Restrictions were placed on in force illustrations for a handful of carriers, which limited our ability to review some policies. In a February post we noted that John Hancock cited “regulatory standards that govern illustration practices” for limiting the illustrations on some Performance UL policies issued between 2003 to 2010. The issue stemmed from the fact that “experience has differed from the current assumptions which are reflected in the illustrations.” In at least one instance in 2016, restrictions on in force illustrations were a direct precursor to a cost of insurance (COI) increase.
While 2017 was another challenging year for those of us who manage life insurance portfolios, ITM TwentyFirst started the year highlighting the efficiency of life insurance in an ILIT as a preferred method of passing wealth to the next generation. In our first post of the year we cited an example of a 65-year-old couple in good health purchasing a survivorship guaranteed universal life (GUL) policy. The policy relies on a fixed annual premium paid in full and on time each year for its guarantees, but for those with the cash flow to fund the asset, the return on the death benefit is very attractive. As seen in the spreadsheet to the right, if the death benefit was paid twenty years out (age 85) the internal rate of return (IRR) on the death benefit would be 11.36%. If it was paid 30 years out (age 95) the IRR would be 5.36%. Even at age 100, the IRR would be over 3.6%. Remember, the policy death benefit is guaranteed (if the premium is paid in full and on time), which makes these returns even more attractive when compared to other “guaranteed” investments. Yes, life insurance can be a great way to leverage assets to the next generation, but managing the asset can be difficult and this was another trying year.