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.”

Election Day and the Markets

A number of weeks ago – before the release of the Access Hollywood tape that threw Donald Trump’s campaign into turmoil – we predicted that Hillary Clinton would win the presidential election.  At the same time, we predicted that the Democrats would seize control of the Senate, but that the Republicans would keep control of the House.  Events since that time threaten to affect how the markets may perceive these election results.

Control of the House

Some political commentators are now suggesting that Trump’s precipitous fall could cost the Republicans control of the House as well as the Senate.  Democratic control of the House would remove a check on Clinton’s ability to implement her legislative priorities, which include increased spending on social programs and higher taxes on affluent families.

When one party controls the White House and both houses of Congress, the possibility of Congress passing sweeping legislation antithetical to businesses becomes much greater.  During the first two years of his presidency Obama enjoyed a filibuster-proof Congressional majority.  Those years saw the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank bank reform, and other sweeping legislation viewed by many as harmful to business.

Recent turmoil notwithstanding, we do not believe that the Republicans in fact will lose control of the House in this election.  Thus, we continue to see a Clinton presidency as a continuation of the Washington gridlock of the last six years (since the Republicans assumed control of the House in 2010).  Few initiatives will be enacted and sweeping legislation will be scarce to non-existent.  Instead, Washington will address fiscal deadlines with eleventh hour short term extensions, kicking the can down an abbreviated road.

Although such gridlock is frustrating to many American voters, it might be fine for the markets.  Gridlock virtually eliminates the risk of major legislative changes, freeing the markets to focus less on Washington legislative policy and more on economic developments.  Nonetheless, markets could be volatile through Election Day if portions of the media continue to assert that Democratic control of the House is possible.

A “Rigged Election”

In the third presidential debate, Trump declined to provide assurance that he would accept the election results, saying only “I will tell you at the time.”  Trump’s refusal is consistent with pronouncements he has been making on the campaign trail.  Since the release of the Access Hollywood tape and the subsequent decline in his poll numbers, Trump has asserted with increasing frequently and forcefulness that the election is “rigged” against him.  He posits a conspiracy working to deprive him – through voter fraud and other means — of the presidency he otherwise would have won.  At various times he has singled out as conspirators the media, the Democrats, minorities, the Republican Party “establishment,” international bankers, the FBI, polling monitors, and the debate commission.

Given the tone of his rhetoric, it is hard to imagine Trump making a gracious concession speech and disappearing after the election (assuming he, in fact, does not prevail).  His actions and temperament suggest that the unfairness of losing something he believes he rightfully won will gnaw at and motivate him to continue to seek the comforting support of his followers.  Trump post-election is likely to continue to tweet observations, give interviews to friendly networks (and perhaps start his own), and even schedule the rallies he so enjoys.

The possibility of continued turmoil post-election could cause significant market volatility.  American democracy relies on voters having confidence in election results.  Questioning the legitimacy of a presidential transfer of power come Inauguration Day is unprecedented here.  Yet Trump’s continued exhortations could engender resentment – and even sporadic outbursts of violence – on the part of some of his followers.  Widespread doubt about the integrity of the election results would lead the country into uncharted territory, producing the sort of uncertainty that makes markets nervous.  Thus, market volatility could continue even after Election Day.

Less important in the short term, but nonetheless meaningful for future elections, is the effect on the Republican Party of Trump’s continued crusade.  The intra-party clash between Trump’s supporters and social conservatives is unlikely to disappear after the election.  Conservatives will blame Trump for the election defeat, while Trump will blame the party establishment for abandoning his campaign.  And the traditional free-market, pro-business, fiscal conservative wing will also vie for power.  The ensuing fight could render the Republican Party a shambles, a situation that won’t be resolved quickly.  While the disarray is unlikely to cost Republicans the House in 2018, it could prevent Republicans from taking control of the Senate in 2018 (when the numbers otherwise favor them).


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 2016.  Reprinted by permission.  All rights reserved.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and may not reflect the view of M Holding Securities or WealthPoint, LLC.

File #: 1712-2016

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