Recent articles have appeared to claim that premium financed indexed universal life insurance (IUL) is a risky bet with odds that favor the insurance companies and banks rather than the policyholders. As the industry’s leading provider of premium financed life insurance solutions for over 23 years, I would like to provide my perspective on the subject.
I started the Capital Maximization Strategy (CMS) in 1996 as a way for affluent clients to purchase large insurance policies without having to liquidate their assets to pay premiums. CMS is now the largest and longest running premium financing program in the US. Over the past 23 years, we have financed thousands of policies, and funded more than $4+ Billion in premiums with $40+ Billion of death benefit. More than 78% of the policies that have been financed using the CMS program are still inforce. In 2004 I started Succession Capital Alliance (SCA) to help brokers and advisors across the country access our CMS program for their clients. As far as we know, SCA is the only premium financing firm that renewed every single loan during the financial crisis in 2008.
Any financial instrument that promises to provide potential upside (think financed IUL) compared to a relatively safe instrument (think non-financed whole life) obviously involves an increase in risk. I can categorically say that none of my clients who ultimately choose a financed solution for life insurance needs are under the impression that by using financed IUL that they are simultaneously reducing their risk and increasing their upside. On the contrary, we make it clear to all our clients that there is nothing “free” about premium financed IUL. They know the safest way to purchase life insurance is to pay the full premium out of pocket into a conservative product (such as whole life or guaranteed UL). Many clients choose this option. But sophisticated, high-net worth clients want to see a full range of designs across the risk and cost spectrum—including premium-financed IUL.
I have been in the insurance business for over 30 years. In that time, I have sold all product types including Term Life, Whole Life, UL and IUL. Every client I meet has a different need and every need has its suitable product. No single product is right for everyone, and the same goes for Premium Financing. Premium financing is a tool, a way for the affluent client to buy the insurance policy. It is not a way for a policy to be sold to someone who can’t afford the premiums. Only those clients that can write a check to pay the premium are suitable to using premium financing. There are even those that buy a policy but choose not to finance.
There are no doubt individuals in our industry who use these products and financing programs to mask the potential volatility in the plans and the results that could ensue should the projections not work out as planned. But blaming the life insurance carriers that design the products, the banks that provide the financing, and the agents who make the recommendations does not provide a full or fair picture, where the answers or solutions are not as simple and one-dimensional as some would suggest. Critics draw their conclusions based on several flawed (I believe) assumptions, and I’d like to address these assumptions one at a time—and in doing so, provide (in my view) some important data to counterbalance these assertions.
Assumption #1: The majority of IUL sales are premium-financed.
Some authors estimate that as much as 60% of all IUL is premium financed. But when we ask the top carriers themselves, their own estimates range between 5% and 16% (by premium). These carriers represent approximately 50 percent of the IUL marketplace, so it seems highly unlikely that the estimated percentages are anywhere near that high.
Assumption #2: Most clients who buy financed IUL are naïve as to the risks inherent in the transaction.
Those same life carriers will also tell you that clients who choose premium financing represent the very high end of the consumer market. Our average client is between the ages of 47-63, has a net worth of $25 million, and purchases between $18-20 million of death benefit. These clients all have financial and legal advisors watching over their affairs, and trustees for due diligence.
As I stated earlier, every client with whom SCA conducts business is clearly shown the range of options for the purchase of life insurance—including financed IUL. We include proposals that assume rising borrowing costs and zero percent policy returns to emphasize the potential collateral needs. When the loan documents are executed, we make sure those worst-case scenario proposals are also signed by the client.
Assumption #3: Premium financed IUL plans will never work out in the long run.
We can certainly agree that no cash-value life insurance policy performs exactly as planned. This is true of Whole Life, Guaranteed UL, VUL, and IUL. Not only will interest rates, equity returns, cap rates and borrowing rates change, but clients will skip premiums, pay premiums late, pay less than they originally planned, and make unplanned changes or distributions.
The reason so many of our financed cases are still on the books is because we service our policy holders all year, every year. Producers, clients and advisors all know that when they work with SCA, service is our #1 priority. We personally handle every renewal, work with the lenders and the clients to make sure the process is smooth. We review their loan schedules, and show them how the interest and collateral figures are calculated which keeps them comfortable with the transaction. Some cases can require hours of phone calls and dozens of emails each year. But this personal touch is extremely important and it significantly reduces the risk of lapses and defaults—regardless of the product they choose.
Assumption #4: Life insurance carriers, lender banks and insurance agents bear little to no risk in these transactions—all the risk is borne by the client.
Every case we sell requires a significant obligation from all parties to the transaction, cash or financed. When financing is involved, (1) the clients are expected to pay loan interest and post collateral; (2) the lender is expected to fund the premiums and renew the loans in good faith; (3) the insurance company is expected to provide a strong and reliable product to last a lifetime, and be there to provide the benefits under that contract; (4) the producer is expected to service their client year after year. If a transaction ultimately fails, every party pays a price. The carriers don’t recover their acquisition costs, lenders don’t recover their full loan principal, and producers get hit with commission chargebacks.
In 2008 during the financial crisis, client portfolio values dropped, and some lenders in fact left the premium financing market. SCA was the only premium financing firm that we know of that renewed every single loan, by either getting loans refinanced, or negotiating with the lender to adjust their valuations of the collateral to prevent defaults. When some carriers’ ratings dropped or they stopped accepting new business, we worked with the lenders to continue funding those policies and holding them as valued assets helping preventing defaults for reasons outside of a client’s control.
We design a transaction to maximize the policy performance without the underlying risks of high cash value riders. Our clients are told up front of their role and the need for “skin in the game”. They need to maintain liquidity to cover interest and collateral needs. The client is now comfortable with the long-term expectations, the insurance company is comfortable that the risk of lapse is low and the lender is secure.
Assumption #5: The cash-on-cash returns for IUL products utilized in these plans are wildly optimistic, and often projected to be in the double digits.
None of the plans that we present to clients features these kinds of returns. Any sophisticated client or lender would immediately call into question the credibility of such projections. The critics may be confusing the gross illustrated rates with the actual net rates of return. The newer “multiplier” products sold by John Hancock, Lincoln Financial and Pacific Life can be an attractive alternative for clients as long as the client understands the risks. These products carry significant asset-based charges as high as 5%-7% of the policy’s accumulated value in exchange for a multiplier on the indexed credit. The multipliers produce higher gross illustrated rates in some durations, but the plans we design—even those with the multipliers employed—generally show cash-on-cash returns in the later durations of between 6% and 8%.
Assumption #6: Level-rate IUL illustrations do a poor job of projecting the actual risks of a financed IUL.
Everyone agrees that level-rate illustrations don’t show the client how IUL policies perform in the real world. Until the regulators modify the illustration model rules we are stuck with these level-rate illustrations. This situation is not the fault of the agent.
Some IUL critics will try to show the riskiness of the IUL product by showing severe reductions in the level illustrated rate. This certainly highlights the downside of the plan. But if the client wants to see the upside, there is no way to do that under current guidelines. Regulation only allows the clients to see rates that are equal to or lower than the AG49 max rate. Remember, the AG49 max rate represents a historical average. This means that over the same era used to generate the AG49 rate, half of the historical samples would have returned a rate greater than the AG49 max illustrated rate.
I think we should be able to show clients illustrations that reflect varying rates of interest over time, where at least one illustration uses a series of rates where the average rate is historically low, and at least one where the average rate is historically high. In this way, a client could make an informed, balanced decision as to whether or not the full risks at the product level and their interaction with the financed elements makes sense for their overall risk tolerance.
Assumption #7: Financed IUL illustrations are the most abusive and aggressive in the history of the industry.
As I’ve discussed throughout this article, there’s a right way to sell financed IUL and a wrong way. Agents certainly bear much of the responsibility as to how “responsible” they are in the design of the case. There are certainly products and product features that can be structured in such a way as to give the client the impression of a frictionless transaction.
But most buyers in this market are extremely sophisticated clients who understand the full range of risk and reward with leveraged transactions and most advisors do a thorough job of answering the questions and showing a range of options that give the client sufficient information to make a purchasing decision. A few may indeed be structuring illustrations that utilize multipliers, variable rate loans, low level projected bank borrowing costs, rolling up of loan interest, and AG49 maximum rates forever. All these elements are optional and should be used with care by agents. They should NOT (in my opinion) be demonized simply due to the potential for abuse by a relatively small number of agents.
In our practice, clients are happy to have the full range of options: Whole Life, UL and IUL, paying cash or utilizing financing. The key is to provide clients with the “Power of Choice”. We educate our clients as to the risks and ranges of outcomes going in, and then actively manageperformance year-by-year and adjust expectations when either external (insurance company and bank) or internal (client payment frequency, amount, etc.) forces conspire to change things.
Generalizing and demonizing premium financed IUL doesn’t address the issues. Removing client choices doesn’t serve the public or the industry. Complex problems require complex solutions and disciplined, deliberate hard work by carrier, bank, agent and client. We know it’s not easy, but it can and does work for our clients.
