• Go to page :
  • 1 2345
  • Text Only
Voting History
rated:
Does anyone know which insurance providers are still providing unlimited coverage long term care insurance? I was told that MassMutual doesn't and of the mutual companies only New York Life still does. Also Genworth and Hancock (10-year) but their financial strength isn't so great. Specifically, what about Northwestern Mutual? My broker recommended a permanent life insurance policy with a LTC rider. I'm pretty leary of these policies but I should dismiss it outright. What do you all think?

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
Happy father s day ......that would be if you were capable of procreation

bullwinkle1956 (Jun. 16, 2013 @ 10:33a) |

What's interesting about the dividend histories is that you often talk about how they have been dropping for the last 20... (more)

BrodyInsurance (Jun. 16, 2013 @ 8:17p) |

Actually that information is graphed on the page

It's a downward slope

dhodson (Jun. 16, 2013 @ 9:53p) |

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

This is a good question. I've been thinking I need to look for LTC as well

Combo products are the worse. I dont believe there are any products that arent more expensive than a seperate whole life and a seperate ltci policy if you go with one of the cheaper ltci companies like genworth. You can almost always get more permanent insurance and more ltci for the same price. Its almost as bad as bank on yourself and infinite banking ideas well maybe even worse. Im sure your agent would love it if you purchased a whole life policy from them which is what this is.

dhodson said:   Combo products are the worse. I dont believe there are any products that arent more expensive than a seperate whole life and a seperate ltci policy if you go with one of the cheaper ltci companies like genworth. You can almost always get more permanent insurance and more ltci for the same price. Its almost as bad as bank on yourself and infinite banking ideas well maybe even worse. Im sure your agent would love it if you purchased a whole life policy from them which is what this is.

These are not whole life policies. They are universal life policies.

i thought NWM was whole life for this but im sure you would know better. still doesnt change the conclusion. in fact, might make it worse.

You're going to be facing a number of significant problems.

No matter how strong the financial strength of the company you choose today, you have no way of knowing how that company will fare in 10, 20, 30 years - which is when you might be requiring long term care.

More importantly, even if the company you pick remains financially strong, there is nothing preventing them from selling their LTC business to another firm which might not meet your criteria.

Unfortunately, I have no good answers to the above problems other than to pick what you think is best firm available today and hope it remains that way in 10, 20, 30 years.
Try not to lose sleep over it.

Op how
Old are you?

Ellory how old are you?

If you guys are under 50 I'd recommend avoiding buying ltc (unless you find some insanely cheap group plan ).

Imo Too much will change with healthcare in the next 20-30 years , to make any ltc policy you buy today irrelevant or unaffordable by the time you may use it

balor124 said:   Does anyone know which insurance providers are still providing unlimited coverage long term care insurance? I was told that MassMutual doesn't and of the mutual companies only New York Life still does. Also Genworth and Hancock (10-year) but their financial strength isn't so great. Specifically, what about Northwestern Mutual? My broker recommended a permanent life insurance policy with a LTC rider. I'm pretty leary of these policies but I should dismiss it outright. What do you all think?

I used to sell a ton of LTCi coverage. Almost every single policy was with an unlimited benefit and 5% compound inflation. The policies were way under priced and most were with a company that was very strong and which I believed would never raise rates on their existing clients. Boy, I miss those days. Now, I almost never sell it.

The premiums are much higher than they used to be and if it isn't with NYL, MM, or NML, large price increases are just about guaranteed.

Most fact patterns cause me not to recommend it. That being said, it can't hurt to explore it. Personally, I believe that it would be worth paying 30% or more additional to buy it from one of the mutual companies over a Genworth or Hancock. This means, unfortunately, that you may have to deal with multiple agents because quality independent agents can't help you with Northwestern Mutual or NYL, but can help you with MM.

dhodson said:   i thought NWM was whole life for this but im sure you would know better. still doesnt change the conclusion. in fact, might make it worse.

They might be. I don't know if they have a combo product. The combo products that I have seen are UL, but it is possible that you are correct about NML if they do have one.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   Op how
Old are you?

Ellory how old are you?

If you guys are under 50 I'd recommend avoiding buying ltc (unless you find some insanely cheap group plan ).

Imo Too much will change with healthcare in the next 20-30 years , to make any ltc policy you buy today irrelevant or unaffordable by the time you may use it


Absolutely. The time frame is too long with too many unknowns to buy this product with the expectation that unskilled health care will be similar to what it is now in 30+ years

mikeres said:   You're going to be facing a number of significant problems.

No matter how strong the financial strength of the company you choose today, you have no way of knowing how that company will fare in 10, 20, 30 years - which is when you might be requiring long term care.

More importantly, even if the company you pick remains financially strong, there is nothing preventing them from selling their LTC business to another firm which might not meet your criteria.

Unfortunately, I have no good answers to the above problems other than to pick what you think is best firm available today and hope it remains that way in 10, 20, 30 years.
Try not to lose sleep over it.


I wouldn't be overly concerned about it being sold to another firm. If it is profitable, there is no reason to sell it. If it is sold, and it is profitable, money will be available to pay claims. If it isn't profitable, nobody is going to buy the business. For those of you who can remember, Genworth exists as a company because nobody was willing to buy GE's insurance division because they weren't profitable enough.

Whether you need LTC insurance or don't, isn't the question to be asking. The question to be asking is what's your plan in the event you need long term care?

And, since, depending on which organization's figures you use (AARP, Social Security Admin, Dept of HHS, etc.)the potential need for LTC will affect 50% to 80% of our aging population, having a plan is imperative.

And, here are some facts to use when designing your plan: 1). Almost 90% of LTC needs occur late 70's to mid 80's, 2). Inflation on LTC services WILL be greater than CPI (think Baby Boomers and 'Supply and Demand'), and 3.) Current national averages for LTC services range from $20,000/yr to $90,000/yr (Adult Day Care to Home Care to Assisted Living Facility to Nursing Facility - least expensive to most expensive).

The first step in designing an LTC plan is to decide whether you want to pay for care out of your own pocket (retain the risk) or pay for it out of someone else's pocket (transfer the risk) or, a combination of the two. Next step is to determine who, in your circle of friends, family and neighbors, will be available and what would they commit to do to help with care (buy food, clean house, bathe, help with toileting, etc.). Then, inventory all your assets (investments, home, personal possessions, retirement plans, etc.) and decide which of those you would liquidate and, in what order, you would do so. Now, you have a plan.

By the way, if you're thinking of depending on Medicaid, it requires spending down all your assets to almost nothing (about $2,000). And, if that's still attractive, take a tour of a Medicaid facility and, for comparison, take a tour of non-Medicaid facility. I'd be real interested which facility you'd prefer.

Bottom line, have a plan that puts all your ducks in a row. Then, implement the plan. And, last of all, monitor the plan. Just have a plan.

A wise man once said "Nothing will pay for extended healthcare except assets and income allocated for retirement OR long term care insurance".

If anyone of y'all know another way, I would really love to hear about it.

If LTC will be needed by 80% (to any significant extent) then insurance wont work. Nobody knows what the figures will be.

iraleeb said:   Whether you need LTC insurance or don't, isn't the question to be asking. The question to be asking is what's your plan in the event you need long term care?

And, since, depending on which organization's figures you use (AARP, Social Security Admin, Dept of HHS, etc.)the potential need for LTC will affect 50% to 80% of our aging population, having a plan is imperative.

And, here are some facts to use when designing your plan: 1). Almost 90% of LTC needs occur late 70's to mid 80's, 2). Inflation on LTC services WILL be greater than CPI (think Baby Boomers and 'Supply and Demand'), and 3.) Current national averages for LTC services range from $20,000/yr to $90,000/yr (Adult Day Care to Home Care to Assisted Living Facility to Nursing Facility - least expensive to most expensive).

The first step in designing an LTC plan is to decide whether you want to pay for care out of your own pocket (retain the risk) or pay for it out of someone else's pocket (transfer the risk) or, a combination of the two. Next step is to determine who, in your circle of friends, family and neighbors, will be available and what would they commit to do to help with care (buy food, clean house, bathe, help with toileting, etc.). Then, inventory all your assets (investments, home, personal possessions, retirement plans, etc.) and decide which of those you would liquidate and, in what order, you would do so. Now, you have a plan.

By the way, if you're thinking of depending on Medicaid, it requires spending down all your assets to almost nothing (about $2,000). And, if that's still attractive, take a tour of a Medicaid facility and, for comparison, take a tour of non-Medicaid facility. I'd be real interested which facility you'd prefer.

Bottom line, have a plan that puts all your ducks in a row. Then, implement the plan. And, last of all, monitor the plan. Just have a plan.

A wise man once said "Nothing will pay for extended healthcare except assets and income allocated for retirement OR long term care insurance".

If anyone of y'all know another way, I would really love to hear about it.


This sounds like it is written by someone who sells LTCi. I agree with having a plan, but it isn't as simple as deciding to retain the risk or to transfer the risk. At best, because of the lack of lifetime benefits, one can choose to transfer some of that risk. Another big problem is that this partial risk transference is taking place at an unknown cost.

That wise man that you quoted isn't that wise. The only thing that pays for care is cash. The cash can come from someone's pocket or from an insurance policy or from the government. Family members can also provide care without cash. The cash can also come from cash that is earmarked for long term care expenses and/or inheritances.

Conceptually, I absolutely love LTCi. The problem is that an insurance product ultimately won't make sense if the insurance companies can't make a profit. The pricing of the product and some of the changes has made it so that it only makes sense for a small portion of the population.

what tipped you off...the first post and already pushing ltci?

LTC is essentially a "dread disease" policy preying on fears of future alzheimers based on past occurences and current treatment practices.

Dread disease policies -- in general -- underperform financially.

Both my wife and I have NYL unlimited with 5% and have no complaints... Well, the only complaint is they didn't offer a limited pay option.

Shop for LTC insurance by contacting an independent agent who can shop quotes from a variety of companies for you, like-

AALTCI.org

LTCTree.com

PrepSmart.com

The broker also suggested NYL so I will give that a shot. Another broker was pushing for Genworth but the other mentioned the poor quality debt, which TheStreet confirms. They're both supposed to be independent brokers but I get the impression that I can't trust the advice from either of them. Anyway, to answer questions from earlier, I'm only 32yo but I have a colorful medical history. The group plans all seem to disqualify me outright but individual policies seem to be willing to sell me insurance as standard risk. I'd like coverage for chronic disabling conditions such as MS, Parkinsons, Alzheimers, etc and LTC seems the best way to get it, no? I'm also concerned about being able to get LTC coverage later if my medical history becomes more colorful. I realize that for most it doesn't pay to buy it now but I think I may a rare exception under the circumstances. I wouldn't buy it for my wife except that she gets good portable coverage through work for free already with an insanely cheap increase option or I should get a very good discount with my policy.

Wow you are very young. Does your colorful medical history at age 32 already include precursors to Parkinson's alZheimers MS etc? I'm no MD but IMO at least Parkinson's and Alzheimer's don't hit till very very late in life , and if they hit, they hit regardless of medical issues at a young age .

Now what you say is very true that if you have an increased risk the insurer is not pricing in, the insurance may be a better value proposition. But at age 32 unless you're thinking you can find a way to trigger the ADL payouts in 10 years or so, I can't see how holding this policy for 40-50+ years before its typical trigger point will help you since you're so young. The policy will go up in cost so much by then it is very very unlikely you'll continue it all those years

In the business for 45 years. They all suck! They get you in then raise the rates and or cut benefits as the years go by and by the time you are getting close to needing them it is unaffordable.

Rincon said:   In the business for 45 years. They all suck! They get you in then raise the rates and or cut benefits as the years go by and by the time you are getting close to needing them it is unaffordable.
Exactly . That's why most people who do buy ltc are in their 60s and concerned about needing to use it within 10 years or so (I don't know if any carriers still offer this , but some used to have a ten year rate guarantee ). No carrier has a 30-40-50 year rate guarantee i know of.

In fact , I can guarantee they'll all end up in a desth spiral, make the premiums so unaffordable that healthy people are forced out, and the only ones who will keep paying are those who are on the brink of triggering payout.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   Op how


Ellory how old are you?
mid 50s

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   Rincon said:   In the business for 45 years. They all suck! They get you in then raise the rates and or cut benefits as the years go by and by the time you are getting close to needing them it is unaffordable.
Exactly . That's why most people who do buy ltc are in their 60s and concerned about needing to use it within 10 years or so (I don't know if any carriers still offer this , but some used to have a ten year rate guarantee ). No carrier has a 30-40-50 year rate guarantee i know of.

In fact , I can guarantee they'll all end up in a desth spiral, make the premiums so unaffordable that healthy people are forced out, and the only ones who will keep paying are those who are on the brink of triggering payout.


They all suck? Rincon, tell us about the price increases from NYL, MM, or NML. None of the large mutuals have ever raised their rates on their customers.

SIS, in my opinion, I don't believe that any of those three companies will raise their rates. There are a bunch of reasons for this.

1)They are mutual companies and don't have the same quarter to quarter pressure that stock companies have.
2)As mutual companies, the owners of the policies are the owners of the company.
3)They don't have business on the books from the '70s, '80s, and '90s. They waited until they thought that they could do the business profitably.
4)LTCi makes up a very small sliver of their business. It would be very difficult for a loss on their LTCi business to have any material impact on the company as a whole.
5)The majority of their LTCi customers also have other policies with them which puts other business at risk if they become upset.
6)Any rate increase will correspond to a much smaller profit increase since rate increases will disproportionately cause healthy people to drop policies which lead to an increased % of those who keep their policies going on claim.
7)As far as I can tell, NML and NYL are both paying dividends on their policies and MM is planning on doing so. This tells me that they don't feel that there products are unprofitable.

Obviously, I could be wrong, but I don't see any of those three companies ever raising rates on existing clients.

You forgot the real reason which is they are priced so high that rate increases are already built in.

dhodson said:   You forgot the real reason which is they are priced so high that rate increases are already built in.

1)The comments weren't about whether the current prices are fair. It is about whether one should expect price increases. With the dividend paying policies, if it is fair to say that rate increases are already built in, it is equally fair to say that rate decreases are built in. The use of dividends will allow the ultimate charge to be one that reflects the profitability of the products.

2)As I have stated, I used to sell tons of LTCi and the policies that I sold the most of were from one of the large mutual companies. This was a non-dividend paying policy. The prices were typically substantially less than the stock companies. It was the best bargain that I have ever seen in my history in the insurance business.

The canary in the cage for mutuals will be guardian. They stopped selling but if they increase rates then likely the other mutuals will as well.

dhodson said:   The canary in the cage for mutuals will be guardian. They stopped selling but if they increase rates then likely the other mutuals will as well.

I can't imagine them raising their rates. There is simply no benefit to doing it. What won't surprise me is if the others follow suit and stop selling LTCi.

BrodyInsurance said:   I can't imagine them raising their rates. There is simply no benefit to doing it. What won't surprise me is if the others follow suit and stop selling LTCi.

Agreed.

LTCi continues to be a fundamentally flawed product despite the 3 decades of product tweaks I've seen.

We have covered the underlying product assumptions in a different thread. Perhaps some kind soul could find it.

The fundamental issue is that those assumptions are so critical to pricing -- and so nearly unknowable due to the rapidly evolving nature of healthcare -- that actuaries do not know how to safely price it.

Does raising rates make it a bit more palatable from a carrier perspective? Sure. But how much increase is sufficient to make up for the risk of one or more of the assumptions failing? I sure don't know. And I'm guessing some of them don't know sufficiently well either.

And that's at least part of the reason for carriers exiting that market.

in regards to the mutuals raising rates, they really have only two options IF it winds up being a losing block of business. You feel they will eat the costs for the reasons you gave but if they need to piss off those clients who have other insurance products in addition to ltci then if those clients also surrender their whole life for instance its a double win for the company. The bad press for these older clients isnt super important. It might be more important to keep up the dividends on their other products in order to benefit new sales and new clients. Granted ltci is a small block of business for these companies so maybe it wouldnt manifest itself much but these companies also fight one another for sort of the top spot on dividends. The loss must have some effect on other products if they eat it although it might be small enough that it wont matter.

dhodson said:    The loss must have some effect on other products if they eat it although it might be small enough that it wont matter.

Maybe 20 years ago.

But today generally companies try to stay away from anything that might resemble cross-subsidization.

Modern practice is to make a couple of attempts to fix the product or pricing, then pull it from the market if it's still not working out.

Mutuals might be a bit slower to move than stock companies, but especially in a low interest rate environment even they cannot justify impairing general member dividends for the sake of subsidizing a potentially flawed product.

Before we do anything when it comes to insurance, best if we examine their financials which it sounds as if you have done - so due to their history & current financial position, Mutual of Omaha and Transamerica which may still provide lifetime and refund of premium are questionable; as to the ltc rider, again the only one I trust is MassMutuals's which can be attached to their whole life policy. When we study full illustrations and histories of whole life policies, MassMutual and Northwestern Mutual have the highest Internal Rates of Return primarily because they have the best mortality experience and low operating expenses plus more favorable/high safer returns on their invested assets (important to calculate the gross margin which can be done using Vital Signs analysis); also it is better if the book of risk is part of the company's book of risk rather than a separate subsidiary (Northwestern Mutual) - and be sure to know the exclusions/limitations since only MassMutual and Northwestern Mutual include war/act of war, drug, alcohol, self-inflicted injury and military service intheir coverage - others exclude - further, only MassMutual, Northwestern and NYL have never raised rates on their in-force ltci book or risk - everyone else has excluded these perils & raised rates on in-force books of business; and to close, yes, I recommend that you reconsider the benefits of buying a MassMutual legacy whole life with a ltci rider - my clients prefer this to a straight ltci policy - one exception, business owners where the premiums for ltci are deductible and can pick and choose who gets the benefit. Also, we include the cash value of whole life policies as part of the debt portfolio of our clients so the IRR is important and history plus current financial standing leaves us with 2 choices: MassMutual and Northwestern Mutual.
Attached is a Vital Signs Analysis and please be sure to notice that most companies have very small investred-asset portfolios - minimum in 2013 should be <>70 billion -
Hope this helps,

MALinehan

Before we do anything when it comes to insurance, best if we examine their financials which it sounds as if you have done - so due to their history & current financial position, Mutual of Omaha and Transamerica which may still provide lifetime and refund of premium are questionable; as to the ltc rider, again the only one I trust is MassMutuals's which can be attached to their whole life policy. When we study full illustrations and histories of whole life policies, MassMutual and Northwestern Mutual have the highest Internal Rates of Return primarily because they have the best mortality experience and low operating expenses plus more favorable/high safer returns on their invested assets (important to calculate the gross margin which can be done using Vital Signs analysis); also it is better if the book of risk is part of the company's book of risk rather than a separate subsidiary (Northwestern Mutual) - and be sure to know the exclusions/limitations since only MassMutual and Northwestern Mutual include war/act of war, drug, alcohol, self-inflicted injury and military service intheir coverage - others exclude - further, only MassMutual, Northwestern and NYL have never raised rates on their in-force ltci book or risk - everyone else has excluded these perils & raised rates on in-force books of business; and to close, yes, I recommend that you reconsider the benefits of buying a MassMutual legacy whole life with a ltci rider - my clients prefer this to a straight ltci policy - one exception, business owners where the premiums for ltci are deductible and can pick and choose who gets the benefit. Also, we include the cash value of whole life policies as part of the debt portfolio of our clients so the IRR is important and history plus current financial standing leaves us with 2 choices: MassMutual and Northwestern Mutual.
Attached is a Vital Signs Analysis and please be sure to notice that most companies have very small investred-asset portfolios - minimum in 2013 should be <>70 billion -
Hope this helps,

MALinehan

Before we do anything when it comes to insurance, best if we examine their financials which it sounds as if you have done - so due to their history & current financial position, Mutual of Omaha and Transamerica which may still provide lifetime and refund of premium are questionable; as to the ltc rider, again the only one I trust is MassMutuals's which can be attached to their whole life policy. When we study full illustrations and histories of whole life policies, MassMutual and Northwestern Mutual have the highest Internal Rates of Return primarily because they have the best mortality experience and low operating expenses plus more favorable/high safer returns on their invested assets (important to calculate the gross margin which can be done using Vital Signs analysis); also it is better if the book of risk is part of the company's book of risk rather than a separate subsidiary (Northwestern Mutual) - and be sure to know the exclusions/limitations since only MassMutual and Northwestern Mutual include war/act of war, drug, alcohol, self-inflicted injury and military service intheir coverage - others exclude - further, only MassMutual, Northwestern and NYL have never raised rates on their in-force ltci book or risk - everyone else has excluded these perils & raised rates on in-force books of business; and to close, yes, I recommend that you reconsider the benefits of buying a MassMutual legacy whole life with a ltci rider - my clients prefer this to a straight ltci policy - one exception, business owners where the premiums for ltci are deductible and can pick and choose who gets the benefit. Also, we include the cash value of whole life policies as part of the debt portfolio of our clients so the IRR is important and history plus current financial standing leaves us with 2 choices: MassMutual and Northwestern Mutual.
Attached is a Vital Signs Analysis and please be sure to notice that most companies have very small investred-asset portfolios - minimum in 2013 should be <>70 billion -
Hope this helps,

MALinehan

Again, one needs to ask themselves just how much work they want to put into buying a product they may never need.

mar987 said:   Before we do anything when it comes to insurance, best if we examine their financials which it sounds as if you have done - so due to their history & current financial position, Mutual of Omaha and Transamerica which may still provide lifetime and refund of premium are questionable; as to the ltc rider, again the only one I trust is MassMutuals's which can be attached to their whole life policy. When we study full illustrations and histories of whole life policies, MassMutual and Northwestern Mutual have the highest Internal Rates of Return primarily because they have the best mortality experience and low operating expenses plus more favorable/high safer returns on their invested assets (important to calculate the gross margin which can be done using Vital Signs analysis); also it is better if the book of risk is part of the company's book of risk rather than a separate subsidiary (Northwestern Mutual) - and be sure to know the exclusions/limitations since only MassMutual and Northwestern Mutual include war/act of war, drug, alcohol, self-inflicted injury and military service intheir coverage - others exclude - further, only MassMutual, Northwestern and NYL have never raised rates on their in-force ltci book or risk - everyone else has excluded these perils & raised rates on in-force books of business; and to close, yes, I recommend that you reconsider the benefits of buying a MassMutual legacy whole life with a ltci rider - my clients prefer this to a straight ltci policy - one exception, business owners where the premiums for ltci are deductible and can pick and choose who gets the benefit. Also, we include the cash value of whole life policies as part of the debt portfolio of our clients so the IRR is important and history plus current financial standing leaves us with 2 choices: MassMutual and Northwestern Mutual.
Attached is a Vital Signs Analysis and please be sure to notice that most companies have very small investred-asset portfolios - minimum in 2013 should be <>70 billion -
Hope this helps,

MALinehan


MALinehan,is there a reason why you are failing to disclose your current and/or prior relationship with MassMutual? It makes all agents look bad when agents come on boards like this with an agenda.

BEEFjerKAY said:   dhodson said:    The loss must have some effect on other products if they eat it although it might be small enough that it wont matter.

Maybe 20 years ago.

But today generally companies try to stay away from anything that might resemble cross-subsidization.

Modern practice is to make a couple of attempts to fix the product or pricing, then pull it from the market if it's still not working out.

Mutuals might be a bit slower to move than stock companies, but especially in a low interest rate environment even they cannot justify impairing general member dividends for the sake of subsidizing a potentially flawed product.


I understand that and that these companies are currently paying dividends after a couple of years so there is so buffer. Still the bottom line becomes they are making assumptions and may even regret giving out those dividends. If they stop selling a product, it still doesnt relinquish them from the products they previously sold. The current assumption is that these mutuals have correctly priced the product at this point at least such that if they stopped paying dividends that it would not be a loss long term. Hard to know if that is true or not. Certainly they gave themselves a much bigger buffer but if they are still wrong then they are left either raising rates or taking the loss out of the gains from other products.

BrodyInsurance said:   mar987 said:   Before we do anything when it comes to insurance, best if we examine their financials which it sounds as if you have done - so due to their history & current financial position, Mutual of Omaha and Transamerica which may still provide lifetime and refund of premium are questionable; as to the ltc rider, again the only one I trust is MassMutuals's which can be attached to their whole life policy. When we study full illustrations and histories of whole life policies, MassMutual and Northwestern Mutual have the highest Internal Rates of Return primarily because they have the best mortality experience and low operating expenses plus more favorable/high safer returns on their invested assets (important to calculate the gross margin which can be done using Vital Signs analysis); also it is better if the book of risk is part of the company's book of risk rather than a separate subsidiary (Northwestern Mutual) - and be sure to know the exclusions/limitations since only MassMutual and Northwestern Mutual include war/act of war, drug, alcohol, self-inflicted injury and military service intheir coverage - others exclude - further, only MassMutual, Northwestern and NYL have never raised rates on their in-force ltci book or risk - everyone else has excluded these perils & raised rates on in-force books of business; and to close, yes, I recommend that you reconsider the benefits of buying a MassMutual legacy whole life with a ltci rider - my clients prefer this to a straight ltci policy - one exception, business owners where the premiums for ltci are deductible and can pick and choose who gets the benefit. Also, we include the cash value of whole life policies as part of the debt portfolio of our clients so the IRR is important and history plus current financial standing leaves us with 2 choices: MassMutual and Northwestern Mutual.
Attached is a Vital Signs Analysis and please be sure to notice that most companies have very small investred-asset portfolios - minimum in 2013 should be <>70 billion -
Hope this helps,

MALinehan


MALinehan,is there a reason why you are failing to disclose your current and/or prior relationship with MassMutual? It makes all agents look bad when agents come on boards like this with an agenda.


I wouldnt worry about it. He/she isnt going to last long here with that sort of garbage. Im sure he does recommend whole life with ltci riders to his clients. Thats pretty much a terrible idea.

dhodson said:   in regards to the mutuals raising rates, they really have only two options IF it winds up being a losing block of business. You feel they will eat the costs for the reasons you gave but if they need to piss off those clients who have other insurance products in addition to ltci then if those clients also surrender their whole life for instance its a double win for the company. The bad press for these older clients isnt super important. It might be more important to keep up the dividends on their other products in order to benefit new sales and new clients. Granted ltci is a small block of business for these companies so maybe it wouldnt manifest itself much but these companies also fight one another for sort of the top spot on dividends. The loss must have some effect on other products if they eat it although it might be small enough that it wont matter.

The point is that it is small enough that it doesn't matter. These companies have none of the bad business that was written in the last 25 years of the 20th century. When NML and NYL entered the business around 2000, they did it with such high pricing that they didn't sell any (very few) policies. MM had lower premiums, but was very quick to raise the rates on new insureds.

Imagine that your wife takes $10,000 out of your checking account to open a small side business. Does it really matter to your long term finances whether this business makes $2,000 or loses $3000? The numbers involved with their LTCi businesses are nothing more than rounding errors when we look at the company's as a whole. We are talking about Fortune 100 sized companies that have sold very little LTCi. It would be very different if we were looking at much smaller companies who were banking on making money from LTCi.

Skipping 121 Messages...
Actually that information is graphed on the page

It's a downward slope



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014