Opinions on Wealth Protector Universal Life Insurance

Golden sunsets

Golden sunsets

Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Joined
Jun 3, 2013
Messages
2,524
Yesterday I asked for opinions on LTC and appreciated the responses. Today I'd like to ask for opinions on a type of insurance policy known as a universal life wealth protector. Before I describe this policy let me describe our situation:

DH/me: Ages 67/64. Retired/semi-retired. Pension/VA Disability/SS Income in retirement $137,000, fully cola'd. Total expenses $185,000, including $50,000 estimated annual taxes.
TA: 2,850,000. No debt. SWR less than 2 percent.

So we manage our own investments but have sought legal estate planning assistance and did visit a fee based financial planner once in 2008, to validate our plan. Upon legal advice in 2000, we purchased this Wealth protector universal life policy, face amount $500,000, referred to as a second to die policy. The premium is variable. The purpose of the policy, was to build an asset to cover estate taxes and/or build additional wealth for our heirs. For the past 14 years we have paid annual premiums of $5,460. The premiums are placed in a mix of investments. Premiums for the insurance are deducted from the investment portfolio. The idea is that after 15 years one can decide whether or not to stop paying the premiums and the investment portfio will pay the insurance premiums indefinitely. Upon the death of the second to die the policy pays out the five hundred thousand plus the value of the assets. We have elected a moderate aggressive investment portfolio. The portfolio is now worth $88,000. (not included in our TA). Depending on investment performance the total payout upon death could be several million dollars. If we continued to pay premiums beyond 15 years that number jumps substantially.

There have been fees assessed throughout the years , which have declined over time. At year 15 the fees drop to $60/yr.

I have never known and always wondered whether this has been a wise investment. Our financial planner in 2008 was not wild about it but stopped short of recommending that we cash out. After 15 years we could cash out with no penalties, but of course, no policy.

Do any forum readers maintain such a policy and what are your thoughts on this policy? Insurance company rip off or wise estate planning tool:confused:
 
Did you compute or estimate an XIRR? You could do this under several scenarios and this might help inform your decision.
 
Step one is to confirm the reasons for carrying the insurance.

You say the original reason for purchase was protection against a projected estate tax liability.

Federal estate tax law permanently and significantly changed with the fiscal cliff deal on January 1st, 2013. There should be no more of the annual congressional drama on the exemption amount.

American Taxpayer Relief Act
The American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA; P.L. 112-240) established permanent rules for the estate and gift tax for 2013 going forward. The estate tax is imposed on bequests at death as well as inter-vivos (during life) gifts. A certain amount of each estate, $5 million in 2011, indexed for inflation, is exempted from taxation by the federal government.

..The provisions of the new legislation apply to estates of decedents dying after December 31, 2012.
Click to expand...
So, unless you live in one of the 19 states with their own estate tax (and in one of those with a lower threshold), it appears the estate tax reason for the policy is no longer applicable.

Assuming you are not providing ongoing support to one or more of the heirs, I would treat continuation of the policy as a straightforward investment decision.

Where Not To Die In 2013 Update - Forbes
 
Htown Harry said:
Step one is to confirm the reasons for carrying the insurance.

You say the original reason for purchase was protection against a projected estate tax liability.

Federal estate tax law permanently and significantly changed with the fiscal cliff deal on January 1st, 2013. There should be no more of the annual congressional drama on the exemption amount.
Click to expand...

Yep, this has changed significantly from 2000 when the OP purchased the policy.


Year -- Amount Exempted -- Tax Rate%

2000 ---------$675,000 ------ 55%

2013 ------ $5,250,000 ------ 40%

-ERD50
 
Htown Harry said:
Step one is to confirm the reasons for carrying the insurance.

You say the original reason for purchase was protection against a projected estate tax liability.

Federal estate tax law permanently and significantly changed with the fiscal cliff deal on January 1st, 2013. There should be no more of the annual congressional drama on the exemption amount.

American Taxpayer Relief Act
So, unless you live in one of the 19 states with their own estate tax (and in one of those with a lower threshold), it appears the estate tax reason for the policy is no longer applicable.

Assuming you are not providing ongoing support to one or more of the heirs, I would treat continuation of the policy as a straightforward investment decision.

Where Not To Die In 2013 Update - Forbes
Click to expand...

+1 exactly what I was thinking and from what the OP wrote, there doesn't seem to be a need for $500k second to die life insurance. And I suspect it is dubious from an investment perspective. I would lean towards ditching it at the first opportunity.
 
This is excellent info. Thanks Htown Harry, ERD50 and pb4uski. I was vaguely aware that estate taxes had changed starting this year but hadn't thought about the impact on our estate planning until we received our annual premium this week-due next month. Unfortunately we do live in one of the "states not to die in". The estate tax threshold did increase in our state this year from 1,000,000 to 2,000,000. The taxes above that are graduated. From 2MM to 5MM, the tax is 8 percent. So for an estate of 5MM the tax would be $240,000. Ouch!!!:facepalm:

The Forbes article "Four Ways To Beat State Estate Taxes" was helpful. I think we may already be set up with a bypass trust-not sure. Plus something in the back of my mind tells me that tIRA's and Roth's if set to go directly to beneficiaries, are not subject to estate taxes. Does anyone know? And a final point from that article seems to indicate that insurance policies and other assets owned by a trust as our second to die policy is, are not subject to estate taxes. So this policy of ours, if we continue to fund it at the current annual premium rate could grow over time to several million dollars depending on market conditions and would bypass all federal and state estate taxes. Do any of these thoughts makes sense?

Much to ponder before writing this check next month.

Thanks again for your valuable wisdom.:greetings10:
 
Last edited:
Sounds like you complicated things for your heirs. One more thing to handle.

Not something you needed at all. Still might be a good deal, if you kick off early. Probably a bad investment if you have an average life span, since the company selling this makes money. You'll have to do the math, though if you list your payments so far and in the future and possible payouts you might be able to con someone into running a quick check.
 
tIRA's are subject to taxes, though only as the beneficiaries make withdrawals. It adds to their income, just as it does yours right now.

Roth IRA's are tax free to beneficiaries since you already paid taxes. (Could be a bad thing if you paid more than they do though.)

A standard revocable trust for estate planning does not necessarily avoid taxes. The main tax benefit was to allow exemptions for both spouses instead of transferring everything to one spouse and losing the first spouse's estate tax exemption altogether. That benefit is no longer necessary since the exemption transfer is part of the new law. Your insurance payout will be as taxable as any insurance payout.
 
Have you updated your estate plan in the last 5 years? What did your attorney say about whether this policy is necessary? If it isn't necessary according to a competent estate planning attorney, I would dump it.
 
Thanks photo guy. I'm going to see if I can model using this tool.
 
brewer12345 said:
Have you updated your estate plan in the last 5 years? What did your attorney say about whether this policy is necessary? If it isn't necessary according to a competent estate planning attorney, I would dump it.
Click to expand...
Brewer; We did review our estate plan again in 2008, but not since, so it is time. You're right. Off to our attorney we go.
 
I get a return of 2.1% (the rate of return where 14 annual investments of $5,460 grows to $88,000). It is probably worse than that because I suspect the $88,000 is the account value rather than the surrender value, so if you don't need the insurance the investment aspects of the policy stink.
 
pb4uski said:
I get a return of 2.1% (the rate of return where 14 annual investments of $5,460 grows to $88,000). It is probably worse than that because I suspect the $88,000 is the account value rather than the surrender value, so if you don't need the insurance the investment aspects of the policy stink.
Click to expand...

Thanks pb4uski. I think the return is better than you have calculated. The current account value, of 84,290, before adding the current premium due in a couple of weeks (the 14th premium payment) has been depleted regularly by COI charges of $10,455 over the 14 years, as well as other fees of $3,838 and $3,900, which are the painful parts of puchasing insurance. Those later two categories of fees, which end this year, have gone into someone's pocket and not into investments. I should point out that these fees as well as the cost of insurance are well publicized in the literature. I've just researched the website of the insurer. The fund that we are invested in shows the following returns:

As of 03-31-2013
YTD: 5.58%
One Year: 7.39%
Three Year: 7.58%
Five Year: 3.65%
Ten Year: 8.24%
Since Inception: 5.72%

and is invested in (top 10)

Transamerica Large Cap Value, 7.009% 7.37%
Transamerica Select Equity 7.14%
Transamerica WMC Diversified Growth VP 6.76%
Transamerica Jennison Growth VP 6.37%
Transamerica PIMCO Total Return VP 5.63%
Transamerica Core Bond 5.26%
Transamerica Short-Term Bond 5.04%
Transamerica JPMorgan Mid Cap Value VP 4.62%
Transamerica Dividend Focused, 7.174% 4.36%
Transamerica Emerging Markets Debt 3.32%


Averaging an 8.24% annual return over ten years is, I guess, the best indicator or how this investment has done. The "since inception return" of 5.72% is much lower of course, but we bought into this asset in 11-03, so the 8.24% pretty much represents our annualized return I think. One thing I did just notice is the insurer now has a fund of funds for moderate growth option that is all Vanguard funds, so at the very least we will switch into that investment to keep fund costs low.

This policy is owned by an Irrevocable Family Trust. I intend to ask our attorney if she feels that we should cash in next year when there is no surrender charge, if we should leave the money in the irrevocable trust and continue to throw money in annually, so that the value grows and will be left to our heirs tax free. The modeling done for us if we continued to pay annual premiums every year at a 9.35% annual earnings rate, shows the value growing to 4.6MM at age 100, with all but $500,000 of that being investments. If I'm not mistaken that may be around 1,650,000 in today's dollars at 3% (35 years).
 
Last edited:
You are looking at the returns of the funds, which is before any COI or other charges at the policy level.

I'm just looking at cash flow. You have written 13 (rather than 14) checks annually for $5,460 (a total of $70,980). Assuming you could cash out for your account value of $84,290 (ie; no surrender charge) then the net rate of return (after fees and such) is 2.81%. With surrender charges your return would be lower.

This is the way these products are sold. The insurer advertises a nice return (let's face it - 8+% isn't very bad - but few people factor in the fees they are paying to see how it is eating up their returns.

It's very unlikely that you will achieve a 9.35% annual earnings rate over the next 30 years. The 5.72% return since inception is probably more indicative of returns, but this is before COIs and other fees and as you get older the COIs will increase and further eat into the returns.
 
pb4uski said:
I get a return of 2.1% (the rate of return where 14 annual investments of $5,460 grows to $88,000). It is probably worse than that because I suspect the $88,000 is the account value rather than the surrender value, so if you don't need the insurance the investment aspects of the policy stink.
Click to expand...

[cross-posted with the two above...]

pb4uski, this is a backwards look at return-to-date, correct?

Shouldn't the continuation decision be based on a forward-looking calculation, treating the premiums already paid as a sunk cost to be ignored? I would think surrender value is much more relevant.

One set of numbers to run would be healthy cases using surrender value today and surrender value in the future as the denominators. The IRR function would calculate the return on $5460 payments going forward for one year, 3 years, 5 years, etc.

Further, as I read the OP, this next payment is year 15, a milestone where stopping future payments does not necessarily trigger a surrender or requires continuing payments beyond that point.

To get the full picture, several other scenarios could be run, e.g. collect the insurance with or without paying premiums in the future, surrender the policy with or without making payments in the future.

Finally, if insurance to pay the state estate tax bill is the root objective, there would need to be a comparison of keeping the universal insurance in force vs. getting a term policy.

One reason universal policies are a favorite of the industry is these calculations take some work to think through, something many customers don't take the time to do.

I hope posters with more direct knowledge chime in with more details.

(FWIW, keeping insurance wouldn't be my personal choice given the tax rate data presented above. The heirs getting a very big inheritance vs. a very, very big inheritance would not be a concern of mine. YMMV.)
 
Yup. Your right. If it had been suggested by my insurance agent I would have been skeptical, but I do trust our attorney, so we bought it. As I said in my original post, I've never known if this was a rip off or a good tool. I think it's probably the latter. Thanks for your perspective and the number crunching.
 
Htown. The various scenarios you suggest are beyond my abilities. Do you think an accountant would produce these scenarios for us? Or a financial planner? Somehow I doubt our estate attorney would have that ability.

On our policy, current surrender value is 81,090.35 vs a current value of 84,290.33, the difference being the surrender charge which has declined each year. We have made 13 payments of 5,460 and owe our next annual premium in 2 weeks. The fifteenth payment will be due in one year at which point there is no longer a surrender charge. The exorbitant fees of 3,838 and 3,900 occurred mainly during the first 10 years. The annual fees starting next month are only $60.00 The cost of insurance has gone from 16 the first year to 1,320 this year. It does seem to me that the question becomes would we be better cashing the balance in next year and continue investing $5,460 (for comparison purposes) in what will essentially be a tax deferred account (irrevocalbe trust) or keeping the policy which of course will diminish the returns over time. Or I guess a third option would be to cash in and let the proceeds accumulate, without further additions. The last option seems the least logical to me. If we assume longevity is in play ( don't want to jinx myself but my Mom is 89 and going strong living independently by herself - dad died at age 89) then is it better to pay the premiums in order to cash in an additional $500,000 at the end or put those insurance premiums to work along with additional funds to equal the premium added tp the surrender value next year. I don't have any idea which is the better move and of course it depends partially on our demise and market returns.
 
Last edited:
You stated that the premiums are variable but then show a constant premium for the first 15 years. What are the premiums going forward from there?
 
Gatordoc50 said:
You stated that the premiums are variable but then show a constant premium for the first 15 years. What are the premiums going forward from there?
Click to expand...


Gatordoc; The premiums are variable in that one can pay any amount they want to. The qualifier is that if the invested funds don't support the insurance charges, the policy will lapse. The insurer has promoted the fact that one can pay for 15 years at the suggested rate, and under normal market conditions will no longer have to pay any premiums, as there will be enough of a balance to continue paying the cost of insurance. So after paying 15 years of premiums of $5,460, or $81,900 of your own money, you're done, if you want to be. I suppose one should run the numbers to see if one invested $5,460 each year without insurance, how long it would take with normal market conditions to reach a portfolio of $500000. But as someone pointed out, if you both die early, you've won under the insurance scenario.

Of course none of us want to win that way. :mad:
 
Golden sunsets said:
Htown. The various scenarios you suggest are beyond my abilities. Do you think an accountant would produce these scenarios for us? Or a financial planner? Somehow I doubt our estate attorney would have that ability.
Click to expand...

It's beyond my experience or study, so I can't say with any certainty.

Since you expect to see the attorney anyway, and the initial recommendation to buy the policy came from an attorney (the same one?), I would give him the first shot. I think you are asking all the right questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FiveDriver
What exactly does FEMA Flood Insurance cover?
Replies
5
Views
450
FiveDriver
FiveDriver
C
Continue Universal Life Insurance?
Replies
7
Views
766
Charlie_Boy
C
2
Reducing stock exposure in Retirement, age 60+
4 5 6
Replies
144
Views
8K
Onda
O
Tranquility Base
Borrowing Against Investment Portfolio For Home Purchase
Replies
15
Views
480
pb4uski
pb4uski
LateToFIRE
How do you plan for possibility of early death of a spouse in FIRE
2 3 4
Replies
87
Views
9K
1242Vintage
1

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom