are already included .. (although there are still ways to embellish an illustration but I won't get into that)

An illustration is just that. It is not a guarantee. It does not even have to be likely to happen.

Why ARE you dredging up this old, already-beaten-to-death thread? You are merely reiterating the same old false sales pitches which everyone has heard many times before.

[Captain Save]

It's not taxed because it is a return of your own money; it is not a profit. If you were to actually make a profit, it would be taxable. But no need to worry, that is not going to happen.

That's not a tax benefit, it is not some wonderful benefit provided to you courtesy of the insurance industry, and it does not magically make something a good investment.




"Financial advisor" is just another term for salesperson. It is not any sort of credential. If a "financial advisor" has a real credential, such as CFP, they use it.



An illustration is just that. It is not a guarantee. It does not even have to be likely to happen.

Why ARE you dredging up this old, already-beaten-to-death thread? You are merely reiterating the same old false sales pitches which everyone has heard many times before.

1. Can we stop being so childish ... This is a discussion forum... I'm stating my opinion .. you can either agree or disagree but why try to be insulting.. how is what I say a sales pitch? did I ask anyone here to sign up for insurance or an investment product? Should I refrain from giving my opinion ?

2. as far as why I posted on an old thread... I believe Disney Steve has asked me the same question and I answered it so please reference to my previous post.''

3. I post and read with an open mind .. I can definitely learn from anyone in here .. I definitely don't know everything about saving, investments and insurance but I do know a lot of what has been said about IUL in this thread is false

now that we got that out of the way
- the gentlemen I speak of were working for broker/dealers who require them to be securities licensed and also sing up to be CFP's ..
- an illustration can be embellished on the non guaranteed side.. but there is definitely a guarantee specifically on whole life.. what is a guarantee of a Mutual fund? as far as IUL if an IUL is not doing too well ...best believe your index fund is probably doing a lot worse....
- if my rate of return over a 30 year period is 6% .. do I really care if you call it a profit or a return ... the fact of the matter is I put a sum of money and almost tripled it ... you can call it a loss for all I care..

[Petunia 100]

1. Can we stop being so childish ... This is a discussion forum... I'm stating my opinion .. you can either agree or disagree but why try to be insulting.. how is what I say a sales pitch? did I ask anyone here to sign up for insurance or an investment product? Should I refrain from giving my opinion ?

2. as far as why I posted on an old thread... I believe Disney Steve has asked me the same question and I answered it so please reference to my previous post.''

3. I post and read with an open mind .. I can definitely learn from anyone in here .. I definitely don't know everything about saving, investments and insurance but I do know a lot of what has been said about IUL in this thread is false

now that we got that out of the way
- the gentlemen I speak of were working for broker/dealers who require them to be securities licensed and also sing up to be CFP's ..
- an illustration can be embellished on the non guaranteed side.. but there is definitely a guarantee specifically on whole life.. what is a guarantee of a Mutual fund? as far as IUL if an IUL is not doing too well ...best believe your index fund is probably doing a lot worse....
- if my rate of return over a 30 year period is 6% .. do I really care if you call it a profit or a return ... the fact of the matter is I put a sum of money and almost tripled it ... you can call it a loss for all I care..

My goodness, stating facts is neither childish nor insulting.

Yes, you should refrain from giving your opinion on an old thread which was not started by you. If you would like to discuss a particular topic, you should start a new thread. That's basic forum etiquette.

[dczech09]

First of all - thank you for bringing up an old post that has already been addressed ad nauseam.

For educational purposes I will entertain this for a moment...

I'm sorry .. this is completely wrong..

an IUL will have more fees in the short term .. way less fees in later years... especially during retirement ..

if the purpose is retirement .. you want less fees during retirement..

Did you even read my posts that you quoted? Because if you did, you would have realized that I did address this.

These plans charge monthly fees which usually start out slightly larger, but will reduce later in the plans life.

If you are going say that I am completely wrong, then please provide facts to back up your accusations. Otherwise, you are the one being childish (your words, pal)

Also, the purpose of retirement is not to have less fees. The purpose is to live your life on your terms, and not outlive your money.

Most importantly when an agent presents an illustration .. the fees are included.

When an agent presents an illustration, the illustration is just that... an illustration. My 6 year old nephew could make an illustration!

These illustrations are rosy projections that are not supported by historical performances or fact. They are not even realistic.

"But the fees are included!" Sorry, but fees really do not matter when the rest of the illustration is unrealistic. If the projections cannot be supported, then the whole illustration is garbage, regardless of whether or not the fees are included.

When someone tells you they get you 8% on an IRA .. the fees are as a percentage of your total investment so it costs Way more in the long run .. .

Yes, mutual funds (which I personally invest in) cost money. In fact, they can cost quite a bit of money over a span of time. But that is why conventional wisdom is to try to avoid mutual funds with annual expense ratios exceeding 1%.

However, sometimes higher expense ratios can be worth it. For example, Mutual Fund A offers a 0.20% expense ratio and a historical annual return of 7% dating back to the 50's. Mutual Fund B offers a 1.20% expense ratio and a historical return of 10% dating back to the 50's. By comparison, you would still come out ahead with Mutual Fund B. In that case, the higher expense ratio may be worth it if the historical returns hit. Sure, historical performance is not indicative of the future, but at least mutual funds use REAL returns in their prospectuses (not the rosy one's quoted in life insurance illustrations).

Keep in mind when speaking about IUL we're talking about an overfunded IUL .. always.. if it's not overfunded up to or close to the MEC guideline .. stay away ..buy whole life

We understand what you are saying. If you would like, you could probably find other posts where I am beating the dead horse that is the Modified Endowment Contract (MEC)

Even so, such life insurance programs are garbage in comparison to "buy term and invest the difference." And I know what you are going to say... "no one invests the difference." And my rebuttal is that we need to work on MOTIVATING people to invest the difference, as opposed to offer a garbage financial product that only works if people will not invest the difference (and even then, not nearly as well).

This is why I am a workplace financial wellness professional. To make sure that people get the right information and are not sold bogus financial products that net the financial industry a lot of money and benefits the consumer to a lesser extent than less complex investment tools.

[disneysteve]

For educational purposes I will entertain this for a moment...

I'm willing to bet that this latest whole life shill won't be back.
I'm also willing to bet that soon enough, there will be another. It happens every few months.

[Captain Save]

First of all - thank you for bringing up an old post that has already been addressed ad nauseam.

For educational purposes I will entertain this for a moment...



Did you even read my posts that you quoted? Because if you did, you would have realized that I did address this.

These plans charge monthly fees which usually start out slightly larger, but will reduce later in the plans life.

If you are going say that I am completely wrong, then please provide facts to back up your accusations. Otherwise, you are the one being childish (your words, pal)

Also, the purpose of retirement is not to have less fees. The purpose is to live your life on your terms, and not outlive your money.



When an agent presents an illustration, the illustration is just that... an illustration. My 6 year old nephew could make an illustration!

These illustrations are rosy projections that are not supported by historical performances or fact. They are not even realistic.

"But the fees are included!" Sorry, but fees really do not matter when the rest of the illustration is unrealistic. If the projections cannot be supported, then the whole illustration is garbage, regardless of whether or not the fees are included.



Yes, mutual funds (which I personally invest in) cost money. In fact, they can cost quite a bit of money over a span of time. But that is why conventional wisdom is to try to avoid mutual funds with annual expense ratios exceeding 1%.

However, sometimes higher expense ratios can be worth it. For example, Mutual Fund A offers a 0.20% expense ratio and a historical annual return of 7% dating back to the 50's. Mutual Fund B offers a 1.20% expense ratio and a historical return of 10% dating back to the 50's. By comparison, you would still come out ahead with Mutual Fund B. In that case, the higher expense ratio may be worth it if the historical returns hit. Sure, historical performance is not indicative of the future, but at least mutual funds use REAL returns in their prospectuses (not the rosy one's quoted in life insurance illustrations).



We understand what you are saying. If you would like, you could probably find other posts where I am beating the dead horse that is the Modified Endowment Contract (MEC)

Even so, such life insurance programs are garbage in comparison to "buy term and invest the difference." And I know what you are going to say... "no one invests the difference." And my rebuttal is that we need to work on MOTIVATING people to invest the difference, as opposed to offer a garbage financial product that only works if people will not invest the difference (and even then, not nearly as well).

This is why I am a workplace financial wellness professional. To make sure that people get the right information and are not sold bogus financial products that net the financial industry a lot of money and benefits the consumer to a lesser extent than less complex investment tools.

I don't say "no one invests the difference" .. I don't need to bash investments to show the benefits of a cash value life insurance as a retirement tool... It does not have the principal risk while it can still net you a 6+ % after expenses...

an agent can embellish an illustration just like some financial advisor tells you he gets his clients 8 or 10% .. that's great but the data shows mutual fund investments actually get 4.67% from '95 to 2015 .. it's even worse for the 30 year period... Now of course the market got more upside potential but to say that an IUL or whole life designed properly is not a viable option considering the risk profile, the versatility and the tax benefits... is just ludicrous..
The reason why investors do so much worse compared to the S&P 500 is because of basic human behavior .. when there's a crisis .. people take money out or they change strategies... which ends up yielding less returns than the indices.. You take away that roller coaster ride with an IUL ..

To position IUL as a product with higher fees is wrong... that's the bottom line.. I would show you proof but my file exceeded the limit... I did a policy at a conservative 6% .. which is less than what an IUL would do from 2000-2015.. even though the 00's have not been the best time for the indices.. The expenses the first 10 years were really high as I mentioned but at age 70 they were .003% of the cash value .. this is exactly when you need the fees to be less ...
it's much easier to retire if you take the "sequence of return" risk out of the equation..
What happens if you're ready to retire and there's a market correction... can you survive a 40% dip.. .that's fine if you're still investing but if that happens during retirement .. you're done.. you have to go back to work buddy...

I rather take a 6 or even 5% return without risking much of my principal... and of course it doesn't mean that you should not invest in the market... but if you can't tolerate risk ..as the numbers show.. it should not be your 1st choice.. provided you're healthy and insurable

Edit: also no such thing as sub accounts on an IUL ... i think you're confusing it with variable universal life.. which are a lot riskier than IUL's

[Captain Save]

I'm willing to bet that this latest whole life shill won't be back.
I'm also willing to bet that soon enough, there will be another. It happens every few months.

Wrong...

[GoodSteward]

You sound like you've made up your mind and you are here to justify it Captin Save. If you want to "invest" into a life insurance policy go for it. However, You will not beat the system with that. You are not guaranteed anything other than you will overpay for life insurance and overpay on fees for an investment. If you die, your family only gets the face value and you loose all that guranteed stuff which means you just way overpaid on life insurance. Most people can't get the coverage they need because it costs too much with these stupid policies. That is what makes me the most angry.

You can't win with one of those plans. The more at risk the company is at HAVING to give you something they promosied, the more that is factored into the fee's they charge rasing the premiums. They simply don't work in your favor, only theirs. You either overpay for for life insurance if you ever use that side of it, or you overpay on fees for an investment if you make it and keep it. If you ever use the money you have to either borrow it at interest paid back to them(you think it is your money?), or you have to cash it out meaning you loose that until death do you part life insurance. I don't care what they show you, ask someone who kept it and see what it did compared to what it promsed, and what it would have done in your own account.

Anyway, I think this thing has been beat to death and you don't seem to be here to know if it is good, but rather try to prove why it is. Barking up the wrong tree my friend.

Here ya go. http://whitecoatinvestor.com/5-reaso...ife-insurance/

[Captain Save]

You sound like you've made up your mind and you are here to justify it Captin Save. If you want to "invest" into a life insurance policy go for it. However, You will not beat the system with that. You are not guaranteed anything other than you will overpay for life insurance and overpay on fees for an investment. If you die, your family only gets the face value and you loose all that guranteed stuff which means you just way overpaid on life insurance. Most people can't get the coverage they need because it costs too much with these stupid policies. That is what makes me the most angry.

You can't win with one of those plans. The more at risk the company is at HAVING to give you something they promosied, the more that is factored into the fee's they charge rasing the premiums. They simply don't work in your favor, only theirs. You either overpay for for life insurance if you ever use that side of it, or you overpay on fees for an investment if you make it and keep it. If you ever use the money you have to either borrow it at interest paid back to them(you think it is your money?), or you have to cash it out meaning you loose that until death do you part life insurance. I don't care what they show you, ask someone who kept it and see what it did compared to what it promsed, and what it would have done in your own account.

Anyway, I think this thing has been beat to death and you don't seem to be here to know if it is good, but rather try to prove why it is. Barking up the wrong tree my friend.

Here ya go. http://whitecoatinvestor.com/5-reaso...ife-insurance/

I'd like to think I'm pretty open to whatever someone has to say.. but this is not a matter of opinion... for example .. what you're saying about the death benefit + the cash value is wrong .. for an IUL to be designed correctly the death benefit needs to be an increasing death benefit.. what that means is that if you buy a policy for 500,000 and you build up a cash value of 100,000 your Death benefit becomes 600,000 so the notion that you only get the benefit is completely wrong..

There are situations where you benefit doesn't increase but the policy is not designed to optimize cash value.. it might have some cash value features .. but if I'm setting up a policy for retirment income . .the death benefit needs to be increasing in the retirement age..

There are definitely guarantees with permanent life insurance policies.. especially whole life.. (as opposed ot IUL) ... the guarantee is not great but it's basically saying if the s&P was to go negative for 30 years straight .. this is your guarantee...

The equivalent scenario for a mutual fund is that you could lose all your money ..

All the points you mention is the typical rebuttal that you get from securities advisors who benefit more from selling mutual funds than they do Life insurance policies .. now I applaud you guys from breaking away from these advisors and taking matters into your own hands but you have to "unlearn" the industry tag lines and learn how life insurance policies work first from a neutral party ...

There is plenty wrong with the life insurance industry but a well designed IUL and a well designed blended dividend paying whole life policy is really one of the best safe investments you can make..


A quick note on the loans.. The best loans you should look for is what they call a Zero net cost loan ... it means if you have a 1million cash value.. you borrow 50,000 a year for your retirment .. (5% way better than the 3 or 4% rule) .. the insurance company will take 50000 + interest from your cash value .. however your cash value is also earning the same amount of interest... 5 % of 50000is $2500 but you're earning 5% of 1million which is 50000 ...

How will you run out of money?? it's the best option for distribution of income in retirement..

[GoodSteward]

I'd like to think I'm pretty open to whatever someone has to say.. but this is not a matter of opinion... for example .. what you're saying about the death benefit + the cash value is wrong .. for an IUL to be designed correctly the death benefit needs to be an increasing death benefit.. what that means is that if you buy a policy for 500,000 and you build up a cash value of 100,000 your Death benefit becomes 600,000 so the notion that you only get the benefit is completely wrong..

There are situations where you benefit doesn't increase but the policy is not designed to optimize cash value.. it might have some cash value features .. but if I'm setting up a policy for retirment income . .the death benefit needs to be increasing in the retirement age..

There are definitely guarantees with permanent life insurance policies.. especially whole life.. (as opposed ot IUL) ... the guarantee is not great but it's basically saying if the s&P was to go negative for 30 years straight .. this is your guarantee...

The equivalent scenario for a mutual fund is that you could lose all your money ..

All the points you mention is the typical rebuttal that you get from securities advisors who benefit more from selling mutual funds than they do Life insurance policies .. now I applaud you guys from breaking away from these advisors and taking matters into your own hands but you have to "unlearn" the industry tag lines and learn how life insurance policies work first from a neutral party ...

There is plenty wrong with the life insurance industry but a well designed IUL and a well designed blended dividend paying whole life policy is really one of the best safe investments you can make..


A quick note on the loans.. The best loans you should look for is what they call a Zero net cost loan ... it means if you have a 1million cash value.. you borrow 50,000 a year for your retirment .. (5% way better than the 3 or 4% rule) .. the insurance company will take 50000 + interest from your cash value .. however your cash value is also earning the same amount of interest... 5 % of 50000is $2500 but you're earning 5% of 1million which is 50000 ...

How will you run out of money?? it's the best option for distribution of income in retirement..

It wasn't meant as an insult to say you have made up your mind, but when you have you really aren't open minded. Just how we work. I've done the same thing here before with other things.

Now, I hold a life insurance license and I only sold term. Most agents push these not beacuse they are better for you. They push them because they are better for them. They get a much higher, yearly reup on the payment where as term you only get a smaller one time payment up front. You don't have to to understand all the details, because they do all have the same basic bad features.

I will list why I do not like these types of policies.

1. You set yourself up to be broke. Most people buy all these permanent policies for no reason if they plan to actually build a retirement. Why do you need a 500k$ life insurance policiy if you have over 1 million in the bank? You are paying massive premiums for no reason. For the average person it gives a false sense of preparedment thinking they are good to go with these. They simply do not perform as they advertise.

2. Most don't buy enough coverage because they can't afford it on these poilices. Sold by the idea of bundling investments with life insurance the premiums are so outrageous most are under insured to be able to have one. The average american cant' afford a stupid high 2k$ or 3k$ premium for proper coverage to buy into one of these, and those who can are not aware of what they actually bought.

3. I've never met a single person who kept these that actually performed like they were advertised, and that did anywhere near as good as the market.

4. UL policies do cover better than normal whole life, but only on a plan B can you get your Cash and DB. Those are even higher in payments. And in the end a UL will never, ever, give you the results you get investing in an index fund or even a mutual fund. You are paying massive fees in the form of a high premium in return for a guaranteed low return investment. They have caps btw. Just because the maket does fabulous one year doesn't mean you get in on that. They will cap it. They have built in protections to keep money in their pocket.

How will you run out of money?? it's the best option for distribution of income in retirement..

You forget you still have that payment to make. If you have a 3k$ a MONTH payment, you are far from an unlimited stream of money unless you plan to live like you never saved a thing. Trust me, they win...not you.

Your examples are simply unrealistic, btw. I get the point but if the market was negative for 30 years we wouldn't be American anymore. We'd be China. And that company sure wouldn't be in business because they make money on investing your money just like a bank does. Everything requries that the market does well, overall. If that fails, everything fails. No guarantees.

[Captain Save]

It wasn't meant as an insult to say you have made up your mind, but when you have you really aren't open minded. Just how we work. I've done the same thing here before with other things.

Now, I hold a life insurance license and I only sold term. Most agents push these not beacuse they are better for you. They push them because they are better for them. They get a much higher, yearly reup on the payment where as term you only get a smaller one time payment up front. You don't have to to understand all the details, because they do all have the same basic bad features.

I will list why I do not like these types of policies.

1. You set yourself up to be broke. Most people buy all these permanent policies for no reason if they plan to actually build a retirement. Why do you need a 500k$ life insurance policiy if you have over 1 million in the bank? You are paying massive premiums for no reason. For the average person it gives a false sense of preparedment thinking they are good to go with these. They simply do not perform as they advertise.

2. Most don't buy enough coverage because they can't afford it on these poilices. Sold by the idea of bundling investments with life insurance the premiums are so outrageous most are under insured to be able to have one. The average american cant' afford a stupid high 2k$ or 3k$ premium for proper coverage to buy into one of these, and those who can are not aware of what they actually bought.

3. I've never met a single person who kept these that actually performed like they were advertised, and that did anywhere near as good as the market.

4. UL policies do cover better than normal whole life, but only on a plan B can you get your Cash and DB. Those are even higher in payments. And in the end a UL will never, ever, give you the results you get investing in an index fund or even a mutual fund. You are paying massive fees in the form of a high premium in return for a guaranteed low return investment. They have caps btw. Just because the maket does fabulous one year doesn't mean you get in on that. They will cap it. They have built in protections to keep money in their pocket.


You forget you still have that payment to make. If you have a 3k$ a MONTH payment, you are far from an unlimited stream of money unless you plan to live like you never saved a thing. Trust me, they win...not you.

Your examples are simply unrealistic, btw. I get the point but if the market was negative for 30 years we wouldn't be American anymore. We'd be China. And that company sure wouldn't be in business because they make money on investing your money just like a bank does. Everything requries that the market does well, overall. If that fails, everything fails. No guarantees.

-.. you don't ahve to make a payment .. this is not an opinion .. it's facts.. when you ready to retire .. there are many options available depending on the policy .. you can have a limited pay policy like a 20 year pay or 10 year pay etc.. or you can decide to do what they call a Reduced paid up .. where your policy is considered paid up . but many times it's better to just have the cash value pay for the policy because you're earning a lot more on the interest anyway..



- if you have a 1million dollar in an IRA .. and you take out the recommended 4% .. .then 2008 happens.. what do you do .. do you take out 4% of 1million the next year or 4 % of the 6-700k you're left with .. wouldn't it be better to have 800k in a policy that's doesn't have that risk..

It's good to have a peace of mind in retirement

- See ..I like logical thinking.. yes you are probably right if the market goes down for 30 years ..we'd have a much bigger problem than our retirement and insurance policies ..but relative to a mutual fund .. it's a different risk profile.. just like bonds are a different risk profile to stocks.. the insurance companies primarily invest in bonds .. but there is always a domino effect if the indices are struggling..