During an ITM TwentyFirst University webinar on trustee liability, I described a replacement case that came into our remediation department. A grantor with a whole life contract in his trust had decided to stop gifting. His agent advised him to complete a 1035 exchange of the cash value from the existing policy into a new current assumption policy. The exchange, with no other premium, would carry the new policy out past life expectancy on a non-guaranteed basis but not to policy maturity. The death benefit in the trust would be lowered, but the grantor was comfortable with this, as the focus was on limiting the costs associated with the trust. Our remediation team notified the trustee that the death benefit in the existing policy could be guaranteed to maturity by requesting a reduced paid-up policy with the existing carrier, which would contractually guarantee the existing policy’s death benefit with no additional premium. The death benefit would be lowered but would still provide $900,000 more in death benefit than the new non-guaranteed policy was proposing.
I was reminded of the case while reading an article in the Wall Street Journal explaining that the Fifth Circuit Court had “struck down” the Labor Department’s fiduciary rule, stating that the department “overreached” by requiring those who handle retirement accounts to act in the “clients’ best interest” and asserting that the “rule is unreasonable” (1). I understand the industry fight against this law. They are afraid that it will mire them in lawsuits and make the sale of some products much harder in the retirement plan community. The law as it stands only affects retirement accounts, but states are pushing to have “best interests” laws apply to non-qualified annuities and even life insurance (2), which would certainly increase the number of lawsuits.
What ever happened to just doing the right thing? In the case above, had the trustee allowed the replacement, the agent would have made approximately $20 thousand, depending on his brokerage arrangement, but the grantor’s beneficiaries would have lost almost a million dollars. Believe me, many trustees without specialized skills are allowing these cases to slip through.
At ITM TwentyFirst, we service trustees bound by fiduciary duty, and our new affiliated company, Life Insurance Trust Company, is bound by that same duty to maximize the benefit in the trust for the beneficiaries, but that duty does not extend to most of those selling life insurance products. This has created a conflict in the marketplace that trust owned life insurance (TOLI) trustees must recognize. Tomorrow, Tuesday, March 20, at 2PM, we are sponsoring a free webinar providing CE for CFP and CTFA designates that addresses the prudent purchase of life insurance. Click here to register, and if you cannot attend, stop back by our website for a replay at a later date.
1.) Fiduciary Rule Dealt Blow by Circuit Court Ruling, Lisa Beilfus, Wall Street Journal, March 15, 2018
2.) N.Y. Urges Life Insurance Fiduciary Standard in NAIC Rule, John Hilton, insurancenewnet.com, January 25, 2018
What ever happened to the CLU Professional Pledge – https://www.theamericancollege.edu/about-the-college/community-responsibility/code-of-ethics ?
Understood. And unfortunately many trustees and especially consumers don’t know how to analyze policies.
Nice piece Mike. Is the Life Insurance Trust Company getting traction?
Thanks Bill. It is doing really well. Better than even we expected, actually.
Sad to see insurance agents that do not do the right thing and offer the proper advice when needed. Many of us still do and can improve a Client’s Life Insurance Policy significantly when the parameters are right.
Greed is one thing, ignorance is another, but a combination of the two seems to becoming more prevalent due in part to low levels of expertise required to obtain and maintain licensing combined with a higher frequency of declining policy performance.