Maturity Age for an Insurance Policy

On July 21, 2017, the Wall Street Journal published an article titled “This Life Insurance Isn’t So Permanent”, which discussed instances where an insurance policy is paid out prior to the death of the insured per the terms of the contract. Specifically, they refer to the situation that a 99-year-old is currently in; his family will lose out of $3,200,000 in death benefit proceeds when he turns 100 years old in September. His Transamerica policy states that the policy’s cash surrender value will be paid out to the policy-owner upon the insured reaching maturity age (age 100 in this case). Many policy-owners are probably unaware that this could be a clause of their insurance policy and are in for an unpleasant surprise when their policy is paid out before their passing.

Older policies, such as those issued prior to the early 2000’s, were based on the 1980 Commission’s Standard Ordinary (CSO) mortality tables. These tables reflect the probability that people in various age groups will pass away in a given year. The insurance products that were based on these tables used age 95 or age 100 as the maturity date for the contracts. In some instances, once the client reaches the maturity age, all insurance charges cease at that point and the policy remains inforce until the insured’s passing. If the client is able to keep these policies inforce until maturity, they are guaranteed the policy’s death benefit will be paid when they pass away. The amount of continued coverage can vary as well depending on the design of the policy and product specifications.

However, other policies state that if the insured has not passed away by the maturity age, then the policy pays out its cash surrender value and will no longer pay out a death benefit. This can be a disastrous consequence for the policy-owner, who now loses out on the tax-free death benefit and the much-needed liquidity. Furthermore, since costs of insurance increase with age, there’s risk that the policy will have minimal cash value at the policy’s maturity. If this is the case, then most or all of the policy premiums that were paid into the policy will be lost as well.

Years ago, this was not an issue for most consumers as very few people lived beyond 95 or 100 years old. However, with the improvements in medical care extending mortality, people are living longer than ever before. As evidenced in the chart below, the number of centenarians have increased over 43% between 1990 and 2010.

Fortunately, since the mid to late-2000’s, insurance carriers have created products based on the updated mortality tables. These new products now use age 121 as the standard maturity age. The primary reason for the change was to prevent an abundance of policies maturing before the insured’s death, as that is something that neither carriers nor policy-owners want to have happen. However, even with the new standard in the industry, there is an unknown number of older, existing policies that will be paying out their cash value instead of the death benefit.

While these payout provisions shouldn’t be a surprise since they are included in the policy documents, they can be missed or misunderstood by clients. Therefore, it’s imperative for policies to be reviewed frequently after the policy has been purchased. Unfortunately, post-acquisition due care is often one of the most neglected areas of purchasing life insurance. Contrary to popular belief, life insurance is not a one-time purchase that can be set on a shelf until the insured dies. It actually requires thorough, proactive and annual attention, and if it’s not properly cared for, it can be very costly.

If your clients have any older policies, it’s our recommendation a comprehensive policy review be performed to see what options they have for the future of their policies. While these policies may have been purchased under the premise of providing “coverage for life”, the terms and specifications are unique for each policy and will dictate how long the policy remains inforce. If the policy is scheduled to be paid out prior to the insured’s passing, there may be options that can be explored today to alleviate this issue in the future. A careful review of the policy, including the fine print, and a better understanding of the policy’s projected performance is what is required to ensure the policy will be there when the insured needs it the most. Furthermore, transparency and full disclosure at the time of the sale will make sure the policyowner knows exactly what he or she is purchasing.

We remain focused on working hard to set ourselves apart in the marketplace by delivering the value our Clients and Advisors have come to expect from us. If you have any clients with this or a similar type of policy, we would be happy to perform a review to determine the impact these provisions or  changes may have on their policies.


Note: Experience of clients with life insurance products will depend on their unique facts and circumstances and we cannot guarantee the same results for all clients.

File #1173-2017

WealthPoint Announces New Insurance Partner

DENVER, March 16, 2017 – WealthPoint, a leading provider of business and life insurance advisory services with a focus on succession, exit and wealth transfer planning to entrepreneurial family groups and affluent clients throughout the U.S., expands into the Denver market with the hiring of Kevin McMahon, its newest Insurance Partner. “Adding Kevin to our team enables us to provide our insurance and business advisory services to the Denver market,” said WealthPoint’s Managing Partner, Ryan Barradas. “Kevin brings a tremendous amount of respect within the Advisor community. His reputation and experience in the insurance industry put us in a position for sustained success.”

Kevin brings a wealth of experience in both employee benefits and life insurance. In 1980, Kevin founded McMahon & Co., an employee benefits consulting business, and successfully managed it for 30 years until he sold it. Since then, he founded KMM, LLC, an independent, client focused insurance practice. He has a proven track record of consistently identifying the best solutions for his clients, which he has demonstrated throughout his successful career. His core belief and determination to put his client’s needs first, are directly aligned with WealthPoint’s mantra, Know your story.

“I’m excited to take the next step in my career with WealthPoint,” says Kevin. “I look forward to joining a firm that has the staff, processes and resources in place to allow me to best service our entrepreneurial and affluent clientele.”

Initial Thoughts on the Presidential Election

Last week, America witnessed the conclusion of one of the most talked about elections in recent memory, as Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton and was elected to become the 45th President of the United States. Not only did Trump win the toss-up states he needed to in order to capture 270 electoral college votes, he even turned some states red that had historically been blue. While we await to see which promises made during Trump’s campaign become true, we wanted to share our initial thoughts on the election and the potential impact of those promises on America’s tax code and fiscal policy.

Map

First, we must acknowledge that Trump is becoming President at an opportune time, with the economy and unemployment rates being in significantly better positions than when President Obama took office in 2008. In addition, Republicans have gained control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, providing a seemingly unobstructed pathway for his legislative initiatives to be passed into action. However, Trump does face some pushback within his own party and must deal with the Republicans not having 60 votes in the Senate. Although the “reconciliation” process (whereby most spending and tax legislation can be passed with a simple majority) can be utilized to pass some of his tax reform, he will have more difficulty passing non-budgetary items, which include the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate or altering the Dodd-Frank legislation.

Unfortunately, there is still tremendous uncertainty about the specifics of all of Trump’s proposals for tax reform. Some of these proposals are in alignment with the House Republicans’ plan while others are in misalignment. Trump’s Tax Plan website lists the following proposals:

  • “Low-income Americans would have an effective income tax rate of 0%”
  • Income tax brackets would be simplified and tax rates would be reduced
    • Less than $75,000: 12%
    • More than $75,000 but less than $225,000: 25%
    • More than $225,000: 33%
  • Carried interest would be taxed as ordinary income
  • The Affordable Care Act would be repealed, including the 3.8% tax on net investment income
  • The corporate and personal Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) would be repealed
  • The standard deduction would be increased and personal exemptions would be eliminated
  • The estate tax would be repealed, but capital gains on property held until death and valued over $10 million would be subject to tax
  • Corporate tax rate would decrease from 35% to 15%
  • Deemed repatriation of corporate profits held offshore at a one-time tax rate of 10%
  • “Most corporate tax expenditures” would be eliminated (except for research and development)

In all likelihood, there is going to be some form of substantial tax reform during Trump’s presidency. The questions are how significant will the reform be and in what method will the reform take place. For example, the repeal of the estate tax has occurred a few times in the history of the United States, with it being reinstated in times of war or as part of a budget or tax reform. The last time there was a repeal of the estate tax was in 2010 as part of the Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act of 2001. This Act called for a phase-out of the estate tax over a 10-year period. However, additional legislation in 2010 and 2012 led us to our current estate tax policy. Therefore, will Trump be able to repeal the estate tax or possibly reform it over a period of time? The answer will come down to a careful negotiation between Trump and Congress and the balancing act of tax reform, entitlement reform (which Trump has said he will not change), and managing the federal deficit.

For our insurance practice, the potential repeal or even reform of the estate tax may change why and how insurance policies are purchased in the future. However, even if the estate tax is repealed, Trump has proposed there would be capital gains taxes on assets held until death (with capital gains not applying to the first $10 million of assets). Even if the reason to own insurance to provide liquidity for estate taxes is minimized, there is still a need for liquidity. The death benefit could offset the capital gains tax incurred on the sale of the inherited property.

The other reasons for having life insurance remain valid, such as providing spousal security, income tax diversification, supplementing your retirement income, succession planning for a business, estate equalization, creating a family legacy or funding philanthropic objectives. Given Trump’s proposal to reduce income tax rates in the near future, we will likely see a surge of individuals purchasing insurance policies to serve as a cash accumulation vehicle to supplement their retirement planning. Generally, most qualified retirement plans only make economic sense when you defer paying taxes at a higher tax bracket and withdraw the funds at a lower tax bracket. However, if income tax rates are decreased, it may make more sense from a tax planning perspective to participate in more after-tax planning as opposed to continuing to promote and invest in qualified retirement plans. It really comes down to two questions; would you rather pay taxes at a higher or lower tax rate and would you rather pay taxes on a higher or lower amount? Utilizing insurance would result in investing after-tax dollars to purchase a policy, allowing those funds to grow tax-deferred and withdrawing those funds income tax-free.1

The concern of many, including Paul Ryan and other members of the Republican Party, is how much will these potential tax cuts add to the federal deficit. Trump has also discussed increasing military spending, which would further exacerbate the federal deficit problem. Some argue that his tax reform lowers tax rates but increases the tax base so there shouldn’t be any change in overall tax revenue. There were also discussions during the campaign of imposing tariffs to generate additional revenue for the government. Although monetarily this may work, trade agreements would have to be negotiated which could have severe political ramifications and strain our relationships with Allies across the globe. While it’s still unclear what impact these changes will have, most Americans agree there needs to be a defined path for how we are going to navigate our ever-increasing debt burden. Potentially decreasing tax revenue and increasing spending does not appear to be in alignment with reducing our country’s debt. In fact, while increasing our revenues or decreasing spending on their own would be a start, it will most likely take both actions to change our fiscal policy, make an impact on our national debt and put the U.S. on a path towards financial stability. It seems that any other path will compound the debt burden and lead us toward an unsustainable and uncertain financial future.

Perhaps more than we have seen in recent memory, there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty surrounding what the future will hold. The capital markets reflected this on election night, as we saw the futures market predict the market would be down 5% the day after the election. Anytime there is uncertainty and especially after a Presidential election, the markets usually act negatively. Throughout history, we have seen this occur, such as when the markets dropped by 5.27%, 4.61% and 4.42% the day after President Obama, President Truman and President Roosevelt were elected. However, maybe there is reason for optimism as the markets actually gained by 1.40% the day after Trump was elected and continued that upward trend the rest of the week.

Trump will also be the first President to have never served in a government position. However, Trump’s supporters showed they are less concerned about his lack of political qualifications and more concerned about challenging and changing the status quo. They were dissatisfied with Washington and felt alienated amongst all of the change that has been occurring around them. As Andy Friedman pointed out on his Washington Update blog, Trump supporters “see a political system that at best has ignored them and at worst is stacked against them.”

Whether you voted for Trump, Clinton or anyone else, we need to be reminded that our government was designed on a system of checks and balances to serve in the best interests for all Americans. It was structured this way to prevent one man or woman from making unilateral decisions. Trump must work closely with our elected representatives in the House of Representatives and Senate in order to pass legislation. Furthermore, he must work collaboratively with his Cabinet members to navigate the multitude of domestic and foreign issues he will face while in office. Regardless whether Trump or Clinton was elected the 45th President of the United States, we should look optimistically toward the future and remember that we live in a country where our opinions are heard and our votes can inspire change.

Should you have any questions about how President-elect Trump’s proposals may affect your individual, estate or corporate tax situation, please feel free to give us a call.


This information does not reflect the political views of WealthPoint, LLC or any of its employees or affiliates. WealthPoint, LLC does not provide any tax or legal advice. The discussion herein is general in nature and is provided for informational purposes only.  There is no guarantee as to its accuracy or completeness.  It is not intended as legal or tax advice and individuals may not rely upon it (including for purposes of avoiding tax penalties imposed by the IRS or state and local tax authorities).  Individuals should consult their own legal and tax counsel as to matters discussed herein and before entering into any estate planning, trust, investment, retirement, or insurance arrangement.

1 Subject to policy performance and product specifications.

 File #: 1861-2016

 

Government funding and tax extenders legislation affects investors

After weeks of negotiations, Congress reached agreement on a bipartisan bill to fund the government through September 2016.  Following are provisions of particular interest to investors.

The legislation makes permanent (including retroactively for 2015) some provisions that previously had expired every few years:

  • IRA / charitable contribution provision for account holders over age 70-1/2
  • Tax credit for research and development expenditures
  • Enhanced write-off of small business capital expenses under section 179

The legislation extends (including retroactively for 2015) other provisions:

  • Extension and phase out of bonus depreciation through 2019

The legislation includes a number of new provisions:

  • Repeals the forty-year-old prohibition on exports of domestically produced crude oil
  • Expands 529 plan qualifying distributions to include student computers and technology

The legislation delays sources of funding and government reimbursements under the Affordable Care Act:

  • “Cadillac tax”(40%)  imposed on high cost employer health plans delayed until 2020; thereafter tax becomes deductible
  • Medical device tax delayed until 2018
  • Annual fee on health insurance provider premiums written (“belly button tax”) delayed until 2018
  • Government reimbursements for insurance company losses limited to amounts collected from profitable insurers (reimbursement fund must be revenue neutral)

Of interest to financial advisors, the legislation:

  • Does not prevent the Department of Labor from finalizing and implementing the proposed IRA account fiduciary rules
  • Does not make significant changes to Dodd-Frank

 


Andrew H. Friedman is the principal of The Washington Update LLC and a former senior partner in a Washington, D.C. law firm.  He and his colleague Jeff Bush speak regularly on legislative and regulatory developments and trends affecting investment, insurance, and retirement products.  They may be reached at www.TheWashingtonUpdate.com.

The authors of this paper are not providing legal or tax advice as to the matters discussed herein.  The discussion herein is general in nature and is provided for informational purposes only.  There is no guarantee as to its accuracy or completeness.  It is not intended as legal or tax advice and individuals may not rely upon it (including for purposes of avoiding tax penalties imposed by the IRS or state and local tax authorities).  Individuals should consult their own legal and tax counsel as to matters discussed herein and before entering into any estate planning, trust, investment, retirement, or insurance arrangement.

Copyright Andrew H. Friedman 2015.  Reprinted by permission.  All rights reserved.

Another government shutdown?

Congress returns from recess next week facing a month-end deadline to fund government operations for the next fiscal year. I’m concerned we could be looking at a reprise of 2013. That year, the federal government shut down on October 1 for sixteen days over a Republican proposal to defund the Affordable Care Act. Now, Republicans are talking about defunding Planned Parenthood, a proposal the President is almost certain to veto. More broadly, there is significant disagreement on funding for social programs generally (the President wants increased funding; the Republicans are calling for social program cuts). If these disagreements cannot be breached, the government faces an October 1 shutdown.

 

The difference this time is when the debt limit must be raised to allow the federal government to borrow additional funds. In 2013, the government ran out of money and had to borrow by mid-October, setting up an incontrovertible deadline that Congress had to address, reopening the government in the process. This year, we’re told that the government will not need to borrow more money before November or even December. So, if the government shuts down, what will force Congress to compromise and reopen it in the near term?

 

Historically, markets often are volatile as fiscal deadlines approach and Congress appears unable to agree on a solution – until it does. Investors might consider taking action to protect against volatility until these deadlines have been addressed. More aggressive investors might view a pullback as a buying opportunity; markets tend to recover nicely after Congress finally agrees to raise the nation’s borrowing limit (as Congress invariably will do here, likely at the last possible moment).

 


Andrew H. Friedman is the principal of The Washington Update LLC and a former senior partner in a Washington, D.C. law firm. He speaks regularly on legislative and regulatory developments and trends affecting investment, insurance, and retirement products. He may be reached at www.TheWashingtonUpdate.com.

Neither the author of this paper, nor any law firm with which the author may be associated, is providing legal or tax advice as to the matters discussed herein. The discussion herein is general in nature and is provided for informational purposes only. There is no guarantee as to its accuracy or completeness. It is not intended as legal or tax advice and individuals may not rely upon it (including for purposes of avoiding tax penalties imposed by the IRS or state and local tax authorities). Individuals should consult their own legal and tax counsel as to matters discussed herein and before entering into any estate planning, trust, investment, retirement, or insurance arrangement.

Copyright Andrew H. Friedman 2015. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Obamacare upheld again: Consequences for Business Owners and Investors

Presidential Seal

 

 

 

 

Last week the Supreme Court ruled that all qualifying Americans are entitled to receive subsidies to purchase health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, regardless of where in the country they live.  The decision leaves the status quo in place but nonetheless raises considerations for investors and business owners:

  • As interpreted by the Administration, the ACA requires small business owners with more than fifty employees to provide health coverage to their employees beginning in 2016.
  • There remains a concern about inadequate ACA enrollment, particularly by middle- and higher-income Americans.  If enrollment continues to lag, it could lead to significant premium increases, as the insurance pool will not have sufficient “good” risks to balance out the less favorable ones.
  • Speaker Boehner’s legal action against President Obama remains outstanding.  Boehner’s suit objects to the Administration’s unilateral decisions to delay the employer mandate and to reimburse insurance carriers for losses incurred from insuring high-risk people.  A Boehner victory (which most legal experts consider a long shot) could end the carrier subsidies, which likely would prompt carriers to increase premiums or cut coverage to recoup the lost revenue.
  • The decision avoids a decline in health care stock values.  Many companies – particularly for-profit hospitals – benefit from the greater insurance coverage provided by the ACA.  However, premium increases discussed above could cause the feared “death spiral”, in which higher premiums leads to fewer healthy enrollees, which leads to higher premiums, etc.  That consequence could hurt health care stock values down the road.
  • The decision eliminates any realistic possibility of repeal of the 3.8% surtax on investment income for higher-income taxpayers.  Revenue from that tax is used to pay for the bulk of the insurance subsidies that the Court upheld.  There is no realistic prospect of a reduction in tax rates in sight.

 


Andrew H. Friedman is the principal of The Washington Update LLC and a former senior partner in a Washington, D.C. law firm.  He speaks regularly on legislative and regulatory developments and trends affecting investment, insurance, and retirement products.  He may be reached at www.TheWashingtonUpdate.com.

Neither the author of this paper, nor any law firm with which the author may be associated, is providing legal or tax advice as to the matters discussed herein.  The discussion herein is general in nature and is provided for informational purposes only.  There is no guarantee as to its accuracy or completeness.  It is not intended as legal or tax advice and individuals may not rely upon it (including for purposes of avoiding tax penalties imposed by the IRS or state and local tax authorities).  Individuals should consult their own legal and tax counsel as to matters discussed herein and before entering into any estate planning, trust, investment, retirement, or insurance arrangement.

Copyright Andrew H. Friedman 2015.  Reprinted by permission.  All rights reserved.

What is the Generation Skipping Transfer Tax?

Recently, M Financial posted a brief blog on the generation skipping transfer tax.  Please copy and paste the link below into your internet browser to read.Transfer Tax

http://mfin.com/m-intelligence-details/Understanding the Generation Skipping Transfer Tax

 

Life Insurance in a Rising Tax Environment

In March, we posted an article about investing in a rising tax environment.  We at WealthPoint thought the article in the link below would be a good follow up to that article.  Please take a moment to read through it.

Rising Tax Environment

Please click the link below.

WP_Marketing Intelligence Report – Life Insurance in a Rising Tax Environment

Wake Me Up When September Ends

Please read this article written by Andrew Friedman of The Washington Update LLC

In my legislative update early this year, I noted that ongoing acrimony between Congressional Republicans and the Obama White House likely precludes agreement on any broad new legislative initiatives this year.  Instead, Congress and the White House are likely to reach agreement only in the face of “forcing events” – deadlines that compel action to ward off a draconian result.

As it turns out, Congress appears to be arranging for all of the major deadlines to occur around a single date – September 30.  This schedule sets up a massive negotiation for September, when Congress returns from summer recess.  Investors should be aware that this negotiation is likely to lead to market volatility and some new tax changes.

I discuss the upcoming imbroglio in more detail below.  But first, two quick announcements:

  • The Affordable Care Act is affecting retiree medical costs in a number of ways, most of them adverse.  A new white paper on the site, Preparing for Rising Medical Costs in Retirement, discusses how retirees and near retirees can develop an estimate of their likely retirement medical costs and a plan to help defray those expenses.  Subscribers can access the paper here.
  • My colleague Jeff Bush recently launched a new way for you to keep with what he and I are reading each day.  You can now follow us on Facebook to see our daily must read articles:  https://lnkd.in/eJAdh88 .  This is our way of keeping you abreast of the latest happenings out of Washington, happenings that can affect your investments and your business.

Now back to the legislative outlook.  By or around September 30, Washington must reach agreement on:

  • Raising the debt ceiling:  Congressional borrowing authority ended on March 15, 2015.  Current estimates suggest the government will run out of money and need to borrow by around early October.  Failure to raise the debt limit by that time would impinge on the government’s ability to pay interest on debt outstanding, leading to default on U.S. debt.
  • Highway funding:  Funding for summer infrastructure work (road and bridge repair) runs out on May 31.  All indications are that Congress will pass a short term “patch”, funding construction through September 30.  After that date, Congress will need to find a permanent source for highway funding.
  • Government funding:  The federal government’s fiscal year ends on September 30.  By that date Congress must appropriate money to run the government next year.  Otherwise the federal government will shut down on October 1.
  • Tax extenders:  Congress wants to extend a popular group of tax provisions that expired at the end of last year.  Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Ways and Means (tax writing) committee, said he wants to take up the extenders during the funding discussions in September.

Longtime readers will remember that Washington reached a similar September 30 impasse two years ago, causing the government to shut down for sixteen days beginning October 1, 2013.  In that instance, with the debt limit deadline approaching, Congress and the White House agreed on a plan to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling.  That plan included caps on future spending on defense and domestic programs.

As in 2013, reaching consensus on these knotty budget issues will be challenging.  With U.S. military involvement expanding, both parties agree that next year’s defense budget must be higher than the spending caps set in the wake of the 2013 budget impasse.  The President, though, insists that any increase in defense spending be matched with a corresponding increase in spending on domestic programs.  Republicans not only oppose additional spending on domestic programs, they are looking to further cut those expenditures.

For investors, the September 30 deadline is important for two reasons.  First, as the deadline to raise the debt ceiling gets closer and Congress and the Administration (likely) continue to bicker, the markets often turn volatile.  I have long said that a market decline over concern about Congress’ impending failure to act is a buying opportunity.  Congress will act – likely at the last minute – at which point the market will recover.  It is incumbent on investors and financial advisors to keep these “forcing event” dates in mind as investment opportunities.

Second, meeting these deadlines requires funding for new government initiatives, such as additional defense spending and funding long-term highway construction.  Congress typically does not like to spend money unless it raises taxes (or cuts spending elsewhere) to defray the additional cost.  Congress thus searches for “loophole closers”– provisions in the tax code that arguably provide unduly favorable benefits.  (An example of a loophole closer that keeps arising – but has never been enacted – is to curtail the use of “stretch” IRAs and 401(k)s.)  Thus, as September approaches, investors would be wise to consider how Congress intends to fund additional expenditures.

One way to fund these new initiatives could be corporate tax reform.  As if addressing these deadlines was not enough, Chairman Ryan hopes to have a corporate tax reform plan ready by the end of the summer.  (It appears that reforming individual taxes is now recognized as too difficult politically.)  If Congress and the White House can agree on corporate reform (possible but difficult), then the funds from a deemed (Democrats) or optional (Republicans) one-time repatriation of foreign earnings could be used to fund the permanent highway bill.  Otherwise, Congress will have to find revenue raisers to pay for highway funding and extenders; Ryan says using repatriation funding without tax reform is a no go.

 

Andrew H. Friedman is the principal of The Washington Update LLC and a former senior partner in a Washington, D.C. law firm.  He speaks regularly on legislative and regulatory developments and trends affecting investment, insurance, and retirement products.  He may be reached at www.TheWashingtonUpdate.com.

Neither the author of this paper, nor any law firm with which the author may be associated, is providing legal or tax advice as to the matters discussed herein.  The discussion herein is general in nature and is provided for informational purposes only.  There is no guarantee as to its accuracy or completeness.  It is not intended as legal or tax advice and individuals may not rely upon it (including for purposes of avoiding tax penalties imposed by the IRS or state and local tax authorities).  Individuals should consult their own legal and tax counsel as to matters discussed herein and before entering into any estate planning, trust, investment, retirement, or insurance arrangement.

Copyright Andrew H. Friedman 2015.  Reprinted by permission.  All rights reserved.

Life Insurance Basics

M Financial put together a piece on life insurance basics that we thought our readers would find educational.  Please take a moment to read through it and use it as a reference.

To view the file, select the link below:

WP_Life Insurance Basics

Life Insurance Policy