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


media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us


Close [x]

Industry News


  • Industry Articles (16,283)
  • Industry Conferences (3)
  • Industry Job Openings (9)
  • Negative Media (138)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (605)
  • Sheryl's Blogs (171)
  • Wink's Articles (235)
  • Wink's Blogs (216)
  • Wink's Press Releases (94)
  • Blog Archives

  • 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
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • A Firestorm Is Brewing For Indexed UL

    January 9, 2010 by Sheryl J. Moore

    Published 7/16/2009 

    If you ask me, indexed universal life insurance is the perfect life insurance product. It’s permanent, it can never lose value as a result of market declines, and it has the potential to earn greater interest than traditional UL products.

    However, some alarming trends are occurring in this market that needs attention—and correction.

    If not addressed now, these issues will surely catch the eye of lawyers, legislators, and outside regulatory entities, for IUL’s problems are very similar to those plaguing the index annuity industry in recent years.

    To unpack this, one must understand the differences between types of UL plans. Traditional UL is a type of fixed life insurance that is regulated by the state insurance divisions. It credits a minimum guaranteed interest rate, as well as a stated fixed interest rate on an annual basis. It is generally known for its high guarantees, and steady, lower credited rates.

    IUL is also a type of fixed life insurance, regulated by the insurance divisions. It credits a minimum guarantee usually less than annually, although there is an annual 0% floor on all IUL plans. The credited interest rate on IUL is based on the performance of an outside index, such as the Standard and Poor’s 500 (S&P 500). Potential index interest is limited through the use of participation rates or caps.

    IUL is generally known for its lower guarantees, but also for its ability to earn interest that is higher than that found in traditional UL (although it may be on an inconsistent basis).

    Variable UL, by contrast, is a type of securities product that is regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. VUL typically has no minimum guarantee, except on any fixed bucket strategies. The credited interest rate on a VUL is based on the performance of stocks, bonds, or mutual funds that the consumer selects.

    Consumers cannot lose any of the money they have in a fixed UL or IUL as a result of market performance, but they could lose funds in a VUL as a result of market performance.

    The problems with IUL all boil down to one single issue: illustrated rates.

    What is an illustrated rate? First, recall that an illustration is a projection of future policy values; it answers the question, “what will my policy cash values and death benefit be in [20] years?” The National Association of Insurance Commissioners mandates that all permanent life insurance policies must have an illustration that is signed by the purchaser at point-of-sale.

    The “illustrated rate” on the illustration is the interest rate at which the policy values are projected.

    For traditional UL, the illustrated rate is the current credited interest rate on the policy (presently 4%-5.5%). This rate represents what the insurance company is currently crediting on the UL for new business. In-force ULs may receive higher or lower renewal rates. However, most ULs sold today are illustrated at a rate that is constant throughout the policy.

    For VUL policies, the illustrated rate is a hypothetical gross rate (presently 8%, but cannot exceed 12%, as per the Securities and Exchange Commission). This rate is supposed to be a reasonable expectation of what the VUL may be credited as a result of market, fund, or bond performance (based on the policyholder’s premium allocation).

    Here again, VULs may receive a higher or lower rate in future policy years, but most VULs sold today are illustrated at a consistent rate throughout the policy.

    For IULs, the illustrated rate is a hypothetical rate selected by the insurance company. This rate is supposed to be a reasonable expectation of what the IUL may be credited as a result of the outside index’s performance. Although IUL illustrations may assume a varying rate in the early years, this rate usually levels out to a constant illustrated rate in later policy durations.

    Keep in mind that IULs are priced to return about 1%-2% greater interest potential than traditional fixed UL, so a reasonable expectation is that today’s IUL credited rates would be 6.5%-7.5% at best.

    The concept of illustrated rates is important because interest-sensitive life insurance products, such as UL, IUL, and VUL, can have dramatically different policy performance compared to what is illustrated at point-of-sale. Changing renewal rates, premium payments, policy loans and withdrawals all have an effect on future policy values. Consumers may not realize how dramatically their future policy values can change from what was illustrated to them at policy purchase.

    While most VUL policies are compared on an even keel at 8%, the fixed and indexed UL markets have become victims to a numbers game.

    The fixed and indexed products are nearly impossible to compare on an apples-to-apples basis, making judgment of the insurance charges nearly unattainable for purchaser and agent.

    The IUL market in particular has become a “race” to illustrate the highest policy values, with some plans illustrating as high as 10.58%. (To be fair, a few companies are illustrating at rates as low as 4.19 %.)

    Insurance agents across the country are looking for products that can illustrate the highest cash values and death benefits, while losing sight of the fact that actual policy results may be different than illustrated. In fact, from the day any interest-sensitive policy is sold, what is illustrated will never come to fruition. After all, what is the likelihood that interest rates, premium payments, and loan rates will never vary?

    Even more alarming is the recent trend for insurance companies to reduce IUL policy minimum guarantees to 0%, in order to maintain higher illustrated rates in today’s low-interest rate environment. These policies will never receive a guaranteed minimum interest rate other than zero!

    Those who remember how blocks of UL business were illustrated at 12% in the 1980s can comprehend the firestorm that awaits IUL. Those old ULs are now crediting their minimum guaranteed 3% and 4% rates, not the double-digit returns illustrated at time of purchase. Hundreds of thousands of underfunded ULs have lapsed, and many policyholders have lost their insurance. (Don’t forget how difficult it can be to qualify for preferred underwriting, if a person needs new insurance in the event of an underfunded policy.) Many class action suits have ensued.

    To avoid similar scenarios involving IUL, the NAIC needs merely to adopt standardizations for IUL illustrated rates.

    Is there any reason why insurance companies should be using 11 different methods for calculating IUL illustrated rates? Whether it be a 20-year look-back of the S&P 500 or a 54-year guideline, the buyer still does not know what the actual credited interest will be on any IUL.

    Furthermore, why should insurance companies have the discretion to select which method they will use to calculate their IUL illustrated rates? In a market where companies are vying for the same distributors and policyholders, doesn’t it seem like a conflict of interest to allow methods that perpetuate cherry-picking the most favorable calculations?

    My suggestion is: Since no one knows what the actual credited rates on IUL plans will be, there should be enforcement of a maximum illustrated rate of 8%.

    No one knows what percentage will get credited to VUL policies, and these policies must be illustrated at a flat illustrated rate as well. This is not to say that IUL is a securities product; rather, it merely recognizes that the credited rate is unknown on both types of insurance.

    An 8% proposed illustrated rate is reasonable as compared to traditional UL’s 6.5% illustrated rates. It is also feasible as compared to VUL’s 8%-10% rates.

    There is no reason why a fixed insurance product should be illustrating at a rate of over 10%, when products without similar principal protection features are being illustrated below 8%.

    Ultimately, insurance companies should have the ability to offer illustrated rates that are lower than 8% on their IUL plans should they wish, but maximum illustrated rates should be strictly enforced.

    Standardization of illustrated rates on IUL would aid insurance agents who sell these products, by providing them with the ability to compare different plans on the same basis. Let insurance charges speak for themselves on IUL.

    Standardization would also provide more reasonable expectations of actual IUL policy performance. I love this product; I don’t want to see it harmed irreparably. Let’s not give the lawyers any more fodder: tell the regulators that they must consider illustrated rates on IUL.

    Sheryl Moore is president and chief executive officer of AnnuitySpecs.com and LifeSpecs.com, an indexed product resource in Des Moines, Iowa.

    Originally Posted at National Underwriter on July 16, 2009 by Sheryl J. Moore.

    Categories: Sheryl's Articles