I can't argue with the fact that always needing/wanting insurance in place will make the VUL much more attractive. But I wonder why he made this assumption, if you've told him, like you've told us, that aside from anticipated 'family protection' type insurance needs you were investigating a VUL primarily for retirement savings. He brought up the VUL - then I researched it.I stated that I didn't need permanent insurance. His belief is that it's a permanent need. Either conflicting interests on his part or an honest difference in opinion - I know not which.I also think it's worth pointing out that if you decide now or later that a VUL could be a good product for your situation, you might want to compare what your agent is offering you to low-load policies from Ameritas or USAA. The low-load Ameritas VUL I've looked at performs about 20% - 30% better than the similar fully loaded product from a planner I met with. Funny you should mention that. I was just at their site, and had them generate a customized prospectus for me. The charges associated with their VUL's where quite a bit lower than the one drawn up by my planner.There was also no surrender charge on the Ameritas. The one proposed to me had a surrender charge that declined over a 10 year period.Thanks for the tip.-Ortman
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. M