I had MetLife run an illustration for me. If I put in $250 a month into the freedom 2050 fund (age 65 retirement) and no more, meaning let premiums pull from principal, at an assumed 7%ROI (after load) I'd have roughly $250K at retirement in the cash balance side. Right now it's about $9800/yr from 65-69 to keep the full GVUL value, remember is 2500x top CA rate. The rate goes up exponentially post 69. My $125/PP would fund me to 72-75 depending on market return and where pay rates go for the full face value. Now, if I took the difference in just imputed income, at age 38, and invested what I "don't pay" for imputed it came out to keeping full coverage until maybe 70 in this freedom fund (really just a 7% ROI post load). Used it just to try and find a middle ground on investment returns. There would still be an ability to pull a good chunk of change tax free at retirement and let the policy fail. Is it worth it? Ehh, haven't decided. Everyone's financial picture is different but the option exists where it COULD make sense. Someone retiring in the next few years would need roughly $50k to keep insurance from 65-70:years old. The $250k/-50y trend to $10k retiree life is separate so that still exists. Just depends on who or what depends on you at retirement vs what you assets already protect vs liability/legacy.