[quote=deekay]

I stopped reading after the first paragraph.  To compare Ameriprise to NWM is like comparing dog crap to filet. 

[quote=AllREIT] [quote=deekay]

I stopped reading after the first paragraph.  To compare Ameriprise to NWM is like comparing dog crap to filet. 

[/quote]

I think of it more like Whiskas to Alpo. NWM is a bit cultish and wheras AMP is "Sell VUL ask questions later", NWM is "Sell WL, ask questions later"
[/quote]

Do you even know how WL works?  If you did, you would not make it seem like a rep selling it is doing a bad thing.  Very Unreliable Life is one thing, but whole life insurance is the cornerstone of a sound financial plan.

[quote=blarmston]

Blarnstorm,

Deekay is completely on target with his comments.  Sure, NML reps have a strong emphasis on insurance, but don't forget that NML reps are associated with the 5th or 6th largest Indy B/D and they have the ability to do everything that everyone else does.

Well, than I stand corrected... I guess I truly have no idea the NML capabilities- I have NEVER had to compete against them, let alone knew of a qualified prospect who had them...

[/quote]

Different markets, for sure.  Just like you normally won't hear of a NWM rep competing for a $1m investment case, you'll never hear, "Oh, thanks for the DI quote, I'm waiting to hear from my ML guy before going further."

The thing is, this guy is getting right out of college.  There aren't too many folks who are going to let him manage huge assets.  At the same time, he can help folks by placing badly needed insurance, and learn the ropes of investments at the same time.

[quote=AllREIT] [quote=deekay]

I stopped reading after the first paragraph.  To compare Ameriprise to NWM is like comparing dog crap to filet. 

[/quote]

I think of it more like Whiskas to Alpo. NWM is a bit cultish and wheras AMP is "Sell VUL ask questions later", NWM is "Sell WL, ask questions later"
[/quote]

By the way, NWM is one of the largest sellers of term insurance as well.  But of course, you'd never let some facts get in the way of your far-reaching generalities, would you?

FTR - I don't work for NWM, but they've got some advisors over there that are top notch. 

[quote=anonymous]

2) It is almost never in the client’s best interest to 1035 the cash value of an existing WL policy into a new policy.

NWM is definitely cultish.  They are a phenomenal company.  There may not be a more financially secure company in any industry in the U.S.  This does not mean that they are a great company to have as your employer.

By the way, NWM is one of the largest sellers of term insurance as well.

Very true.  It is seldom that I run across someone who has NMW WL who doesn't also have significant amounts of NMW term insurance.  This, by the way, is the reason why they don't necessarily make a good place to be employed.  If you leave the company, it is very possible that you'll have tens of millions of term insurance on the books that would be easy conversion sales that you can no longer convert.  There are advantages to working for companies that accept brokered business.  NWM is not one of these companies.

Deekay is correct that many NWM reps are top notch.   They absolutely have the ability to work with the

I also don't work for NWM, but I will say that they are the firm that I least like to be in competition against.

Why not?  Older client, higher rates?

Higher rates are on the new contract.  On the older contract, he is still paying the rates of a 25 year old, or however old he was when he purchased the coverage.

I guarantee that he is taking a WL and moving it into a UL and comparing the first year death benefit and using that to come to the conclusion that it makes sense to 1035 into a new policy.

[quote=anonymous]

Why not?  Older client, higher rates?

Higher rates are on the new contract.  On the older contract, he is still paying the rates of a 25 year old, or however old he was when he purchased the coverage.

I guarantee that he is taking a WL and moving it into a UL and comparing the first year death benefit and using that to come to the conclusion that it makes sense to 1035 into a new policy.

[/quote]

Well, it could make sense if this is purely a DB sale (i.e. the client is very old, GUL could make sense).  However, it sounds like the client has held the WL policy for a long time, thus has a significant CSV built up.  But to bring it to another WL policy makes no sense.  Hence, your comment about a little knowledge being dangerous....

[quote=deekay]

Do you even know how WL works?  If you did, you
would not make it seem like a rep selling it is doing a bad
thing.  Very Unreliable Life is one thing, but whole life
insurance is the cornerstone of a sound financial plan.

AllReit, it even makes more sense at 24.

Deekay,

Even if it is purely a death benefit sale, it probably doesn't make sense to 1035 an existing older WL into a GUL.

[quote=AllREIT] [quote=deekay]

Do you even know how WL works?  If you did, you would not make it seem like a rep selling it is doing a bad thing.  Very Unreliable Life is one thing, but whole life insurance is the cornerstone of a sound financial plan.

[/quote]

Especially when you are 25. Back to toy gun producers for you.
[/quote]

It's good to know there are reps like you out there.  It makes my job alot easier when I'm able to blow up your theories of financial planning.

[quote=anonymous]

Deekay,

Even if it is purely a death benefit sale, it probably doesn't make sense to 1035 an existing older WL into a GUL.

Is everyone talking about annuities again?

busy weekend. sorry for delay.

client was 77 had 82k CV with a DB of 87k, not much leverage there.  IMO insurance is about leverage.  dividends were paying premiums and the DB was rising slowly each year.  Contract dated 1982 or so.  Also, client has with me 800k in stocks/bonds/cash in a trust and owns no other life insurance. 

I saw three primary options, 1. keep existing policy for DB since no need on the CV side, 2. cancel policy, but the DB is ok, so ruled out quickly or 3. utilize the CV client does not need to leverage up DB.  Chose option 3 and 1035’d to a hartford GUL with little CV but 151k DB.

had the outside rep show 3 quotes and another was better, but client went with the name recognition of hartford.  Of the insurance I 1035, most is these situations for older client with a more modern insurance need and the CV needs to be reviewed vs other assets. 

The only other time I 1035 is on the younger, under insured client I see come from a NWM, massM, Countrywide with 250k term and a 50-100k WL, yet the real need is about 750k or more in DB protection.  When I re-run these quotes I often hear the client tell me something like “I told my guy I had X to spend and it came out about that amount”.  Of course they solved the WL big commish first and sprinkled in some term to make it look better.  Should be the other way. I see a lot of this with friends of mine I avoided my rookie years.

[quote=FreeLunch]Is everyone talking about annuities again?[/quote]

Did you even bother to read the previous posts?  Or are you going to spout off on yet another topic you are unqualified to speak of?

[quote=GoingIndy????]busy weekend. sorry for delay.

client was 77 had 82k CV with a DB of 87k, not much leverage there.  IMO insurance is about leverage.  dividends were paying premiums and the DB was rising slowly each year.  Contract dated 1982 or so.  Also, client has with me 800k in stocks/bonds/cash in a trust and owns no other life insurance. 
I disagree.  Insurance is about protection, promises, and guarantees.  A nice by-product is that insurance enhances other assets a client may have. 

I saw three primary options, 1. keep existing policy for DB since no need on the CV side, 2. cancel policy, but the DB is ok, so ruled out quickly or 3. utilize the CV client does not need to leverage up DB.  Chose option 3 and 1035'd to a hartford GUL with little CV but 151k DB.

I am curious to find out why the client wants a higher DB?  Is this part of an estate planning issue? 

had the outside rep show 3 quotes and another was better, but client went with the name recognition of hartford.  Of the insurance I 1035, most is these situations for older client with a more modern insurance need and the CV needs to be reviewed vs other assets. 

Define 'better'.  IMO, your client was correct in going with an insurer that has a strong financial foundation.  Even though I'm not sure he took that into account. 

The only other time I 1035 is on the younger, under insured client I see come from a NWM, massM, Countrywide with 250k term and a 50-100k WL, yet the real need is about 750k or more in DB protection.  When I re-run these quotes I often hear the client tell me something like "I told my guy I had X to spend and it came out about that amount".  Of course they solved the WL big commish first and sprinkled in some term to make it look better.  Should be the other way. I see a lot of this with friends of mine I avoided my rookie years.

I agree with you completely.  As an advisor, we need to first get the client the most amount of insurance the client qualifies for, THEN pick the solution that best fits into their budget. 
[/quote]

[quote=deekay]

[quote=GoingIndy???]busy weekend. sorry for delay.

client was 77 had 82k CV with a DB of 87k, not much leverage there.  IMO insurance is about leverage.  dividends were paying premiums and the DB was rising slowly each year.  Contract dated 1982 or so.  Also, client has with me 800k in stocks/bonds/cash in a trust and owns no other life insurance. 
I disagree.  Insurance is about protection, promises, and guarantees.  A nice by-product is that insurance enhances other assets a client may have. 

I saw three primary options, 1. keep existing policy for DB since no need on the CV side, 2. cancel policy, but the DB is ok, so ruled out quickly or 3. utilize the CV client does not need to leverage up DB.  Chose option 3 and 1035'd to a hartford GUL with little CV but 151k DB.

I am curious to find out why the client wants a higher DB?  Is this part of an estate planning issue? 

had the outside rep show 3 quotes and another was better, but client went with the name recognition of hartford.  Of the insurance I 1035, most is these situations for older client with a more modern insurance need and the CV needs to be reviewed vs other assets. 

Define 'better'.  IMO, your client was correct in going with an insurer that has a strong financial foundation.  Even though I'm not sure he took that into account. 

The only other time I 1035 is on the younger, under insured client I see come from a NWM, massM, Countrywide with 250k term and a 50-100k WL, yet the real need is about 750k or more in DB protection.  When I re-run these quotes I often hear the client tell me something like "I told my guy I had X to spend and it came out about that amount".  Of course they solved the WL big commish first and sprinkled in some term to make it look better.  Should be the other way. I see a lot of this with friends of mine I avoided my rookie years.

I agree with you completely.  As an advisor, we need to first get the client the most amount of insurance the client qualifies for, THEN pick the solution that best fits into their budget. 
[/quote]

My apologies deekay-it was Anon who said it was “almost never” good to 1035 CSV out of an old WL policy to increase the DB.

I’d still like to know what is wrong with that.  Not trying to confront, per se, but rather to learn.

client was 77 had 82k CV with a DB of 87k,

These numbers don't sound kosher.  I have no idea how the CV and the DB can only be within 5K of each other on a 20 year old policy.

Joedabrkr, the reason is that if you look at the #'s, they won't work.   Don't forget that the death benefit of the WL policy will keep growing every year.  In other words, you are only increasing the DB if the person dies well before life expectancy.   Conceptually, if the numbers do work and the person has no use for the CSV, then I don't have a problem with it.

That being said, I believe that the CSV has tremendous value and should be used.   For example, if someone has a CSV of $82,000, they can look at that as conservative money which in turn will allow them to take an additional $82,000 and invest it aggressively.  Wouldn't it help Goindy's client to take the money that is in cash and invest it more aggressively since he can access the life insurance CSV?