The guaranteed values would be accurate if you paid the premiums exactly as the original illustration assumed.I might have misunderstood the verbiage in the policy, but can even their guaranteed amounts be inaccurate? The policy was purchased in 2011 so it was when interest rates were very low. I had always assumed up to this point that the "current" value quoted probably wouldn't happen, but that I always could count on the "guaranteed" tables. These universal life policies are so complicated and most of the math inside of them seems hidden... This is one of the reasons I that I detest this policy, but I'm stuck with it because I'm not insurable now. A pal of my father was an insurance salesman when i was in college and told me and my dad this was the best policy for me. I was none the wiser back then and didn't argue. We could have got quadruple the coverage on a 30 year term policy compared to this one.
My employer offers term coverage that while more expensive than a normal term policy would still be cheaper than this one. One option would be to cancel this one and get my employer's term insurance, but my fear is what would happen if I lost my job. The workplace insurance policy says that it can be moved to a different agency if employment ends, but I'm sure that the rates would be through the roof after that transfer with the new agency.
But that’s neither here nor there. You need a current illustration. And you should be able to reasonably rely on the “current” values in the illustration, especially if the policy is currently crediting the guaranteed interest rate or something close to it.
I wouldn’t be a fan of lapsing the UL policy and depending on employer term life for your coverage. You identify the risk correctly - if you leave your employer and are forced to “convert” to an individual policy to maintain coverage, it will likely be an even worse deal than what you have now.
Statistics: Posted by Stinky — Sun Mar 03, 2024 5:47 pm — Replies 11 — Views 399