Talk:Universal life insurance

I placed the above notice. T--72.70.221.213 (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)his article I believe is limited to North America (perhaps only USA). It generally wouldn't bother me, but with a title "Universal...", I think it needs clarification --pflodo 12:40, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)[reply]

This type of insurance exists in Canada as well, and is refered to as "Unviversal Life" or UL. How to get around the perhaps misleading "Universal", I'm not sure --Mr Minchin 17:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently saw this article being used as marketing material (which is a "no no" in the US) in a seminar and it reinforced the idea that we need to fight for fairness and accuracy in information. There are for instance only 2 sentences on VUL and there are 4 sentences on EIUL when the industry figures would indicate that much more VUL is being sold and it is certainly more complex. Saying that universal life is "often pegged to a financial index" not only lacks an authoritative tone, but is not true. We should mention that not only are the premiums flexible, but the mortality costs and administration costs can typically fluctuate at the companies' desire. If this happens and it is not anticipated, the consumer could wind up getting an unpleasant surprise. Speaking of... the "Uses" section only contains one use rather than many and fails to properly caution the consumer about "phantom income" if the policy lapses while in a loan position. Further, the mention of type "A" and "B" death benefits is company specific (as some also have a type "C" and "D") and unnecessarily complicates matters. The mention of single premium UL being unavailable because of tax law is incorrect and should be fixed. Perhaps the author was referring to the TAMRA limits, but this could be handled better in the "uses" section. I think we could simply say "North America" next to the title in parentheses to clarify. I'm not sure if some of the tax talk on the page is appropriate for an internationally accessed site. I hope these changes would provide more objectivity to the page and make it more appropriate for an international audience. I will plan on making these changes soon unless I hear from another editor.

Illegal to sell as investment

It is illegal for an agent to sell a client Universal Life as an investment option. It is also misleading, because upon death, the percentage of cash value returned to the beneficiaries is always less than 100% of what the amount would be without having this option, and often 0%. I would request that 'investment' be removed from the article, or qualified as an incorrect way to sell UL.Ecawilson 12:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

I noticed that someone completely removed the conflict of interest section from this page. I added it back and request that any further changes to that section be discussed on the talk page.--64.244.99.100 (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant Link

I deleted the external link. If there is a compelling reason to include this one website and not many of the other "informative" websites out there, we can discuss it.64.244.99.100 (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Investment

Equity Indexed Universal Life Insurance is NOT an investment…AND it is illegal to sell it as such? Really? Let’s first define “investment”… in•vest•ment: 1. The use money or capital in order to gain profitable returns…as interest, appreciation in value, or income.

Agreed?

Well, on the main page of this article (in the very first paragraph) it states that UL builds cash value through premiums that are paid above beyond the cost of insurance, charges and fees. It further states that interest is then credited on that cash value, determined by the insurance company and often pegged to a financial index. Later in the article it states that withdrawals and loans can be taken from the accumulated cash value…and if done correctly, those withdrawals are tax-free.

Seems pretty clear...This is; the use of money in order to gain profitable returns…as interest, appreciation in value, AND income.

Pardon me, but what part of that isn’t an investment? And, for the right individual, a great one at that?!

--72.70.221.213 (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice argument, maybe you should go make it with the SEC...--192.41.81.68 (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Index Universal Life (IUL) is an investment, by the standard definition. It is, however, misleading (and illegal) to market it as an investment security, as defined by the Securities Act of 1933 & the Securities Act of 1934. Enacted by Congress, these Acts gave birth to the SEC, rising out of the ashes of the great stock market crash of 1929. The crash lead to the great depression, and confidence in the markets fell to an all-time low. Today, the SEC oversees FINRA and both regulate the marketing and sale of securities. IUL is an insurance product and does not meet the definition of a security, so it does not fall under the authority of the SEC, or FINRA.

IUL can most certainly be marketed and sold as an investment. It cannot be marketed or sold as a security, variable security, variable investment or a direct investment in a security or the stock market.

Article may not comply with Wikipedia's NPOV policy

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy states that one should "avoid stating opinions as facts." The introduction paragraph to this article seems to state several opinions, particularly in the last few sentences. I don't know enough about finances to fix this article so I have nominated it to be checked for its neutrality. Jenneratty (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV in criticism?

Note: I added an item regarding the increasing use of this product to avoid taxes. The heading was removed as POV. To some extent I understand the objection but it was left with no heading and so was incorrectly included in the preceding section. This entry needs a heading. Also, the item is included under "Criticism" so it seems the listings are identified as having a point of view -- that is, they are criticisms. I have restored a heading that is more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreiss17 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]