Talk:Universal life insurance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

I placed the above notice. This 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)

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)

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.

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)