World Financial Group - Transamerica *KEEPS* Your FFIUL Money When You Die
A shocking dirty little secret of Universal Life policies: you LOSE all your policy's cash value when you croak. This is true of Transamericaโs Financial Foundation Indexed Universal Life (FFIUL) policy and all other xUL policies.
Check out the two pages here. These are from a real FFIUL policy. An agent issued this last winter from a Northern California WFG office. Go to page 5 and read how the FFIUL defines โbeneficiary.โ That def makes clear your heirs receive ONLY the death benefit. You find no provision that lets you pass along even a single peso of your FFIUL's cash value to your family or friends or any other entities.
For example, letโs say you bought the FFIUL with a half-million death bennie. You pay into it over many decades and accumulate an equivalent half-mil in cash value. Your total policy value and death benefit equals a cool million dollars. *However*, when you go toes up, Transamerica KEEPS half of your million dollars. Transamerica gives the $500k death benefit to your heirs. But it TAKES your $500k of cash value.
Alas, this awful FFIUL problem is common among generic pre-packaged xULs. Neither this flagship policy from WFG, nor any other off-the-shelf UL, VUL, and IUL policies from, Pacific Life, Nationwide, Voya, or big carriers, let you pass on your policyโs cash value to your heirs. The NAIC (National Association of Insurance Commissioners) makes this fact crystal-clear. Please google this string: โinsureuonline consumer life FAQsโ to find the following:
โQ: What happens to the cash value in my policy when I die?
A: โฆ No matter how much cash value you may have had in the policy the moment before you died, *your beneficiaries can collect no more than the stated death benefit*โฆ
Your policyโs cash value matters massively. For two reasons:
1) Itโs YOUR cash. Itโs what you realized AFTER you shelled out to Transamerica its COI (Cost of Insurance) charges and its many other charges and fees for covering you with life insurance. Why should Transamerica keep your cash? But thatโs precisely what this company and virtually all other xUL issuers do.
2) The less cash value in your FFIUL to offset your death bennie, the higher COI charges you must pay. These charges start to blast into the stratosphere when you hit the โknee of insuranceโ in your 50s and 60s. The less cash value you have to mitigate soaring your COI charges, the sooner these charges WIPE OUT your cash value. This forces you to pay enormous premiums or let cancel your FFIUL. Then you lose *everything*--your cash value AND your death benefit.
Bottom line: The FFIUL and other standard xUL policies are LOSE-LOSE for you. If you keep low your policyโs cash value, usually by converting into death benefit, then your late-life COI expenses will destroy your remaining cash value and blow your policy to smithereens. On the other hand, if you choose a level death benefit and choose to accumulate your cash value, then your heirs lose a ton of your money when you die.
Thanks โEx-WFGerโ over at Fin*nce Guy for most of this data and for the policy materials he or she posted on that site. If youโd like to read that commenterโs 2 September convo with Corona CA WFG agent Bryan Bravo, please search on this string: โFin*nce Guy WFGโ replacing the โ*โ with an โa.โ Once there, search on โFFIUL a total non-starterโ to reach the first message in that exchange. Then you can read that thread while scrolling up.
Reason of review: Ripoff products.
World Financial Group Cons: Harmful products, Deceptive sales practices.
Location: San Jose, California
Thank You for Your Reply! We are processing your message.
Comments
Please avoid publishing any personal information and promotional content
Every cash value policy has different choices and uses,... in other words you and your agent must work hand in hand to custom design a policy.
All cash value policies can be designed to be either 'level', 'increasing' or even 'optimal switch' pogram. So, with all due respect be aware a 'level' option is not exclusive to WFG or Transamerica.
However, I absolutely agree with you, that to have a level death option without the client understanding what this will mean for their cash value, is completely misleading and unconscionable. I am on a cruade to help educate families, so if you or anyone reading this desires to have a second set of eye to evaluate and review their current policy I would be more than happy to be of service.
The statement that all cash value policies keep your cash value is absolutely false. There are at least 2 options to choose from when you purchase a policy and you have the option to switch between these options at anytime.Option 1 = Level Death benefit.
This benefit is what you are referring to and what you purchased. As your cashvalue increases the internal charges in the policy are adjusted to the new amount at risk to the company. (Death benefit minus cash value.) you are getting exactly what you pay for each year.Option 2 = Increasing Death benefit.
(Death benefit + cash value) with this option the internal charges are higher because the net amount of risk to the company increases each year as your cash and death benefit grows. Side note, with this option less money will go to your cash value to borrow from later as aposed to the option1.
Its sad When misinformed people are allowed to type whatever they want on the internet.. WFG is a company, Larger than any other financial services firm.
If you google any firm you will find negative reviews. There are plenty of opinions out there. Facts are If written correctly, IUL's from large companies like nationwide, voya, Transamerica etc. are great products.
Google Ed Slott CPA he talks about them often.
WFG is not a joke... Anyone who says it is, is not looking at what thet do..
World Financial Group is a joke, and they should not be allowed to provide financial advice.This article is absolutely incorrect about IUL's. Simple misunderstanding of contractual language.
Cash Value's are technically not separate from your death benefit. When you look at your statement for your $500,000 Indexed Universal Life, it might say you have a cash value balance of say $15,000. Also on that statement it'll say your current death benefit is $515,000.Key terms: DEATH BENEFIT and FACE AMOUNT.
Death benefit is the sum of your Face Amount plus cash values. Face Amount is the insurance you applied for.
you're an idiot. you clearly do not know how this product works.
So enlighten us on how it works then. Oh wait, you can't.
Actually yes they will take the cash value remaining only if you're not smart enough to cash out the remaining amount. If you know death is nearer than farther then, Cash Out.
Well it's a life insurance policy..if the purpose is to cash out when you think you will die in a few years I have another product that doesn't cost this much..Thanks a least for letting us know it's a useless product because let's face it IUL's aren't a pension plan and worst it's very very expensive in fees so why would any sane person invest in it?
You are correct... kind of...
not really.
You are basically saying if you drink too much water you will die. And if you don't drink any water you'll die... so water is bad.
Both are facts, but the real world application is inbetween.
The challenge is not the policy or cost of insurance, itโs the lack of understanding of how to structure a policy. Which it sounds like is the case in the scenario. If I told you it cost $60,000 to manage a portfolio, youโd say thatโs crazy?
However if itโs a $6,000,000 account itโs very realistic to be charged 1% to manage it.
ALL UL POLICIES:
Increasing: The cost of insurance goes up over time and gets โexpensive.โ FACT.
Level: The cost of insurance stays the same in forfeit of the cash value. FACT. However no one would build a UL the way you are describing.
Just like no who knows anything about nutrition dies from drinking too much or not enough drinking water. Like most things, the truth is in the inbetween. LEVEL: why would it be used if we, โforfeit our cash value?โ Simple mathโฆ lets say a $500,000 policy COI for a 25yr old is $42mo (using your picture, .0833 @ age 25). By the time we need it, the cost of a $500,000 policy would be almost $5000mo (using your picture, 9.985).
Who can afford that? Not many people. So, why would anyone use UL? Because all of the contributions to this point would be increasing the Cash Value and reducing the amount of insurance needed.
Lets say we put in $144,000 in premiums and the total Cash Value was $489,000 at age 85 (my illustration showed it at 65 @ 6% return, so well assume we put no additional premiums in it for 20 more years and if it averaged less than 1% return until the age 80). We would then be paying premiums on $11,000 in life insurance (using your picture, 9.985)โฆ or $109.835mo. Why? Because we lived a long life and our premiums and interest now are the majority of the policy.
So when we die, we get our Cash Value of $489,000 AND $11,000 of Life Insurance = $500,000. Which we paid $144,000 for. ***For the technical guys, I understand they call the $500,000 the Death Benefit and we donโt get the Cash Value, but this is how it works internally. ***Iโd also like to note this policy was not max-funded.
INCREASING: Why would it be used if, โthe policy will collapse?โ Using your exampleโฆ $500,000 IUL for a 25yr old might fit if the client: 1. Needs Life Insurance 2. Needs Tax free income 3. Might need access before 59.5 or doesnโt want it past 70.5 4.
Wants anonymity (Think Dr, Lawyer, High profile client) as life insurance is difficult be sued for. It is not asset searchable, unlike a 401k, IRA. 5. Wants to contribute over $5,500yr (IRA max) OR use in combination with IRA 6.
Can do a premium of ~$850mo (in this case, perfect health, no tobacco) What does it look like? (6% return) Age 65 โ Premiums: $409,000 ; Cash Value: 1,626,000 Net of fees ; Death Benefit: 2,126,000 (1,626,000 + 500,000 = 2,126,000) That is after COI and Fees. Now, you are correct. If we keep the policy increasing, the Cost of insurance will keep increasing.
We would only do that if we were still planning on contributing. At .5% interest on 1,626,000 is 8,130yr so we are more than covering cost of insurance several times over. However no one would keep it as an increasing policy. Near the end of the premium contribution years, the policy is shifted to a LEVEL premium.
Meaning as we approach 2,000,000 in coverage, we may have $1,800,000 in Cash Value and now our life insurance about is on $200,000 instead of $500,000. Hence costs for insurance stay level. Maybe 10,000 โ 15,000yr, even less when we start taking distributions. That may sound like a lot.
However compare that to $2,000,000 in an actively managed account at 1% fees (often up to 2-3%) = 20,000yr. In active money management, assets are subject to loss: if we have a โ4% in the market we lose $80,000 and we still pay 1% 19,000+ for it to be managed. If we have a -30% in the market we lose $600,000 and pay $14,000 in fees, net -$614,000. In the IUL, youโd have no loss of principle only the fee of insurance.
Cost is only an issue when it lacks value. I donโt blame you for the misunderstanding, but the information you are spreading is false. Now you know.
If you choose to continue spreading a lie, thatโs on your characterโฆ not on Transamerica or UL policies. That's why a sane person would 'invest' in one.
Quick question for you "Mack:" At what annual Index Account rate of return do you illustrate Indexed Universal Life (IUL) so-called "permanent" insurance policies for your clients?For IULs such as WFG's flagship policy, Transamerica's FFIUL?6%? 7%?
8%? Higher?Thanks "Mack." Look forward to your answer.
"Oh! I'm having a massive heart attack.
Quick, get Transamerica on the phone so I can wait on hold 40 minutes to cash out my FFIUL!"
"Mr.Master42" Kindly GTFOOH. Thank you.
I know right... Thank god nobody dies suddenly and have decades of warning so we can maximise a FFIUL?
Depends on if the death benefit is Level or Increasing.
Glendale Anon, sorry, but you're wrong. It doesn't matter which option you choose.
The FFIUL policyholder is hosed either way.
If you choose the Level DB option, then you lose the Cash Value per the contract.
If you choose the Increasing DB option, then TA keeps raising your death benefit, keeping your Net Risk, and thus your COI charges, high. These COI charges will skyrocket in your later life, wiping out your FFIUL's Cash Value and busting you out of this policy in your retirement on a fixed income, the time you can least afford for this to happen. You LOSE EVERYTHING after you've dumped $100,000s into this worthless policy.
Do the math. You'll see for yourself.
You are correct... kind of...
not really.
You are basically saying if you drink too much water you will die. And if you don't drink any water you'll die... so water is bad.
Both are facts, but the real world application is inbetween.
The challenge is not the policy or cost of insurance, itโs the lack of understanding of how to structure a policy. Which it sounds like is the case in the scenario. If I told you it cost $60,000 to manage a portfolio, youโd say thatโs crazy?
However if itโs a $6,000,000 account itโs very realistic to be charged 1% to manage it.
ALL UL POLICIES:
Increasing: The cost of insurance goes up over time and gets โexpensive.โ FACT.
Level: The cost of insurance stays the same in forfeit of the cash value. FACT. However no one would build a UL the way you are describing.
Just like no who knows anything about nutrition dies from drinking too much or not enough drinking water. Like most things, the truth is in the inbetween. LEVEL: why would it be used if we, โforfeit our cash value?โ Simple mathโฆ lets say a $500,000 policy COI for a 25yr old is $42mo (using your picture, .0833 @ age 25). By the time we need it, the cost of a $500,000 policy would be almost $5000mo (using your picture, 9.985).
Who can afford that? Not many people. So, why would anyone use UL? Because all of the contributions to this point would be increasing the Cash Value and reducing the amount of insurance needed.
Lets say we put in $144,000 in premiums and the total Cash Value was $489,000 at age 85 (my illustration showed it at 65 @ 6% return, so well assume we put no additional premiums in it for 20 more years and if it averaged less than 1% return until the age 80). We would then be paying premiums on $11,000 in life insurance (using your picture, 9.985)โฆ or $109.835mo. Why? Because we lived a long life and our premiums and interest now are the majority of the policy.
So when we die, we get our Cash Value of $489,000 AND $11,000 of Life Insurance = $500,000. Which we paid $144,000 for. ***For the technical guys, I understand they call the $500,000 the Death Benefit and we donโt get the Cash Value, but this is how it works internally. ***Iโd also like to note this policy was not max-funded.
INCREASING: Why would it be used if, โthe policy will collapse?โ Using your exampleโฆ $500,000 IUL for a 25yr old might fit if the client: 1. Needs Life Insurance 2. Needs Tax free income 3. Might need access before 59.5 or doesnโt want it past 70.5 4.
Wants anonymity (Think Dr, Lawyer, High profile client) as life insurance is difficult be sued for. It is not asset searchable, unlike a 401k, IRA. 5. Wants to contribute over $5,500yr (IRA max) OR use in combination with IRA 6.
Can do a premium of ~$850mo (in this case, perfect health, no tobacco) What does it look like? (6% return) Age 65 โ Premiums: $409,000 ; Cash Value: 1,626,000 Net of fees ; Death Benefit: 2,126,000 (1,626,000 + 500,000 = 2,126,000) That is after COI and Fees. Now, you are correct. If we keep the policy increasing, the Cost of insurance will keep increasing.
We would only do that if we were still planning on contributing. At .5% interest on 1,626,000 is 8,130yr so we are more than covering cost of insurance several times over. However no one would keep it as an increasing policy. Near the end of the premium contribution years, the policy is shifted to a LEVEL premium.
Meaning as we approach 2,000,000 in coverage, we may have $1,800,000 in Cash Value and now our life insurance about is on $200,000 instead of $500,000. Hence costs for insurance stay level. Maybe 10,000 โ 15,000yr, even less when we start taking distributions. That may sound like a lot.
However compare that to $2,000,000 in an actively managed account at 1% fees (often up to 2-3%) = 20,000yr. In active money management, assets are subject to loss: if we have a โ4% in the market we lose $40,000 and we still pay 1% 19,000+ for it to be managed. If we have a -30% in the market we lose $600,000 and pay $14,000 in fees, net -$614,000. In the IUL, youโd have no loss of principle only the fee of insurance.
Cost is only an issue when it lacks value. I donโt blame you for the misunderstanding, but the information you are spreading is false.
Now you know. If you choose to continue spreading a lie, thatโs on your characterโฆ not on Transamerica or UL policies.
Sorry, not sure why this got put here. It was meant to be attached to a different comment.
And I noticed some small math errors...
-4% of 2M would be 80,000 not 40,000. But I think the concept is understandable.
Quick question for you "Mack:" At what annual Index Account rate of return do you illustrate Indexed Universal Life (IUL) so-called "permanent" insurance policies for your clients? For IULs such as WFG's flagship policy, Transamerica's FFIUL?6%?
7%?
8%? Higher?Thanks "Mack." Look forward to your answer.
hey ex-wfger, as you know you can not illustrate over 6.65%... what do you illustrate at? I typically use 5.5%...
Well if it looks like a money grab and it smells like a money grab...well it's probably a sc*m...Thanks for the interesting read and details and FACTS on WFG and the FFIUL they sell family and friends...
They are stealing your money..plain and simple!
oh but there will be an WFG agent passing around with the lipstick to pretty this pig up while taking your wallet and your families wallet with the other hand!
Hi John. Yes, the FFIUL is an utterly BOGUS policy.
Through and through.
It amazes me that Lieff Cabraser, Zamansky, etc didnโt start to jump on this whopping fraud until just recently. Theyโll have a major $KA-CHING! field day with this slo-mo train wreck.
Iโm sure Transamerica and the other for-profit carriers have already budgeted for the massive out-of-court settlement.
At Finance Guy, Ex-WFGer repeated this review from EndMLMAbuseNow. Itโs at or near the top of the comments list.
I wonder, will Corona CA WFG agent Bryan Bravo have anything of value to say about these facts and numbers? I'm not holding my breath :-)