NML Adjustable CompLife
BDK
currently maxed out on my 401k contrtibutions, and would like to start
saving for 15-20 year range. I also have a small amount of money in
stocks (less than $1000). I was thinking that Mutual Funds would
probably be my best bet, but I recently met a representative from
Northwestern Mutual Life who explained their Adjustable CompLife
Insurance policy. It sounds extremely good on the surface, but I
wanted to do some research to see if it was legit. The impression I
was getting was that along with benefits paid if I die, I can also
draw money from this along the way if I need it.
I guess my question is: Does anyone have experience with this type of
investment? What are the downsides? What are the tax implications?
Would I be better off with Mutual Funds?
Thanks very much...
cal-lester
--
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to BUY her friends ?
This signature file is generated by Pick-a-Tag !
Written by jer...@vanbaarsel.net
TTRoberts
<< <I>I am 26 years old and I make a little over 100k per year. I am currently
maxed out on my 401k contrtibutions, and would like to start saving for 15-20
year range. I also have a small amount of money in stocks (less than $1000).
I was thinking that Mutual Funds would probably be my best bet, but I recently
met a representative from Northwestern Mutual Life who explained their
Adjustable CompLife Insurance policy. It sounds extremely good on the surface,
but <b>I wanted to do some research to see if it was legit.</b> </I> >>
Yes, it is "legit". (no, I'm not connected with that company in any way)
<< <I>The impression I was getting was that along with <b>benefits paid if I
die,</b> I can also draw money from this along the way if I need it. I guess my
question is: Does anyone have experience with <b>this type of investment?</b>
</I> >>
First of all, it's NOT a "type of investment". It's a life insurance policy
where you can choose the types of investments for the separate accounts
associated with the cash value of the life insurance policy.
When you buy any type of so called permanent life insurance policy you're
paying a good deal more for the insurance than the actual cost of the insurance
to start with. The excess you pay goes into "reserves" to later pay for the
higher costs of insurance as you get older. The basic idea for this is to keep
your policy premium level over your entire lifetime. The cash value of the
policy represents the amount of those reserves that you, the policy owner, have
access to. There are different ways these "reserves" can be handled. In the
case you're talking about, YOU (the policy owner) can choose from a set of
investments, much like you'd do with a 401(k), for those reserve amounts held
in "separate accounts". As long as there is enough cash in those accounts to
support the cost of insurance, the policy does fine. With the particular
contract you're looking at with NWM, as long as you pay premium the policy
won't lapse. However, just because it's guaranteed not to lapse doesn't mean
that the separate account(s) are guaranteed to do well any more than investing
in things like mutual funds.
Since this is not a "type of investment" but a type of life insurance contract,
if you're only buying it for "investment", it's not a good idea. While it can
be used as an investment vehicle, it's a LIFE INSURANCE product to start and if
you don't really have a need/want for life insurance overage, then the costs
associated with having live insurance makes these kinds of contacts a poor
choice for investment purposes.
<< <I>What are the downsides? </I> >>
It DEPENDS. The downsides depend on exactly how you plan to use or might use
the contract. For you, it might be that fact that you cannot "withdraw" cash.
You can use the cash value as collateral for loans. But when you make loans on
the policy's cash value, you have a interest cost you pay (one way or the
other). It's really not than any of this is "bad". It just depends on your
expectations and how you really might use the policy.
There are limitations as to what and when you can do things effectively. These
are VERY complex life insurance contracts. If you're someone who is not really
very financially savvy or don't like to handle complex things, then a life
insurance contract isn't going to be fore you. While these contract CAN work
well, their simply not suitable for the majority of people if for no other
reason that because of the complexity.
<< <I>What are the tax implications?</I> >>
This too depends on just how you plan to use the policy. The number of
different ways it can be effected are too many to try and cover here. But, the
Death Benefit can go to your beneficiary income tax free and on a very timely
basis (don't have to wait for probate). Through policy loans, you can generate
a supplementary income stream where you don't have to pay any taxes on those
amounts (because loans are not taxable). Your agent AND your accountant (if
you have one) should be your best source for addressing these issues as they
might apply to you.
<< <I>Would I be better off with Mutual Funds?</I> >>
That depends. Do you need/want the life insurance coverage? If "no", then yes
. . . mutual funds would be better. If "yes" then such a life insurance
contract can actually produce more spendable income than mutual funds (given
comparative investments) even though the total accumulation in a mutual fund
may be more.
Bottom line, I would say it's a rare case where such a product is really
suitable or appropriate for a 26 year old. It takes much greater details about
your finances, short term and long term goals, whether your married, have
children, own a business, have other financial resources, etc. . . . . .
before anyone can really be able to say which you might be better off with.
cal-lester
>
> << <I>The impression I was getting was that along with <b>benefits
> paid if I die,</b> I can also draw money from this along the way if I
> need it. I guess my question is: Does anyone have experience with
> <b>this type of investment?</b> </I> >>
>
> First of all, it's NOT a "type of investment". It's a life insurance
> policy where you can choose the types of investments for the separate
> accounts associated with the cash value of the life insurance policy.
TT makes an extremely valid point. Too many individuals,
INCLUDING Life Agents & Financial advisors SELL Life
insurance policies as "investment vehicles". That is inherently
WRONG. A Life Insurance policy is designed to provide a
specific amount of dollars at a specific time (usually Death).
A Life Insurance policy should only be purchased by a person
or persons that have a NEED for the Death Benefit of the
contract. The fact that at some point in the future, it might turn
out that it WAS the best INVESTMENT ever made, does NOT
validate it being sold ''primarily" as an investment vehicle.
> It DEPENDS. The downsides depend on exactly how you plan to use or
> might use the contract. For you, it might be that fact that you
> cannot "withdraw" cash. You can use the cash value as collateral for
> loans. But when you make loans on the policy's cash value, you have
> a interest cost you pay (one way or the other). It's really not than
> any of this is "bad". It just depends on your expectations and how
> you really might use the policy.
In my previous post, I pointed out that a Universal Life
policy DOES allow for the WITHDRAWAL of funds, up
to the Total Premiums Paid-in to Date, Income Tax Free.
>
> << <I>What are the tax implications?</I> >>
>
> This too depends on just how you plan to use the policy. The number
> of different ways it can be effected are too many to try and cover
> here. But, the Death Benefit can go to your beneficiary income tax
> free and on a very timely basis (don't have to wait for probate).
> Through policy loans, you can generate a supplementary income stream
> where you don't have to pay any taxes on those amounts (because loans
> are not taxable). Your agent AND your accountant (if you have one)
> should be your best source for addressing these issues as they might
> apply to you.
With a Universal Life policy, one can make Loans, as
stated above, in addition to WITHDRAWAL'S.
BDK
have no real need for life insurance. The rep was selling this to me
as something I could dip into about 15 years down the road and not
have to worry about paying taxes on it as long as I didn't withdraw
more than 92% (this would terminate the policy). I tried to contact
several accountants, but I'm unable to find anyone I trust or wants to
give me the time of day. The idea was to have about 60-70k to use as
I please when I was about 45.
It seems I would be better off putting my money in mutual funds,
unless I had a need for a life insurance policy....which brings me to
another question. I plan to marry, and have children in about 4-5
years. Would it not be smart to purchase a life insurance policy now,
while it is cheap because I'm still young and healthy? Can I write
off contributions to a life insurance policy?
I realize these maybe extremely stupid questions, but I want to make
the right moves before it's too late.
HW "Skip" Weldon
wrote:
>Cal-lester <cal-l...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>> A Life Insurance policy should only be purchased by a person
>> or persons that have a NEED for the Death Benefit of the
>> contract.
>
>Dude, it is like ~so refreshing~ to hear an insurance person say that!
Amen.
-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC
Tad Borek
> I appreciate the info. Just to add, I am single, no dependents, and
> have no real need for life insurance. The rep was selling this to me
> as something I could dip into about 15 years down the road and not
> have to worry about paying taxes on it as long as I didn't withdraw
> more than 92% (this would terminate the policy).
In my view that tax feature is oversold. The policy needs to remain in
force for you to borrow against it tax-free, so you may be signing on to
a bigger commitment with this policy than you will in 4-5 years with
your future bride! The "till death do you part" part is more strictly
enforced.
At this point, it doesn't sound like you have much outside of the 401k,
so it's best to focus on saving money, not avoiding taxes on your
investments. Certainly pay attention to the tax efficiency of the mutual
funds you select as your investments, but paying taxes isn't all that
bad. And keeping the dollars outside of that insurance wrapper makes
them all the more accessible...who knows what your plans will be in 5 or
10 years?
-Tad
cal-lester
> I appreciate the info. Just to add, I am single, no dependents, and
> have no real need for life insurance. The rep was selling this to me
> as something I could dip into about 15 years down the road and not
> have to worry about paying taxes on it as long as I didn't withdraw
> more than 92% (this would terminate the policy). I tried to contact
> several accountants, but I'm unable to find anyone I trust or wants to
> give me the time of day. The idea was to have about 60-70k to use as
> I please when I was about 45.
It would appear that we have already answered that one ! ! ! !
> It seems I would be better off putting my money in mutual funds,
> unless I had a need for a life insurance policy....which brings me to
> another question. I plan to marry, and have children in about 4-5
> years. Would it not be smart to purchase a life insurance policy now,
> while it is cheap because I'm still young and healthy?
That changes the situation. Based on the above, since
you are probably in good health, as well as young, then
YES, it would be good to "INVEST in your Insurability".
NOTE, I did not say that it would be an investment vehicle.
I am simply agreeing that it would be prudent to PROTECT
your ABILITY to be properly Insured, when you will NEED it.
However, based solely upon your statement above, then IMHO,
it would be advisable for you to purchase a sizable amount of
TERM Insurance (rather than more costly permanent) at this
time. You would then (based on your THEN situation) have the
Guarranteed right to CONVERT that policy to what ever is best
for you. In the meantime, those OTHER dollars would be invested
for GROWTH, until THEY are needed.
Can I write off contributions to a life insurance policy?
NO (except in certain business situations)
>
> I realize these maybe extremely stupid questions, but I want to make
> the right moves before it's too late.
You are doing JUST THAT, congrats
Cal Lester CLU
--
I haven't lost my mind; it's backed up on tape somewhere !
TTRoberts
<< <I>I appreciate the info. Just to add, I am single, no dependents, and
have no real need for life insurance. The rep was selling this to me
as something I could dip into about 15 years down the road and not
have to worry about paying taxes on it as long as I didn't withdraw
more than 92% (this would terminate the policy). </I> >>
Sounds simple enough doesn't it? Well, it's actually more complicated that
that and there are issues you'd have to be concerned about. I'll give you one
example. First, you can only "withdraw" amounts up to the total premiums paid
where you don't have to worry about taxes. Any amount withdrawn in excess of
total premiums paid would be taxable. If there were amount in excess of total
premiums paid and you didn't want to worry about the taxes you'd have to make
policy loans and there would be a net interest cost to you. In either case,
let's say you could and did "withdraw 92% (which included amounts in excess of
total premium paid) and did so without having to pay any taxes. Now you'd have
a policy will very little left in it to support it and VERY likely put it in
jeopardy of lapsing <b>If the policy lapses </v> either because the
investments didn't do well enough to support the cost of insurance and the
other expenses and fees or you simply didn't want to keep it any longer since
it no longer much of any value, THEN there could be serious tax consequences
and even tax penalties for early distribution if you too the money out before
age 59 ½.
<< <I>I tried to contact several accountants, but I'm unable to find anyone I
trust or wants to give me the time of day. </I> >>
<grin> Well, they aren't likely to give you the time of day without charging
you . . . huh?
<< <I>The idea was to have about 60-70k to use as I please when I was about
45. It seems I would be better off putting my money in mutual funds, unless I
had a need for a life insurance policy....which brings me to another question.
I plan to marry, and have children in about 4-5 years. Would it not be smart
to purchase a life insurance policy now, while it is cheap because I'm still
young and healthy? </I> >>
Actually that's a very good thought and question. What you're talking about
is protecting some of your insurability to some extent and that can be a major
concern for some people . . . . especially if there tends to be family health
histories that of particular concern. Life insurance is one of those things
that as long as you are healthy you can buy it just about any time (assuming
too that there are no issues concerning dangerous hobbies or occupation
involved). If you play the statistics, a young person like you will most
likely be able to buy their insurance at a later date and it's popular opinion
that waiting till later to buy any from of permanent insurance is a wiser
financial path to take. But only you know your comfort and risk levels and
must weight the risk vs. benefit aspects you're comfortable with.
As far as trying to use money from the policy in the way you're describing, it
just doesn't sound like a prudent thing for someone to do. These policies are
best used for those who already have accumulated substantial assets and have to
MAKE such a policy work. And as Tod Borek has mentioned, "it doesn't like you
have much outside of the
401(k).
If anything, since you haven't mentioned an Emergency Fund, I would think that
is what you should first focus on. Once you get an Emergency Fund fully funded
(say 6 months of living expenses), then your ability to take on other higher
risks (including investment risks) become much easier to do. Just remember
that the Emergency Fund is not a spending account and is really only there fore
"emergencies". So those cash assets have to be in a very liquid low risk
position (not the kind of life insurance policy we're discussing here.
Also, I feel Tod made another very good point in that one simply doesn't have
to have ALL their cash assets in some form of cash shelter. Having cash
outside of such shelters gives one a LOT of flexibility for other opportunities
that tend to come along in one's life time.
<< <I>Can I write off contributions to a life insurance policy?</I> >>
No
<< <I>I realize these maybe extremely stupid questions, but I want to make the
right moves before it's too late.</I> >>
Let me assure you that these are NOT "stupid questions". You should want to
fully understand just what it is that's being proposed and what the risks are.
Take you time and ask LOTS of questions . . . . especially of the agent who's
trying to sell you this policy.
I hope you find our comments really helpful rather than confusing.
cal-lester
> bdk...@runbox.com (BDK), you asked:
>
> << <I>I appreciate the info. Just to add, I am single, no
> dependents, and have no real need for life insurance. The rep was
> selling this to me
> as something I could dip into about 15 years down the road and not
> have to worry about paying taxes on it as long as I didn't withdraw
> more than 92% (this would terminate the policy). </I> >>
>
> Sounds simple enough doesn't it? Well, it's actually more
> complicated that that and there are issues you'd have to be concerned
> about. I'll give you one example. First, you can only "withdraw"
> amounts up to the total premiums paid where you don't have to worry
> about taxes. Any amount withdrawn in excess of total premiums paid
> would be taxable. If there were amount in excess of total premiums
> paid and you didn't want to worry about the taxes you'd have to make
> policy loans and there would be a net interest cost to you.
FIRST, let's change that last sentence to:
"MAY result in a net interest cost"
since many contracts offer what is referred
to as "Zero net cost".
Not inherrently a BAD thing ! ! ! !
In either
> case, let's say you could and did "withdraw 92% (which included
> amounts in excess of total premium paid) and did so without having to
> pay any taxes. Now you'd have a policy will very little left in it
> to support it and VERY likely put it in jeopardy of lapsing <b>If
> the policy lapses </v> either because the investments didn't do well
> enough to support the cost of insurance and the other expenses and
> fees or you simply didn't want to keep it any longer since it no
> longer much of any value, THEN there could be serious tax
> consequences and even tax penalties for early distribution if you too
> the money out before age 59 ½.
IF the policy is "surrendered or lapsed" due to insufficient
Cash in the account to pay the C.O.I. AND the current
interest due (even with a contract that offers ZERO net
interest COST, there is still INTEREST DUE), then ALL
of the LOAN'S that had been made to that date would be
Income Taxable, and a 1099 issued.
> As far as trying to use money from the policy in the way you're
> describing, it just doesn't sound like a prudent thing for someone to
> do. These policies are best used for those who already have
> accumulated substantial assets and have to MAKE such a policy work.
> And as Tod Borek has mentioned, "it doesn't like you have much
> outside of the 401(k).
One of the ways that it DOES work (using a U/L contract)
is to provide a LIFE INCOME, Income tax free. That is
done by having the carrier determine an amount that the
contract can provide (using withdrawal up to basis, then
Loans) that will continue the contract in it's present form
unil a specific age ie: 100 - 105 or 110.
Cal lester CLU
--
When things just can't get any worse, they will !
TTRoberts
<< <i> > policy loans and there would be a net interest cost to you.
FIRST, let's change that last sentence to:
"MAY result in a net interest cost"
since many contracts offer what is referred
to as "Zero net cost".</i> >>
Well, ok . . . that would be more correct.
<< <i> Not inherrently a BAD thing ! ! ! ! </i> >>
It wasn't intended to imply that it would be a "bad thing" - only that there
MAY be costs that one should be aware of and should account for when doing such
an evaluation.
<< <I> One of the ways that it DOES work (using a U/L contract)
is to provide a LIFE INCOME, Income tax free. That is
done by having the carrier determine an amount that the
contract can provide (using withdrawal up to basis, then
Loans) that will continue the contract in it's present form
unil a specific age ie: 100 - 105 or 110. </i> >>
But . . . . we were talking about a variable contract rather than just a UL.
huh?? I'm not saying that a variable contact can't be well managed to produce
some kind of life income - just that investment risk and expenses tend to be
quite high. If one lowers the investment risk in a variable then the expenses
tend to be especially high in relation to returns and it becomes less efficient
though more predicable. If one wants a guaranteed LIFE INCOME, one can always
go the route of an exchange for an annuity. But I feel this all moves away
from the issues presented in the original post.
cal-lester
> << <I> One of the ways that it DOES work (using a U/L contract)
> is to provide a LIFE INCOME, Income tax free. That is
> done by having the carrier determine an amount that
> the contract can provide (using withdrawal up to
> basis, then Loans) that will continue the contract in
> it's present form unil a specific age ie: 100 - 105
> or 110. </i> >>
>
>
> But . . . . we were talking about a variable contract rather than
> just a UL. huh?? I'm not saying that a variable contact can't be
> well managed to produce some kind of life income - just that
> investment risk and expenses tend to be quite high.
"Therein lies the Rub" . Many agents and purveyers
of policies end to "gloss-over" those EXTRA costs.
They can have a dramatic effect on the operation
of the contract.
If one lowers
> the investment risk in a variable then the expenses tend to be
> especially high in relation to returns and it becomes less efficient
> though more predicable. If one wants a guaranteed LIFE INCOME, one
> can always go the route of an exchange for an annuity. But I feel
> this all moves away from the issues presented in the original post.
Well put, Insurance while needed, Annuity for income.
Cal Lester CLU
--
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to BUY her friends ?
This signature file is generated by Pick-a-Tag !
Written by jer...@vanbaarsel.net
Nathaniel Hummel
statements is to be contstrued as advice.
1. You've received a lot of good advice. I'd print it all out and read
it carefully and keep it in a file.
2. If you have no need for life insurance, then why buy life insurance?
The extra costs inherent in a cash value contract, plus early surrender
charges are not, imo, offset by possible tax-free borrowing benefits.
3. The "as long as I didn't withdraw more than 92%" comment is just a
terrible simplification. You could borrow considerably less than 92% and
the increasing loan, plus unpaid policy interest, could cause a
compounding effect that in turn could cause the contract to terminate
with a substantial tax hit. This is sometimes referred to as "tax
suicide." Not a pretty picture. :)
4. If you want 60K or so in about 15 years, chances are good that a
well-thought out mutual fund portfolio would have out performed almost
any life policy on most 15 year periods of past performance... I would
imagine. I regret I don't have the time to backtest this for you. :)
5. If you want to "tie up" i.e. take out an option of future
insurability, you could buy a long period term policy, i.e. 30 years or
so, and have a lower cost of insurance for the period between now and
when you want it. However... because you are getting older every year
the cost of the insurance will still increase each year, regardless of
how it's packaged. IOW, while the premium of a cash value contract may
be level, the internal cost for the insurance is still going to have an
annually increasing cost, simply because the cost to insurance a life
increases due to age, on a per 1M of coverage basis. That's just a fact
of life.
Hope all this gives you some additional basis for researching the
situation on a more informed basis.
Best,
Nathaniel Hummel, ChFC, CLU
Amanda
They are not all they are cracked up to be! Cash value "investment" policies
are great products, IF YOU OWN THE INSURANCE COMPANY.
My email address is si...@attbi.com if you would like more information. I
can help you with your problem but whatever you do, DO NOT get sucked into
cash value, universal, whole life, comp life, etc. You are not getting all
the info!
Amanda
972-226-3120
"BDK" <bdk...@runbox.com> wrote in message
news:dffcb909.03052...@posting.google.com...
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
A reminder that while all points of view are welcome here, your views carry greater weight if supported by explanations. -HWW
cal-lester
that go wrong that one can't blame on the government.
This signature file is generated by Pick-a-Tag !
darkness
> I am 26 years old and I make a little over 100k per year. I am
> currently maxed out on my 401k contrtibutions, and would like to start
> saving for 15-20 year range. I also have a small amount of money in
> stocks (less than $1000). I was thinking that Mutual Funds would
> probably be my best bet, but I recently met a representative from
> Northwestern Mutual Life who explained their Adjustable CompLife
> Insurance policy.
This week's Economist magazine has an interesting little article on
NWML and its critics.
Someone has actually set up a website documenting complaints about
aggressive and inappropriate selling techniques.
Might be worth checking out.
I have a person aversion to complexity: if the structure is too
complex for me to understand, then I think it is a bad idea. Since I
have a fairly simple mindset, my savings (in the UK) consist of
essentially what you would call a 401k pension scheme, term life
insurance, and equities held primarily in index funds.
In each of these situations, I believe I have minimised the
commissions paid to intermediaries, and the ongoing costs of the funds
(this is not so great, even index funds in the UK run 0.5-10% of
assets pa as fees ie way above the likes of Vanguard).
Taxes I only incur, in general, when I realise these assets eg when I
retire. Pretty much what I might lose on the tax avoidance front, I
gain back in saved fees.
A close friend, by contrast, was suckered into what is called an
endowment life insurance contract here. This was allegedly to pay off
her mortgage (quite a common device until very recently) when it
matured. However, given the very high commission paid in the early
years of the product, plus the derisory performance of the underlying
with profits fund (somehow the reserves built up in the good years in
the early and mid 90s have not survived the stock market downturn of
the last 3 years) she has returned less (and made less headway against
her mortgage) than if she had put the money in an overnight deposit
account for the last 10 years.
A rather damning indictment of the UK insurance industry, and a tale
told millions of times (endowment shortfalls against mortgages are now
a major issue, affecting millions of homeowners).
~^ beancounter ~^
co...and invest in mutual funds for your emergency
account....@ 100k...you need at lease 50k in the
account...don't touch it, unless you have a
emergency.....once the fund is established...get some
real estate...1st, your roof over your head...then
property that can generate you cash flow...my .02 worth...
"darkness" <darkn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:17f41cc6.03060...@posting.google.com...
Donald M. Bell
<scc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>diversify...get some perm life from a reputable
>co...and invest in mutual funds for your emergency
>account....@ 100k...you need at lease 50k in the
>account...don't touch it, unless you have a
>emergency.....once the fund is established...get some
>real estate...1st, your roof over your head...then
>property that can generate you cash flow...my .02 worth...
>
>
I tend to agree, and then get more residual income sources up and
running.
Don Bell
TDBell Enterprises, Inc.
http://www.tdbellenterprises.com
Building Business And Personal Wealth
darkness
> On 1 Jun 2003 23:00:02 GMT, " ~^ beancounter ~^"
> <scc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >diversify...get some perm life from a reputable
> >co...and invest in mutual funds for your emergency
> >account....@ 100k...you need at lease 50k in the
> >account...don't touch it, unless you have a
> >emergency.....once the fund is established...get some
> >real estate...1st, your roof over your head...then
> >property that can generate you cash flow...my .02 worth...
> >
> >
>
> I tend to agree, and then get more residual income sources up and
> running.
The Economist this week has a 9 page special report on property
prices. One of their themes is that, at least in the UK and
Australia, huge amounts of private money have gone into 'no brainer'
investment properties in residential real estate, which is now turning
out to be another bubble.
While I am all for owning property in the long run, I can tell you
from a UK perspective it looks like an incredibly dangerous thing to
be doing short run. Prices on rental properties in big cities could
be 30% lower, 3 years from now.
You want to be very sure that your local market has lots of renters,
and that rental income will hold up, and that the yields on rental
property are genuinely attractive (as opposed to simply better than
you can get on, say, owning stocks).
Housing prices in Germany and Japan have been falling for 10 years:
this is a warning of what happens in bubble markets. When everyone is
telling you to own rental property (just as received wisdom in 1999
was that everyone should have 100% in stocks) then perhaps that is the
moment to step back?
There may be tax advantages to certain life insurance products, just
make sure they offset the costs of commissions and fees, on likely
holding periods (ie can you be 100% sure you will hold to maturity).
>