|
Author: Tom
Date: 02-12-05 11:46
Hi,
Appreciated all the comments in the discussion board this a .m.
#1 Top Rate list of LTC companies
I have been told the following are rated the best LTC in the USA:
John Hancock
Met LIfe
Prudential
GE Capital
Allianz Insurance Copmany of North America (German owned company I think)
Have a quote from
GE Capital
Banker's Life and Casualty
MasMutal (just started in LTC I think) ??
Where would I find an easy accessible list of top rated LTC companies?
#2 Comparing Companies
The problem for me is trying to be informed about LTC and the fear that I can be "sold" a policy instead of "buying" a policy.
In the atttempt to be informed I have a copy of the Insider's Guide to Long Term Care Insurance from LTCinsurance.com. It is really helpful in establishing questions and criteria for purchasing LTC.
I also acquired a wonderful criteria guide, "A Shopper's Guide to Long-Term Care Insurance distributed by NAIC (National Association of Insurance Commissionrers). It has a wonderful worksheet chart to compare companies. I have since developed my own.
Thanks.
Tom
|
|
|
|
Author: Larry Plite
Date: 02-12-05 12:00
J Hancock is now owned by Manulife, a Canadian company.
Based on my experience with Canadians, I think a rate increase will soon present itself. Just my opinion.
Also, I believe JH recently demutulalized, went from a mutual to a stock company. This is never a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Author: Robyn
Date: 02-12-05 16:33
Tom,
I keep repeating myself, but for someone without any health issues, I would definitely go with MassMutual (especially with an unlimited benefit period.) Here are 3 1/2 good reasons to buy MassMutual.
1)Their third party ratings are higher than any of the companies that you mention.
S+P gives them higher ratings than the rest of the companies. Company strength matters!
Moodys gives them higher ratings than the rest of the companies.
Fitch gives them higher ratings than the rest of the companies.
Weiss gives them higher ratings than the rest of the companies.
AM Best gives Hancock and MassMutual the highest ratings.
2)They will be the least expensive or very well extremely close. (MetLife and Allianz might come close to them in price.) If this isn't the case, you are being quoted the wrong rates.)
3)They are committed to never raising rates on existing clients. This can't be guaranteed in tax qualified policies, but they do have a 150 year history of never raising rates on other lines of individual insurance. They do have a 5 year rate guarantee which no one else has. (I don't think that any company that is committed to staying in the LTC business will raise rates. Why? If they raise rates, how will they get new clients to trust them?)
3 1/2) In general, I think that it is better to deal with a mutual company. Mutual companies don't have to deal with stock holders hungry for instant profits. If the policies are profitable enough for the company, they could pay dividends to the policy owners. (possible, but not likely with how inexpensive their policies are)
|
|
|
|
Author: Arthur Rudnick
Date: 02-12-05 17:15
Robyn;
Points well taken. However, here's 1 1/2 possible reason NOT to do business with Mass Mutual:
1) They are primarily a Life company and are no where on the radar screen in the LTC field. They have been in the LTC business for less than 2 years and their total in-force premium is only $46 million.
1 1/2) In the few dealings that I have had with them, I've found VERY few people working for the company that understands LTCI. And even the ones I've met, who should be in a position to know, I found their knowledge of the product and marketlacking.
I met someone in LTCI who came out of a Mass Mutual shop. The LTC training that this person received was almost non-existent.
There are a number of carriers that "Were committed to never raising rates." I don't think that I need to tell you how many of those carriers became "Uncommitted".
If Mass Mutaul works for you, that's great.
Just my 2 cents.....
Arthur
|
|
|
|
Author: Larry Plite
Date: 02-12-05 17:25
Robyn,
Does Mass underwrite more strictly than most highly rated companies?
Amen to your stock vs mutual companies. Well said.
|
|
|
|
Author: Robyn
Date: 02-12-05 20:48
First of all, for the record, I am not a MassMutual agent. I used to be a Northwestern Mutual agent, but didn't like "capitivity", thus I became a broker.
Arthur, let me agree and disagree with you at the same time. MassMutual has actually been in the LTC business for 5 years. They are probably about the 15th-20 largest company, but moving up rapidly. They are very big in life insurance, but are also one of the largest sellers of disability insurance and their broker/dealer may do more business than any other insurance company affiliated broker/dealer. (None of the above has much importance--just wanted to set the record straight.)
In my opinion, the top three companies for permanent life insurance and DI (yes, it depends on the particular situation)are MM, Northwestern Mutual, and Guardian/Berkshire. I bring this up because these three companies have something very much in common as it relates to LTC. They were not willing to get into the business until they felt that they could do it profitably. That is why they have all been in LTC for 5 years or less. MM and these other two companies have comparitively little LTC on the books because they are new. They took the time to learn from the mistakes from others. Mark my words that they will all become major players.
I'm in 100% agreement that most of the MassMutual agents are still relatively unknowlegeable about LTC. This shouldn't be a strike against their product, but rather a warning to consumers to work with someone who is knowlegeable and is not going to push ANY particular company's product.
It is possible for MassMutual or any company to raise premiums. Let me tell you why I think that they may be the least likely to do so. First of all, I don't think that any company that continues to sell LTC will raise rates unless 100% necessary. If a company raises rates on existing clients would you sell their product? I know that I would not. That's why I think that only companies who are not planning on staying in the business would raise rates. That being said, MassMutual's small block of business works in their favor. Their loss exposure is too little to have any negative effect on the company, thus there would be no need to raise rates.
MassMutual does not work for me. It works for my clients. (They stink for me because my commissions are lower than with any other LTC carrier.) MassMutual is the best in most circumstances for anyone who can get Ultra preferred rates. Come April in most states, their rates will be increasing and in most cases MassMutual won't be my company of choice. The rates have actually already increased, but old rates can be sold until April. I may be wrong, but I think that brokers don't have access to quoting the old rates, so we have to work with an agent or specialist directly.
Larry, I wouldn't say MM is harder or easier than anyone else. Every company looks at specific health conditions differently.
|
|
|
|
Author: Larry Plite
Date: 02-13-05 05:16
Robyn,
"That being said, MassMutual's small block of business works in their favor"
I have to disagree with this. Insurance is based on the law of large numbers. The larger the number of people the more predictable they can estimate their losses, actuarially/statistically speaking. The lower the number of people, the less predictable it becomes and their potential for loss becomes greater.
Keep in mind, the loss must be measurable & predictable which can be accomplished only with the law of large numbers.
Robyn wrote:
"It is possible for MassMutual or any company to raise premiums. Let me tell you why I think that they [MM] may be the least likely to do so."
and then wrote:
" Come April in most states, their rates will be increasing and in most cases MassMutual won't be my company of choice. The rates have actually already increased..."
Am I reading this correctly?
|
|
|
|
Author: Robyn
Date: 02-13-05 07:32
Larry, let me address your second point first. You are reading it correctly. I assume that you are wondering about the apparent contradiction. To the best of my knowlege, all LTC carriers have raised rates at some point. The concern is not if a company raises rates, but rather if a company raises rates on existing clients.
I don't know if MassMutual is raising rates because they feel that they will need to do so from an acturial point of view or they are simply doing so because they are so much less expensive than their perceived competition. (GE, Hancock, MetLife) Different companies have different sweet spots and MM won't always be the best after April.
You are 100% correct about the law of large numbers. However, you are not using it correctly. Let's look at life insurance for example. All companies use the same basic mortality table whether the company has 5 million of insurance in force or 20 Billion. Companies do the same thing with LTC. The individual companies are not raising rates because of their own losses. Most people who own LTC are not yet of the age where it is expect that they need it. For example, the average MM LTC client is in their 50's.
Let's go ahead and assume that MM has underpriced their LTC. This will be bad for the company, but is good for the consumer. (The consumer gets a great deal and the company loses money.) If they had a ton of LTC on the books and not much other business, the concern of future claims could be devastating for the company. However, because they are a giant company and LTC has been a small part of their business, even if claims are higher than expected, it won't have much of an effect on the company.
A big part of the problem with earlier LTC carriers was the fact that "loss must be measurable & predictable". This was not the case in the past. This is why Mass, NML, and Guardian/Berkshire are just recently getting into the marketplace and many of the early entrants failed. Larry Plite wrote:
> Robyn,
>
> "That being said, MassMutual's small block of business works in
> their favor"
>
> I have to disagree with this. Insurance is based on the law of
> large numbers. The larger the number of people the more
> predictable they can estimate their losses,
> actuarially/statistically speaking. The lower the number of
> people, the less predictable it becomes and their potential for
> loss becomes greater.
>
> Keep in mind, the loss must be measurable & predictable which
> can be accomplished only with the law of large numbers.
>
> Robyn wrote:
>
> "It is possible for MassMutual or any company to raise
> premiums. Let me tell you why I think that they [MM] may be the
> least likely to do so."
>
> and then wrote:
>
> " Come April in most states, their rates will be increasing and
> in most cases MassMutual won't be my company of choice. The
> rates have actually already increased..."
>
>
> Am I reading this correctly?
|
|
|
|
Author: Arthur Rudnick
Date: 02-13-05 08:13
Robyn;
According to StateCision, Mass Mutual has been in the LTC Market since March, 2003.
You say "To the best of my knowledge, all LTC carriers have raised rates at some point."
Are you referring to raising rates on existing policyholders, or are you talking about introducing new policies, with higher premiums than the one's they're replacing?
There are a number of companies that have never had a rate increase on existing policyholders and some of these companies have been in the LTC business for 25 years.
The introduction of new policies with higher rates are commonplace and if this is what you meant I agree with you. Every 2-3 years a policy is taken off the market and replaced by a new, more expensive one.
You suggest that "MM is raising rates because they underpriced their product and if that's the case, that's bad for the company and good for the consumer. The consumer gets a great deal and the company loses money."
If you truly believe what you said, you might want to go back to school and retake LTC 101. Do the words, "CNA" and "Travelers" mean anything to you? Underpriced products and 50% Rate increase requests.I fail to see where that is a great deal for the consumer.
And, I agree with you, commissions and renewals with MM are a joke.
Arthur
|
|
|
|
Author: Robyn
Date: 02-13-05 09:16
Larry,
StateCision is incorrect. They started selling LTC in 2000.
I am talking strictly about introducing new policies with higher premiums. The premiums will continue to go up until the companies have their pricing is correct.
You make a good point with CNA and Travelers. This was a combination of poor pricing, poor underwriting decisions, and an average client that was too old.
As I have previously stated, I have no concerns with MassMutual because even if they are underpriced, their LTC block is too small to cause a problem for the company. With an average age in the 50's and responsible underwriting, they have a long time before claims are an issue.
All in all, MM is only going to have a very short time that they are much cheaper than the rest of the industry. My point really is to take advantage of this anomaly while you can. (If their price was always going to remain much cheaper than everyone else, I would have concerns.)
|
|
|
|
Author: Larry Plite
Date: 02-13-05 10:07
"If they had a ton of LTC on the books and not much other business, the concern of future claims could be devastating for the company. However, because they are a giant company and LTC has been a small part of their business, even if claims are higher than expected, it won't have much of an effect on the company."
I think we are talking about a specific block of business, LTCI. Although premiums might go into the "general accounts" you can be sure they watch this block of business (LTCI) very carefully and do their best not to lose money on this product, even if their other business profits make up for LTCI losses.
Again, if they only have a small block of business then they can't predict with accuracy what their losses will be in certain age groups, say 60 to 80. If they are only insuring people in their 40s then that's a common sense issue. What insurance company wouldn't want all of their LTCI policyholders ages 40 to 50?
|
|
|
|
Author: Arthur Rudnick
Date: 02-13-05 10:37
If a company has been in the LTC business for only 5 years, and (according to Robyn) the age of the average policyholder is less than 60, chances are they have not yet paid out their first dollar in claims. Therefore, they don't really have a clue as to whether their prices or their underwriting is correct, do they?
Bottom, line here is there are over 100 companies that sell LTCI in the country.
40% of that business is done with 2, John Hancock & Genworth.
Mass Mutual is so far down the food chain they are not a serious factor in the business. That doesn't mean they don't have a good, well priced product or they don't have great financials. I'm in the business a while and I have never spoken to anyone who has a LTC policy from Mass Mutual. As I stated in my earlier post, their focus is Life Insurance not LTCI. LTC is an ancillary product for their agents, who while doing the entire financial planning excerise, can say to their client; "Hey, we also offer LTCI."
The MM agent may not know what the product is, but it's available for sale.
It appears to me, just like Travelers & CNA, they came into the market trying to buy the business with prices well below the rest of the field. In today's LTC enviorment, that's not a smart way to go after business.
Arthur
|
|
|
|
Author: Larry Plite
Date: 02-13-05 10:57
"Therefore, they don't really have a clue as to whether their prices or their underwriting is correct, do they?"
I'm sure a well respected and highly rated company like MM asked the janitor what premiums they should charge for LTCI. Sarcasm aside, I think the do have a clue what their doing.
"chances are they have not yet paid out their first dollar in claims."
You make too many assumptions. How about some facts to back you up. I bet if a MM claims person, actuary or underwriter read your last post, they would have had a good laugh.
|
|
|
|
Author: Arthur Rudnick
Date: 02-13-05 16:41
Larry;
No, I don't have facts to back up my statement, but let's use some common sense please. Robyn claims that MM has been selling LTCI for 5 years and that the average age of their applicants has been in their 50's.
Therefore, 5 years ago at the average age of 55, someone in good health purchased a MM policy. They're now about 60 years old. The industry-wide average age of policyholders going on claim is 80. So you tell me, how many claims could they possibly have on their books at this time?
The point that I was trying to make, if there are no claims (or very few) how can a company be sure that their underwriting assumptions and their premiums are correct?
Robyn says that MM is priced well below the rest of the market. Are they so smart, or is every other company out there just stupid?
Travelers & CNA were pretty large and well rated companies and were priced below the rest of the world. Results? Each company has filed for rate increases of up to 50% on their existing policyholders.
A company cannot be successful in the long run by buying their way into the business.
With that said, if you believe in the company and you believe in the product and you feel that MM is best suited for your clients, that's your call.
Arthur
|
|
|
|
Author: Robyn
Date: 02-13-05 18:07
In response to Arthur's quote, "It appears to me, just like Travelers & CNA, they came into the market trying to buy the business with prices well below the rest of the field. In today's LTC enviorment, that's not a smart way to go after business."
Arthur, you are dealing with incorrect assumptions. I don't want to be critical, but you need to make sure that your opinions have the facts to back them up. MassMutual did not come into this business trying to "buy the business." They have always been middle of the road with pricing. All that has happened is that in the last couple of years just about all carriers have introduced new products with higher rates. MassMutual is simply behind the curve with their rate increases. They'll be "caught up" in April.
If you know anything about MassMutual, the one thing that MM does not do is buy business. Their DI is expensive but an excellent contract. They may have been the first company to raise their term insurance rates after most companies got too agressive with their pricing.
Larry, I think that there is a very good chance that they will have a block of business that is underpriced and will lose money. As a company, of course, they don't want this. However, because it is a relatively small block of business, it should have a negligible effect on the company. My guess is that all LTC carriers have money losing blocks of business on their books. Why else would rates keep going up?
Arthur, I need to respond to another quote of yours. "Bottom, line here is there are over 100 companies that sell LTCI in the country. 40% of that business is done with 2, John Hancock & Genworth." So what? McDonald's sells more burgers than anyone in the world. If I want a good one, I'm going to go to "Joe's Bar & Grill" and not McD's. (That is not meant to be a disparaging remark to Hancock & Genworth. I sell both of their products.)
My bottom line is simply that going forward that for about the next 50 days MassMutual has a competetive advantage. They are certainly not appropriate in all situations.
|
|
|
|
Author: Larry Plite
Date: 02-14-05 05:47
I cringe when I tell people "the company" has never had a rate increase. I have been in this business about 20 years and I know this usually spells trouble, even with the best and strongest companies; especially "stock" companies such as JH.
Regards to JH, keep in mind we have little experience how Canadians/Manulife do business except from my personal experience, they are extremely frugal people.
Want to get an indication of a company's LTCI claims? Simply call the customer service/claims dept. and ask. You may not be talking with the person who knows the actual losses but you can get a general feel of their cliams experience.
"Larry, I think that there is a very good chance that they will have a block of business that is underpriced and will lose money. My guess is that all LTC carriers have money losing blocks of business on their books."
I make assumptions and you make assumptions. Is there a rating service that breaks down these factors? For example:
LTCI premiums: $45,000,000
LTCI Claims: $15,000,000
THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE. Does Weiss provide this breakdown in his individual company reports?
|
|
|
|
Author: Robyn
Date: 02-14-05 07:14
Larry, claims vs. premiums is probably available from each individual company and some service might have it compiled, but I don't know that it is very meaningful. Because of the relative newness of the product, companies are not raising rates because they are losing money now, but rather because it appears as if they may lose money in the future. In all properly priced insurance, it is ok if claims for a particular block of business are greater than premiums. What needs to be a positive number is premiums + investment returns - expenses - claims with enough left over to have proper reserves.
And my quote from my last post should really be amended to say, "my guess is that all LTC carriers have blocks of business on the books that will lose money in the future." In other words, I think that companies are raising rates because they suspect that their pricing was too low for the above equation to hold true.
|
|
|
|
Author: Larry Plite
Date: 02-14-05 09:55
Expenses, return on investments, etc. go without saying to experienced agents. I assume you're an experienced agent.
"I think that companies are raising rates because they suspect that their pricing was too low for the above equation to hold true."
"companies are not raising rates because they are losing money now, but rather because it appears as if they may lose money in the future."
This is a ridiculous statement! Where do you hold your insurance license, in Fantasy Land?
In Florida, and probably most other states, insurance companies cannot raise rates because they "suspect" they will lose money in the future. They have to show a certain loss-ratio, that is, premiums paid vs claims paid out. For example, Medicare supplements have to show a 65% loss-ratio before the DOI will approve a rate increase.
If the insurance companies were allowed to raise rates based solely on suspicion or a "crystal ball", abuse would plague the industry. That's one reason why the industry is regulated.
Are you sure you work in insurance?
|
|
|
|
Author: Robyn
Date: 02-14-05 10:44
Larry,
Please keep your professionalism and stay away from the personal attack.
"Expenses, return on investments, etc. go without saying to experienced agents." You may be an experienced agent, but many people reading this board are not.
I am not talking about raising rates on existing clients. I am talking about issuing new policy series with higher premiums. In that context is my quote ridiculous with me living in fantasy land?
If I'm still ridiculous and living in fantasy land, why is it that companies have been raising rates?
Companies do need to get permission to raise existing rates. Each state's insurance department can make this decision. Common sense would dictate that LTC carriers would be allowed to do this before they actually show any losses. Once they are actually losing money, it may be too late to do anything about it--possibly leaving a company out of business and policyholders out of luck. (It's like waiting until Social Security has an actual shortfall to wait to make changes.)
"If the insurance companies were allowed to raise rates based solely on suspicion or a "crystal ball", abuse would plague the industry." You might be right on this one, but in general, I doubt it. In my opinion, this would only plague companies who leave the LTC business. GE, Hancock, MM, etc, will do everything in their power to not raise rates on existing clients. Why? Brokers will stop selling the products of companies who make them look bad by raising rates.
Look at the example of term life insurance. All companies have two columns of rates--current premiums and guaranteed premiums. In the history of life insurance in the U.S., there has never been a company that has charged more than the current premiums. Rates have increased on new clients, but never on existing clients.
P.S. As soon as someone contacts me from Fantasy Land, I will be sure to get a license from there.
|
|
|
|
Author: Bill Berry
Date: 02-14-05 11:01
Are you sure about that last statement about no company has ever charged more than the current rates for term life. They have never gone to the guaranteed rates. If that is true, that's a strong statement.
|
|
|
|
Author: Robyn
Date: 02-14-05 11:32
Bill,
I'm positive about my comment about term insurance. Here's my opinion on why. I think that there are two reasons. Both reasons make raising rates bad business.
1)If rates go up, healthy people leave and get insured elsewhere. Unhealthy people stay. This leaves a very bad block of business.
2)What agent/broker would sell an insurance product from a company that raises rates if the entire industry is not also raising rates?
Steve, please point out my statements of error. I'd gladly recant anything that is incorrect and would appreciate knowing.
|
|
|
|
Author: Larry Plite
Date: 02-14-05 12:44
Robyn wrote:
"I'm positive about my comment about term insurance. Here's my opinion on why."
He's positive but gives an "opinion" to back it up!
Here's some advice for you Robyn:
It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
From what I have seen here, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. In the future, I will disregard all of your posts on the discussion board.
|
|
|
|
Author: Steve Eads, CLU
Date: 02-14-05 13:00
Common, Larry. Stay in the game. We all see what you see. You, too, Robyn. State facts ONLY please. There's no one here to impress. If you think there is you need to get a "real" life.
Steve Eads, CLU
www.LTCiPro.com
|
|
|
|
Author: Larry Plite
Date: 02-14-05 13:21
OK Steve, I'll stick around but just for a laugh.
By the way, I think it was you who made an excellent point: we, as agents, have no idea what goes on inside the company.
BTW, do you know what happened to AIG's LTCI? Is it still avaiable or was it taken off the market? From my experience, that's one company that doesn't tolerate losing money.
|
|
|
|
Author: Bill Berry
Date: 02-14-05 13:36
AIG has not been offered in Mississippi in at least three years. They pulled it here.
|
|
|
|
Author: Steve Eads, CLU
Date: 02-14-05 14:22
Don't really know. It was so expensive I had no use for them.
Steve Eads, CLU
www.LTCiPro.com
|
|
|
|
Author: Robyn
Date: 02-14-05 19:40
I did make a statement of fact. My opinion was not used to back up that statement. My opinion was an opinion and nothing more. It was not used to back the claim. Regardless of whether my opinion is correct or wrong, my statement is still factual. I will pay $50 to the first person who can name a life insurance company that raised term rates on existing clients.
P.S. If I was talking to a client and not to other agents, I would always back up any claims with evidence.
Again, please, if I say anything incorrect, I want to hear about it. Better here and not with a client. Let's be grown up enough to not make this personal.
|
|
|
|
Author: Arthur Rudnick
Date: 02-15-05 07:50
Robyn;
Term insurance guarantees a premium for the term of coverage, 5 to 30 yrs. There can be no rate increases within that period of coverage, so you might as well offer $5,000 instead of $50.
Arthur
|
|
|
|
Author: Arthur Rudnick
Date: 02-15-05 07:56
Robyn;
Back to Mass Mutual.
You claim that you do business with MM and will continue to do so, until April, when their new policy is introduced.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but what I hear is this: You're doing business now and until April because MM is priced
WELL BELOW their competition. Comes April, they lose their competitive edge. So, forget about finacial ratings, forget about how committed their are to LTCI, forget about their great policy. They're no longer the cheapest, so you're moving on.
Arthur
|
|
|
|
Author: Robyn
Date: 02-15-05 08:42
Arthur, I should let your comments slide, but I like to educate when I have a chance.
"Term insurance guarantees a premium for the term of coverage, 5 to 30 yrs."
This is incorrect. The "5 to 30 years" refers to the guaranteed level premium period and not the term of coverage! For example a guanteed level 20 year term policy will have the price stay level for 20 years and after 20 years, it will become ART with both a current premium and a guaranteed premium. Look at an NAIC compliant illustration from any carrier and you'll see that I'm correct. (Some 20 year products end after 20 years..but not many.)
Also, keep in mind that until recently, the majority of term insurance was ART (Annually renewable term.) I'm looking forward to paying off the bet if I'm incorrect about no one charging more than scheduled premiums.
|
|
|
|
Author: Steve Eads, CLU
Date: 02-15-05 08:53
Art, he's talking about RENEWAL years after the guarantee term period has ended.
He's just not asking his question very plainly. When he does, I will own his FIFTY!!!
Steve Eads, CLU
www.LTCiPro.com
|
|
|
|
Author: Robyn
Date: 02-15-05 08:58
Arthur,
You are putting words in my mouth with this one, but from reading my posts, it is understandable.
"You're doing business now and until April because MM is priced WELL BELOW their competition. Comes April, they lose their competitive edge. So, forget about finacial ratings, forget about how committed their are to LTCI, forget about their great policy. They're no longer the cheapest, so you're moving on."
The first part is correct. Probably 90% of my business between now and April will be with MM. The second part is incorrect. There are other excellent LTC providers. I will always do what is in my client's best interest. If MM is the best, I will use them, otherwise, I will not. By "best", I mean combination of company strength, contract, and price. Personally, I would like MM not to be the best because of their commission structure.
|
|
|
|
Author: Robyn
Date: 02-15-05 09:53
Steve, please give me an example and I'll gladly pay the $50....and I'm a she not a he. If I'm wrong, I want to know about it.
|
|
|
|
Author: Larry Plite
Date: 02-15-05 11:17
Robyn wrote:
"Regardless of whether my opinion is correct or wrong, my statement is still factual"
How can a wrong opinion be factual? This gets better every time she/he posts a message.
Here's some advice: when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.
Robyn wrote:
"P.S. If I was talking to a client and not to other agents, I would always back up any claims with evidence."
I'd give one of my paired organs to go on an appointment with you.
|
|
|
|
Author: Arthur Rudnick
Date: 02-15-05 11:25
Robyn;
I'm not sure that I need to be educated by you about "Guaranteed Level Term Insurance". I repeat what I said: A Guaranteed Level Term Policy of 20 years, will not see a rate increase for that period of time. I was not referring to years 21+.
The "Current & Guaranteed" figures that you're referring to is appliacble to U/L and not Guaranteed Level Term.
Arthur
|
|
|
|
Author: Bill Berry
Date: 02-15-05 11:35
Art,
There are term policies that do not guarantee the premium for the full term. Golden Rule had one at one time. I am not sure it is still offered. F & G does not. With F & G you can buy a rider that guaratees rates for the full term, but that's it. Banner Life does guarantee theirs for the full term. I have never understood why anyone would buy a term policy that does not guarantee rates for the full term, but they are out there.
|
|
|
|
Author: Larry Plite
Date: 02-15-05 11:48
Robyn:
By the way, if you are female, do you wanna fool around?
You can't blame a guy for asking and it's more interesting than discussing term insurance isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Author: Robyn
Date: 02-15-05 11:51
Arthur,
Unfortuately, I think that you do need to be educated. Look at an NAIC compliant illustration. You will see both guaranteed premiums and non-guaranteed premiums for all years. Show me that I'm wrong and I'll pay you $50. There is a catch to this offer. If I'm right, you must write, "Robyn knows what she is talking about. I promise to not comment on her posts until I check the facts." Deal?
Robyn
|
|
|
|
Author: Arthur Rudnick
Date: 02-15-05 11:59
Robyn & Bill;
I was referring specifically to "Guaranteed Level Term."
For this type of Term ins., there are no "Guaranteed" and "Non-Guaranteed" illustrations. For a 20-year guaranteed term policy, the premium illustration is the same, for years 1-20.
Robyn, you're wrong, please mail me your check at you're earliest convenience.
Thanking you in advance,
Arthur
PS: I charge a $15.00 fee for bad checks.
|
|
|
|
Author: Robyn
Date: 02-15-05 12:03
Does this mean that you agree to the deal?
|
|
|
|
Author: Arthur Rudnick
Date: 02-15-05 12:17
Robyn;
I really don't want to take your money. But please show me and other board members where rates were ever increased within the specified term period on a "Guaranteed Level Term Policy."
Both rates and the death benefit remains the same during the specified term.
You also might want to check the dictionary and look under the word "Guaranteed" and see what it has to say.
But, if you can prove that I'm wrong, I'll be happy to offer you an apology. And, I would expect the same from you if I'm correct.
Maybe some other members can comment on exactly what "Guaranteed Level Term" refers to.
Arthur
|
|
|
|
Author: Larry Plite
Date: 02-15-05 12:43
Here's what the Florida Life, Health & Variable Annuity books states:
"Insurance companies offer term insurance on a level premium basis--premiums are calculated and charged so that they remain level throughout the policy's term period. If the policy is renewed, the premium is adjusted upward, reflecting a higher rate for the increased age and will remain level at that amount for the duration of the renewed term."
"Guaranteed" level term is not in the book although I was surprised it wasn't. Sorry Charlie.
|
|
|
|
Author: Robyn
Date: 02-15-05 13:02
"But please show me and other board members where rates were ever increased within the specified term period on a "Guaranteed Level Term Policy."" Arthur, I never said that they were.
I did say, "All companies have two columns of rates--current premiums (non-guaranteed) and guaranteed premiums (maximum rates). In the history of life insurance in the U.S., there has never been a company that has charged more than the current premiums. Rates have increased on new clients, but never on existing clients."
This is true for both level and ART term. During the level premium, illustrations often don't have both numbers because they are the same.
Most level term policies become ART after the initial guarantee period.
|
|
|
|
Author: Arthur Rudnick
Date: 02-15-05 13:23
Robyn;
I'm not looking to beat a dead horse, BUT, the whole point of this discussion was that premiums are changed during the specified term period. I never talked about premiums increasing once the guaranteed period was up. You keep bringing up "Guaranteed" & "Non-Guarateed" illustrations. "Non-Guaranteed" is not part of an illustration for a Guaranteed Level Term Policy, during the specific period. I'm not sure why you have such a problem understanding that.
Larry, (the sexist) states: (only kidding Larry)
"Insurance companies offer term insurance on a level premium basis--premiums are calculated and charged so that they remain level throughout the policy's term period."
That seems pretty clear to me and I'll add one more point: that the death benefit is also guaranteed for the specified term period.
Check is in the mail, right?
Arthur
|
|
|
|
Author: Larry Plite
Date: 02-15-05 13:43
Arthur is correct. With level term, the premium and death benefit remain level for whatever period is selected. After the period ends, premiums are adjusted due to age. Even guarnateed renewable terms' premiums increase at renewal time.
What's the big deal? This is cut and dry stuff.
|
|
|
|
Author: Dave
Date: 02-17-05 15:44
I would like the board's opinion on Allianz's LTC product. They are trying to get me to offer it to my clients.
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
Author: Steve Eads, CLU
Date: 02-17-05 15:49
Take a very hard look, depending on your state, you should absolutely LOVE it!!!
Priced great, super benefits if structured properly, solid financials and experience, great claim service.
They are indeed one of my favorites, Dave.
Steve Eads, CLU
www.LTCiPro.com
|
|
|
|
Author: Joan
Date: 03-10-05 01:30
Robyn,
I am in the market for LTC for myself. I've done some research and am reasonably sure I know which features I want. I'm favorably impressed with what you're saying about MM and was wondering if you could contact me to discuss a policy before their rates go up?
I'm in NYC, if that's important.
Joan
|
|
|
|
Author: Steve Eads, CLU
Date: 03-10-05 11:32
Robin, carriers raise rates on "NEW" policy pricing for two primary reasons...1) Actaurial requiremwnts for claim and financial solvency and 2) because they want to remain "IN LINE" with current market prices of their competition...in other words, if the big boys are getting away with raising rates on new pricing, why should we leave money on the table?????
Mutual or Stock makes no difference, whatsoever, in the corporate GREED game. Even Mutual companies are run by human beings that want more salary, perks, etc. More profits mean more beach houses, winter cottages, Mercedes', etc., etc., etc.
Oh, BTW, I came in the business with the Mass Mutual 26 years ago. Neither they "nor" Northwestern Mutual really hung the moon. It's all basic brain-washing and "prom queen" mentalities that believe these carriers are somehow superior to "all" other. I often wondered why neither of these two carriers "ever" became the #1 volume insurance companies in "any" product category.
I guess it really is true that, "if dogs won't eat it, it "ain't" really dog food!"
Steve Eads, CLU
www.LTCiPro.com
|
|
|
|  |
