Today's episode revolves around a discussion of the LEAP system and how it contributed to the revocation of an insurance agent's license.
An agent in Ohio had his insurance license revoked after using the LEAP system to sell life insurance as an investment. Now, this happened back in April 2016, so I wouldn't consider it breaking news, however, it's still a discussion worth having.
At the core of our episode…is LEAP the real problem (as depicted) or did the agent lose his license because the policies he sold were structured incorrectly?
The headlines and structure of the case documents themselves would lead you to believe that LEAP is the core of the problem but we're not so sure about that. You have to read between the lines on this one and look harder at the actual numbers revealed in the case to reverse engineer what REALLY happened.
Please note: This episode is not intended to disparage the use of LEAP or any other methodology for selling life insurance. We believe the actual problem in this case is that the former agent represented the life insurance as functioning one way and delivered something completely different.
In fact, if you want to better understand how this sort of thing actually happens, I encourage you to read a piece we published several years ago, The Third Dimension of Cash Value Life Insurance. It will shed some light on how this sort of thing happens.
We often hear stories of sorrow regarding evil life insurance companies.
Stories that depict how a person paid thousands of dollars in premium only to have the insurance company steal all their cash and cancel their coverage.
But does it really happen that way?
Anything is possible I suppose, however, when we took a look at a couple of whole life insurance policies that have not been paid as planned over the years we discovered something a bit different.
Turns out that participating whole life is indeed a special product that can “limp” along for years while the client pays a fraction of what was the initial planned premium.
Hmmm…that doesn't align with the stories of woe we see the media reporting, in fact, its pretty amazing.
But how and why does it work that way?
Listen to find out.
How could life insurance fit into your overall retirement income plan? That's what episode 67 is all about. For most people going forward, relying on pensions to form a stable foundation for their retirement will not be an option.
That means that most will be faced with two income sources:
- Social Security
- Income generated from investment portfolio (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs, real estate etc.)
Some have suggested that if you just follow the 4% rule everything will work out fine. We believe that's way oversimplified and fails to take into account the substantial risk posed by having significant drawdowns in your portfolio during the early years of your retirement.
Why not be a bit more selective in how you choose to take income and perhaps consider using cash value life insurance as a foundational component of the strategy?
It's been a while since we've done any sort of FAQ episode. So, today we remedy that with three of the most commonly asked questions we get about life insurance policy design when seeking cash accumulation as your primary goal.
We answer the following questions:
- What is the 7 pay test and is it okay to fund my policy right up to the limit?
- If my policy illustration shows that my policy becomes a MEC in 52 years (for example) should I be worried when I'm only planning to fund it for 15 years?
- What's the worse case scenario if for some unknown reason I can't pay my premium in any given year? Does this ruin everything?
Over the last few years…basically since the beginning of the Insurance Pro Blog going back to the summer of 2011, we've been preaching the gospel of whole life insurance.
Sure, there have been plenty of people who've come along to tell us how wrong we are and how a simple investment in an index fund could certainly outperform the return on the cash value of a whole life insurance policy.
To this, we've never disagreed.
Yes, in fact, we too believe that a long term investment in stocks or equity funds of any kind should…outperform the return on cash in a whole life policy. But that's kind of like us all agreeing we'd live a much longer and healthier life if we only ate raw vegetables and less prime rib smothered in butter.
Data is one thing, human behavior is another altogether.
Our point is that while average annual returns for various index funds and the indices themselves look great, most people aren't able to achieve returns anywhere close to those numbers.
Here's a more detailed rundown of the key points from the DALBAR report:
- In 2016, the average equity mutual fund investor underperformed the S&P 500 by a
margin of 4.70%. While the broader market made gains of 11.96%, the average equity
investor earned only 7.26%.
- In 2016, the average fixed income mutual fund investor outperformed the Bloomberg
Barclays Aggregate Bond Index by a margin of 0.19%. The broader bond market realized a
slight return of 1.04% while the average fixed income fund investor earned 1.23%.
- Equity fund retention rates decreased in 2016 from 4.10 years to 3.80 years.
- Fixed Income retention rates increased by almost 2 months in 2016, from 2.93 to
3.09, eclipsing the 3.0 year mark for the first time since 2012.
- Asset allocation funds experienced the a significant decline of retention rates in 2016. The
average retention rate shortened by over 5 months, decreasing from 4.53 to 4.09.
- In 2016, the 20-year annualized S&P return was 7.68% while the 20-year annualized return for
the Average Equity Fund Investor was only 4.79%, a gap of 2.89% annualized.
- The gap between the 20-year annualized return of the Average Equity Fund Investor and
the S&P 500 continued to contract in 2016 (from 3.52% in 2015 to 2.89% in 2016).
Just further proof that behavior rarely aligns with reality.
Psychology and emotion play a very large part in long term financial success. It's better to build a plan to “control the control-ables”. It's not sexy, it involves more planning and probably requires you to save more money because you're accepting a plan based on lower average returns.
But in the end, if you plan conservatively, and end up with more money, you'll be happier than if you over-project higher than average returns and miss your target. I've yet to have anyone complain that they had too much money.
You can't buy groceries with average annual returns. And averages also mean that half the people get less than average returns. How do you know you'll be average or better?
If we've done our job effectively and you feel like this is a concept that you'd like to explore for yourself, feel free to reach out to us, by contacting us here.
A million bucks ain't what it used to be. There is a movement afoot to liberate people from their life of indentured service aka “a job”. While we believe it's a noble pursuit to pursue financial freedom–having a passive income that exceeds your living expenses–we also feel that people are going to need more money than they think to safely make this happen.
That's what we're discussing in today's episode.
According to all media reports and the long fought battle around the Department of Labor's new “Fiduciary Rule”, fixed indexed annuities are evil. If that's so…why are more people than ever choosing to purchase them?
Based on recently released numbers from 2016, sales of fixed annuities are on the rise. Here are some of the highlights:
- Total fixed annuity sales for 2016–$117.4 billion, 14 percent higher than 2015
- Fixed indexed annuity sales were up 12% to a total of $60.9 billion
- Fixed deferred rate annuity sales $38.7 billion, an increase of 25% over 2015
- Fixed immediate income annuity sales only grew 1% to $9.2 billion
- Deferred income annuity (DIA) sales increased by 4% to $2.8 billion
- Variable annuity sales continue to falter, down to $104.7 billion from their peak in 2007 of nearly $190 billion
But why would we even care? And more importantly why would you?
Opponents of fixed annuity products have been on the warpath the last few years which has culminated in the Department of Labor's “fiduciary rule”. Without getting lost in the minutiae, the thrust has been to convince the public that the only reason someone would ever buy an annuity (in particular a fixed indexed annuity) is that a crafty insurance salesperson snookered them.
Because you know, everyone who earns a commission for making a sale is evil…right?
We're veering off course slightly this week to discuss long term care insurance.
The recent decision to finally allow the beleaguered long term care insurance company, Penn Treaty (not to be confused with Penn Mutual) to be liquidated, sparked a need to discuss the ongoing issues with long term care insurance in general.
We are asked about long term care insurance on occasion and we certainly think using the product is a good idea for some people.
However, there continues to be turmoil in the industry at large as to what sort of premiums need to be paid to sustain these products over the long term.
The jury is still out on that matter obviously as we see fewer and fewer companies in the business of issuing new long term care insurance policies and substantial increases on existing blocks of business continue to increase.
To be clear, we're not talking about long term care insurance benefits that sit atop a life insurance chassis. There a handful of options that do this quite well.
In today's episode we're strictly dealing with the issues associated with what we call “traditional long term care insurance”. These products require a premium paid monthly or annually strictly for use as insurance to provide long term care benefits.
It's honestly a bit shameful that we produce a podcast for well over a year that has life insurance as its primary subject and we've yet to discuss the subject of life insurance premium financing.
Well, that stops today.
With one caveat…
Please keep in mind that this is a complex topic with many moving parts and we can hardly do it justice in a half hour. We are merely scratching the surface with how it works and when it may be an appropriate solution.
In the future we may discuss in more detail some of the misapplication of premium financing.
Do you have experience with using premium financing to fund life insurance? We'd like to hear from you We'd like to hear from you–contact us here.
If you believe the government needs to figure out a way to help you better fund your retirement, you probably should just skip this episode. On the other hand, if you'd like to hear us discuss a recent survey regarding retirement preparedness and how 80% of Americans believe the government needs to fix their problem, you're in for a treat.
Here are some other useful statistics from the survey results compiled by Greenwald & Associates for teh National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS):
- The perceived “retirement crisis” is not a partisan issue– among the 800 people surveyed, 83% of Democrats and 72% percent of Republicans favor state-sponsored retirement savings plans for those who are not offered work sponsored plans.
- Government spending cuts that might lead to a reduction in Social Security benefits are highly unpopular as 76% said no to that suggestion.
- 80% of survey respondents say the average worker “cannot save enough on their own to guarantee a secure retirement”
- Making sure that Americans have a secure retirement should more of priority according to 88% of those surveyed.
Wow…just curious, what do you think about this? Please let us know.