Talk:Variable universal life insurance

Untitled

I hope this page isn't a waste of space .. delete it if it is unhelpable. I started it when trying to figure out what "VUL"s were. Not a whole lot of financial information on the 'pedia y'know. - karlwick 20:10, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

No, its a good, needed article. The article should really be at Variable Universal Life Insurance I think, and VUL should be a re-direct to that. I am quite familiar with VUL's and I will write an article on it soon. Agreed the financial areas are a bit lacking. What specific topics did you find lacking? Check List of finance topics first and see if they are already there. If not, add them as requests on that talk page and I'll see what I can do to write or improve them, if you also do what you can to write the articles you know about. - Taxman 20:27, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Definitely merge, its just a variation in capitalization. Thatcher131 02:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You should not post an article that with a disclaimer on it that Wikipedia doesn't endorse. If you are going to put your credibility on the line, then you should post factual information about the VUL. Your readers are taking this article as fact, when if more of an opion article. Please revise the following section: Criticisms of Variable Universal Life. Although there are criticisms, there are major benefits to the VUL. Each invstor is different and had different needs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.13.81.7 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-19 00:11:40 (UTC)

Recent edits

Pjkundert's recent edits are a problem. One problem is reverting over and over without discussion or much attempt to handle concerns by other editors. Adding references is a good thing, but a few POV websites don't count as reliable references. The other, is the edits represent very little attempt to state things factually and follow the NPOV policy. While there is nothing wrong with dicussing fees and legitimate criticism of policies (some of which was removed in earlier edits and shouldn't have been), the way to solve that is to state facts and balance the article. That doesn't happen by adding biased text in an effort to counterbalance. So please read WP:NPOV and WP:V and discuss instead of repeatedly reverting in your preferred material. - Taxman ^Talk 17:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This article reads like a sales pitch for VUL. Where is the contrasting view? For example, most people would be better off with term life insurance and a ROTH IRA? There needs to be a more balanced discussion. Particularly when it seems that World Financial Group wants to put polish on thier scam to sell VUL to the world. 97.126.130.198 (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Refuting the facts

The page may have been relevant when written but it is factually incorrect (as a previously licensed seller). See this link, on the State of Colorado website: http://www.dora.state.co.us/Insurance/consumer/2007docs/lifeinsaug2107.htm.

Also: "VULs, as securities, may only be sold in Canada by representatives duly registered with their provincial securities commission to sell mutual funds." This is currently incorrect. A life insurance-licensed representative is not required to hold a mutual fund license or securities license in order to sell this product. Also, the article implies that a VUL is a security. This is also incorrect - it is a life insurance policy and is governed as such under the Insurance Act, regardless of the nature of the underlying holdings. --anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.131.150 (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)