Originally Posted by
First Break
Option A: Status quo death benefit, high imputed income
Option B: Status quo death benefit, low imputed income, other ancillary benefits that are completely optional and voluntary
APC: “Sounds like a screw job! They obviously aren’t telling us everything! I bet the mean lady in Raleigh was behind this!”
Seriously, based on everything that’s been communicated and a general understanding of the two options, I can’t understand any rationale for continuing to pay excessive imputed income. We have the option to pivot to a much cheaper plan, with exactly the same death benefit. End of story. But please, stick it to the mean lady if that floats your boat.
It's not a bad thing to seek the devil's advocate on the new policy. i.e. "What's the catch?"
It's seeming to me that the catch is a potentially better apples to apples policy, with the addition of potentially poor, but optional, additional investment products. Insurance is in the money-making business afterall, and it's rare that they would offer 2 very similar options, dangle a carrot in front of the second one (less imputed income), without some angle to it. I think the angle is that they expect to make more money on the additional investment side for those who choose to participate. Might be a small % on a small % of total participants, but insurance plays the % game.