IUL JUMP Strategy vs. 403(b): Which Can Produce More Retirement Income?

You work for a school, hospital, nonprofit, church, or another organization that gives you access to a 403(b).

You’ve been contributing for years.

Maybe your balance looks pretty good.

Then retirement starts getting close enough that a different question shows up.

“How much income will this account actually give me?”

That’s different from asking how much is in the account.

You might have $500,000.

$750,000.

$1 million.

But the balance isn’t what pays your electric bill.

You need to turn that balance into spendable retirement income.

And that’s where comparing a traditional 403(b) retirement strategy with a properly structured indexed universal life strategy can get interesting.

First, a 403(b) and an IUL Are Completely Different

A 403(b) is an employer-sponsored retirement plan available to eligible employees of certain public schools, tax-exempt organizations, and certain ministers.

An indexed universal life policy is permanent life insurance.

One is a retirement plan.

The other is life insurance that can build cash value and potentially be incorporated into a retirement-income strategy.

So I don’t want to pretend they’re interchangeable products.

They aren’t.

What we can compare is the job you’re asking your dollars to perform.

Why a 403(b) Can Be Hard to Beat During Your Working Years

A traditional 403(b) can give you something an IUL doesn’t.

Eligible pretax contributions can reduce current taxable income under applicable tax rules.

Your money can then grow tax-deferred inside the plan.

Some employers also make contributions.

That’s a major consideration.

If your employer is putting additional money into your 403(b) when you contribute, I don’t want to casually ignore that value just because we’re comparing another strategy.

Don’t Walk Away From Employer Money Without Doing the Math

Suppose your employer contributes when you contribute to the plan.

Then somebody tells you:

“Stop the 403(b) and put everything into an IUL.”

My response would be:

“Show me the math first.”

What employer contribution are you giving up?

What vesting rules apply?

What is the value of the current tax deduction?

What are the investment options and costs?

Then compare those benefits against the alternative.

You don’t make a retirement decision by hiding the strongest feature of the strategy you’re trying to replace.

The 403(b) Tax Deduction Comes With a Tradeoff

A traditional 403(b) can reduce taxes today.

But generally, taxable distributions from pretax contributions and earnings are included in ordinary income under current federal rules.

That’s the deal.

You may receive the tax benefit while you’re working.

The IRS generally gets its turn when taxable money comes out.

So when you’re 58 and looking at a $900,000 traditional 403(b), the question becomes:

“How much of that $900,000 is actually available for me to spend after taxes?”

Your 403(b) Statement Doesn’t Show Your Future Tax Bill

That’s one of the biggest psychological traps with tax-deferred accounts.

You log in and see:

$900,000.

It feels like $900,000 of your money.

But if much of the account consists of pretax contributions and tax-deferred earnings, taxable distributions generally create ordinary income.

That means the number on the screen and the amount ultimately available to spend can be very different.

What Will Your Tax Rate Be in Retirement?

Nobody can promise you that answer decades in advance.

Tax law can change.

Your income can change.

Your filing status can change.

Your other retirement income can change.

One spouse can die.

Required distributions can begin.

Social Security can enter the picture.

So rather than pretending we know your exact future tax rate, I want to model more than one tax scenario.

What About a Roth 403(b)?

Some 403(b) plans allow designated Roth contributions.

That’s a different tax structure from a traditional pretax 403(b).

Roth contributions don’t provide the same current federal income-tax deduction as pretax contributions, but qualified Roth distributions are generally tax-free under current federal rules when applicable requirements are satisfied.

So if we’re comparing an IUL strategy with your 403(b), we need to know what kind of 403(b) money we’re actually talking about.

Pretax and Roth aren’t the same comparison.

Now Look at the Investment Side

A 403(b) can offer investment choices such as mutual funds and, in some plans, annuity contracts or other permitted options.

The available choices and expenses are determined by the plan.

If your money is invested in market-based investments, account value can rise and fall with investment performance.

That gives you upside potential.

It also gives you downside exposure.

A Market Drop at 45 and a Market Drop at 65 Are Not the Same Problem

At 45, you may still have 20 years of contributions ahead of you.

The market drops.

You keep contributing.

You have time for recovery.

At 65, you’re taking money out.

Now imagine a major decline hits during the first two years of retirement.

You still need income.

So you’re selling investments while values are down.

That can create sequence-of-returns pressure.

The Average Return Can Hide the Problem

Imagine two retirees earn the same average return over 20 years.

One gets the bad years early.

The other gets them late.

If both are withdrawing money throughout retirement, they can end up with very different outcomes.

That’s why I don’t want a retirement analysis that says:

“The market averages X%, so you’re fine.”

I want to see the order of returns.

How Does an IUL Handle Market Exposure Differently?

An IUL isn’t directly invested in the S&P 500 or another referenced market index.

Instead, indexed interest is calculated according to the policy’s applicable crediting terms.

Those terms can include:

• Caps
• Participation rates
• Spreads
• Crediting periods
• Indexed-crediting floors
• Other contractual provisions

Under an applicable indexed strategy with a 0% floor, a negative index result may produce a 0% indexed-crediting result rather than negative indexed interest.

But 0% Doesn’t Mean Your Policy Cannot Lose Value

This distinction matters.

A 0% indexed-crediting floor applies to the applicable indexed-crediting calculation.

Policy charges continue.

Cost of insurance continues.

Loan costs can continue.

Withdrawals and loans can affect policy values.

So total cash value can decline even when the indexed-crediting result is 0%.

I don’t want to hide that.

The IUL Gives Up Something Too

A market-based 403(b) investment can participate in market gains according to the investments you actually own.

An IUL indexed strategy can limit positive indexed interest through a cap, participation rate, spread, or other applicable crediting provision.

If the market has an enormous year, an IUL doesn’t simply receive the entire market return.

That’s part of the tradeoff.

You aren’t getting direct market participation.

Now Compare Retirement Taxes

Suppose most of your 403(b) is pretax.

When you begin taking taxable distributions, those distributions generally become ordinary income under current federal rules.

That income can interact with other pieces of retirement.

Your Social Security taxation can be affected by your overall income.

Medicare income-related premiums can also be affected by income measures used for those rules.

Your overall tax bracket can change.

This doesn’t mean the 403(b) was a mistake.

It means tax deferral has a second half.

Traditional 403(b) Money Can Also Be Subject to RMD Rules

Applicable required minimum distribution rules can eventually force distributions from tax-deferred retirement accounts, subject to current law and the specific account circumstances.

That can matter even if you don’t need the money.

You might think:

“Why am I taking this out? I don’t even need it.”

But once applicable RMD rules require a distribution, leaving the entire required amount inside the tax-deferred account isn’t an option.

IUL Doesn’t Have the Same RMD Structure

Life insurance cash value isn’t a 403(b).

It isn’t subject to the same owner RMD rules that apply to traditional qualified retirement accounts.

That can provide more control over when policy values are accessed.

But that flexibility comes with the responsibility of managing the policy correctly.

How Can IUL Policy Values Be Accessed?

With a properly structured and maintained non-MEC life insurance policy, policy values may potentially be accessed through withdrawals to basis and policy loans without current income taxation under current federal rules, subject to applicable requirements.

That’s why IUL sometimes gets described as “tax-free retirement income.”

I think that phrase is too loose.

Policy loans are loans.

They create indebtedness.

They generally accrue applicable loan charges.

Outstanding loans can reduce policy values and net death benefits.

And if a policy lapses or is surrendered with gain and outstanding indebtedness, taxable income can potentially result.

So Don’t Compare “Taxable 403(b)” With “Free IUL Money”

That’s not an honest comparison.

On the 403(b) side, account for taxes.

On the IUL side, account for:

• Policy charges
• Cost of insurance
• Loan costs
• Outstanding indebtedness
• Crediting assumptions
• Lapse risk
• Policy management

Then compare what each strategy is projected to provide.

Now Add the IUL JUMP Strategy

This is where the IUL side becomes different from a conventional IUL comparison.

The IUL JUMP Strategy uses a Matching Indexed Participating Loan.

The matching amount is created as an actual policy loan.

It’s not free money.

It’s not a carrier contribution.

It’s not an employer match.

That’s especially important in a 403(b) comparison because the word “matching” can create the wrong impression.

An Employer Match and a Matching Indexed Participating Loan Are Not the Same Thing

If your employer contributes $2,000 to your 403(b), that’s employer money being contributed according to the plan’s terms.

A Matching Indexed Participating Loan is borrowed policy value.

It creates indebtedness.

The proceeds are then redeployed into the same life insurance policy as additional funding under the JUMP design.

Those are completely different mechanics.

I would never call the JUMP loan an employer-style match.

Here’s How the JUMP Funding Example Works

Assume the client contributes $10,000 per year.

Look at Year 11.

The client isn’t personally writing a $60,000 check.

The client’s out-of-pocket contribution remains:

$10,000.

The $50,000 Matching Indexed Participating Loan creates the additional funding shown.

Total annual funding in the example becomes $60,000.

But the $50,000 is borrowed money.

Those Loans Don’t Disappear at the Next JUMP

The JUMP loans accumulate.

The Year 5 loan activity doesn’t pay off the Year 3 loan.

The Year 7 activity doesn’t erase the earlier indebtedness.

That accumulated loan balance has to remain in the analysis.

If you count the additional funding but hide the indebtedness, you’re not comparing the strategy honestly.

Why Redeploy the Loan Proceeds?

The JUMP concept is built around keeping the borrowed dollars participating inside the policy instead of taking the loan proceeds out and spending them.

Think about two conceptual buckets.

Bucket One: client-funded dollars.

Bucket Two: accumulated Matching Indexed Participating Loan dollars that have been redeployed.

Under the indexed strategy used in this example, both buckets have the same potential 10% cap and 0% indexed-crediting floor.

The loan-funded bucket also carries the applicable loan cost.

The Current Applicable JUMP Loan Rate Is 5%

With the policy structure we currently use for the IUL JUMP Strategy, the applicable loan rate is currently 5%, with a contractual maximum loan rate of 6% for the applicable loan feature.

That does not mean 5% is guaranteed to remain the rate.

That’s why I want to see the strategy at 5% and stress-tested at 6%.

Where Does the Positive-Arbitrage Concept Come From?

One historical analysis used with this strategy looked at annual S&P 500 price changes from 2006 through 2020.

Dividends were excluded because the policy isn’t directly invested in the index.

The analysis applied the strategy’s 10% cap and 0% indexed-crediting floor.

Negative annual price changes were treated as 0% for the indexed-crediting calculation.

Positive annual changes above 10% were limited to 10%.

Under those assumptions, the period produced a:

6.87% historical average indexed-crediting result.

That is not the historical S&P 500 return.

It is not a guaranteed future IUL crediting rate.

It is not a guaranteed policy return.

6.87% Minus 5% Creates a 1.87-Point Modeled Spread

Under that historical example:

6.87% – 5.00% = 1.87 percentage points.

That’s the modeled positive-arbitrage concept.

If the indexed-crediting result exceeds the loan cost, the model can produce favorable spread on the applicable loan-funded amount.

But if indexed crediting is 0% while the loan cost is 5%, the economics are unfavorable for that period.

Positive arbitrage isn’t guaranteed.

What Do the Successive JUMPs Do in the Model?

Under assumptions used in one JUMP analysis, the combination of the base indexed-crediting assumption and the positive-arbitrage effect attributed to successive Matching Indexed Participating Loans produced modeled effective results of approximately:

• 8.74% at the Year 3 JUMP
• 11.61% at the Year 5 JUMP
• 14.48% at the Year 7 JUMP
• 17.35% at the Year 9 JUMP

Those numbers are easy to misuse.

They are not S&P 500 returns.

They are not IUL indexed-crediting rates.

They are not guaranteed policy returns.

They are modeled effective results under the assumptions used in that JUMP analysis, before accounting for applicable policy charges and other factors.

Now We Can Ask the 403(b) Question

Could those mechanics result in more projected retirement income than putting the client’s same out-of-pocket dollars into a 403(b)?

In certain modeled comparisons, potentially yes.

But this is where the assumptions have to be visible.

We’ve Seen Up to Approximately 300% More Projected Retirement Income in Certain Comparisons

In certain modeled comparisons we’ve evaluated, the IUL JUMP Strategy has produced up to approximately 300% more projected retirement income than the 401(k), Traditional IRA, or comparable tax-deferred retirement strategy being evaluated.

A traditional 403(b) shares several tax-deferred characteristics with those retirement accounts, but that does not mean we can automatically assign the same 300% result to every 403(b).

The specific 403(b) needs to be modeled.

Employer contributions need to be included.

Investment expenses need to be included.

Tax assumptions need to be included.

Retirement distributions need to be included.

Only then do we know what the comparison actually says.

The 300% Isn’t the Sales Pitch

It’s the question.

If somebody shows you dramatically more projected retirement income, ask:

“Where did it come from?”

Was it because the 403(b) distributions were modeled after taxes?

Was it the Matching Indexed Participating Loan?

Was it the modeled positive-arbitrage effect?

Was it the distribution structure?

Was it sequence risk?

Was it a combination?

Then change the assumptions.

Don’t just believe the 300% number. Make the strategy prove where the difference comes from with the math.

What About the Approximately 40% JUMP Advantage Over a Traditional IUL?

We’ve also evaluated certain modeled comparisons where the JUMP Strategy produced approximately 40% more projected retirement income than the traditional IUL structure being compared.

That’s useful because it shows something important.

The conversation isn’t simply:

403(b) vs. IUL.

The design of the IUL itself can materially affect the projected outcome.

Two IUL strategies funded with similar client dollars can produce very different retirement projections when their loan mechanics and policy designs differ.

But the 403(b) May Have an Employer Contribution

This deserves another look because it’s so important.

Suppose you put $10,000 into your 403(b) and your employer adds money according to the plan.

Then compare that with $10,000 of your money going into an IUL.

Don’t ignore the employer contribution.

Put it into the 403(b) model.

Then run the JUMP strategy.

Now we have an honest comparison.

What If Your Employer Doesn’t Contribute?

Then the math changes.

You’re no longer giving up an employer contribution by directing an additional dollar somewhere else.

Now the comparison may center more heavily on:

• Current tax deduction
• Future taxes
• Investment choices
• Market exposure
• RMDs
• Liquidity
• Life insurance needs
• Projected retirement income

You May Not Need to Choose Only One

This is probably the most overlooked option.

Maybe the right question isn’t:

“Should I stop my 403(b) and buy an IUL?”

Maybe it’s:

“How much should I put into each?”

You might decide that capturing an employer contribution deserves priority.

Then additional retirement dollars can be compared between the 403(b), an IUL strategy, a brokerage account, or other alternatives.

Different buckets can do different jobs.

What About Contribution Limits?

A 403(b) operates under federal contribution limits and other plan rules.

Those limits can change over time.

An IUL doesn’t use the same retirement-plan contribution-limit structure.

But that doesn’t mean you can put an unlimited amount into an IUL with no consequences.

Insurance underwriting matters.

Death-benefit design matters.

MEC testing matters.

Premium limits under the policy design matter.

Financial justification can matter.

Different rules doesn’t mean no rules.

Future JUMPs Also Require New Approval

The JUMP schedule is not fully guaranteed at initial issue.

Each planned future JUMP requires a new application and carrier approval for the increased death benefit.

Qualification can be affected by:

• Health
• Income
• Employment
• Existing insurance
• Driving history
• Occupation
• Hazardous job duties
• Risky hobbies
• Other underwriting factors

So if a projection shows JUMPs in Years 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11, don’t treat every future increase as if it was guaranteed on Day 1.

What Happens If You Miss a JUMP?

Under the mechanics we’re discussing, a missed JUMP can pause the progression rather than automatically resetting the strategy.

Suppose you’ve already reached a $30,000 matching-loan level.

If the next JUMP isn’t approved, you don’t automatically fall back to the original $10,000 annual funding level under the mechanics described here.

You can remain at the previously achieved matching-loan level and potentially reapply at a later policy anniversary, subject to actual carrier rules and approval.

But the retirement-income projection should be updated.

How Would I Compare a 403(b) With the IUL JUMP Strategy?

Start with the same employee.

Same age.

Same retirement date.

Same out-of-pocket contribution.

Same retirement-income goal.

Then give each strategy every legitimate advantage it actually has.

On the 403(b) Side, Show Me:

• Employee contributions
• Employer contributions
• Vesting where applicable
• Current tax treatment
• Investment choices
• Plan and investment expenses
• Market returns and volatility
• Projected retirement balance
• Projected retirement withdrawals
• Estimated taxes on taxable distributions
• Applicable RMD assumptions
• Projected value remaining at death

On the IUL JUMP Side, Show Me:

• Client contributions
• Policy charges
• Cost of insurance
• Indexed-crediting assumptions
• Matching Indexed Participating Loans
• Accumulated policy indebtedness
• The current 5% applicable loan rate
• The contractual maximum 6% loan rate
• Future JUMP assumptions
• Projected retirement distributions
• Policy durability
• Projected net death benefit

Then Stress-Test Both

This is the part I care about most.

Don’t just show me the base case.

On the 403(b), run a bad market sequence around retirement.

Run different future tax assumptions.

Run a longer retirement.

On the IUL, run weaker indexed crediting.

Run the applicable loan rate at 6%.

Run lower crediting and the 6% loan rate together.

Remove one or more future JUMPs.

Then run both strategies to age 95.

Here’s the Question a 58-Year-Old Teacher Might Actually Be Asking

It’s probably not:

“Which financial product has the superior technical structure?”

It’s more like:

“I’ve been putting money into this 403(b) for 25 years. Am I actually going to be okay?”

You look at the balance and feel proud.

Then you start thinking about taxes.

Market drops.

Healthcare.

Living into your 90s.

And suddenly the number doesn’t feel as big as it used to.

Then Comes the Thought You Don’t Say Out Loud

“What if we mess this up and regret it?”

You don’t get another 30-year career to rebuild the account.

This decision feels more permanent now.

That’s why people near retirement can become caught between two instincts.

You want more retirement income.

But you don’t want to take a stupid risk trying to get it.

You Also Don’t Want Your Kids Becoming the Backup Plan

This is where the retirement-income question gets personal.

You want enough money to maintain your lifestyle.

But underneath that is independence.

“I don’t want to ask my kids for help.”

You’ve handled your own finances for decades.

“We should be able to handle this ourselves.”

That’s why retirement planning isn’t only about accumulating the largest account.

It’s about creating a structure that gives you confidence you can keep making your own decisions later.

So, Is an IUL or 403(b) Better for Retirement?

A 403(b) can provide valuable current tax treatment, tax-deferred accumulation, market-based investment opportunities, and potential employer contributions.

Those are real advantages.

An IUL provides permanent life insurance and a different cash-value structure, with indexed-crediting potential and the possibility of accessing policy values through properly structured withdrawals and policy loans.

The IUL JUMP Strategy adds Matching Indexed Participating Loan mechanics that can materially change projected retirement-income results under certain assumptions.

But the answer should never start with the product.

Start with the retirement objective.

Then make both strategies prove what they can do.

How We Compare a 403(b) and IUL at FPP Financial

At FPP Financial, we use our Retirement Math Method™.

I don’t want to tell a teacher:

“Stop your 403(b).”

And I don’t want to automatically tell them:

“Just keep maxing it out because that’s what you’ve always done.”

I want the numbers.

What does the employer contribute?

What’s the current tax benefit?

What are the investment costs?

What is the projected retirement income?

What happens after taxes?

What happens during a bad market sequence?

Then run the IUL JUMP Strategy.

Include the policy costs.

Include the loans.

Include the 5% current applicable loan rate.

Stress-test 6%.

Stress-test lower crediting.

Stress-test missed future JUMPs.

Then compare the retirement cash flow.

I don’t try to sell you on the strategy. I make the strategy prove itself with the math.

Want to Compare Your 403(b) With the IUL JUMP Strategy?

If you have a 403(b) and you’re wondering whether your next retirement dollar should keep going into the plan, go somewhere else, or be split between strategies, we can run the comparison.

We’ll account for the advantages your 403(b) actually gives you.

We’ll account for the costs and risks of the IUL.

Then we’ll compare projected retirement income under multiple assumptions.

If your 403(b) produces the stronger result for what you’re trying to accomplish, you should see it.

If the IUL JUMP Strategy produces substantially more projected retirement income, you should see exactly where that difference came from.

The 300% isn’t the sales pitch. It’s the question.

Show me exactly where the difference comes from.

Let the math do the talking.

Schedule Your Tax-Free Retirement Strategy Meeting

Explore More

• IUL JUMP Strategy vs. 401(k): Which Can Produce More Retirement Income?
• What Is the IUL JUMP Strategy and How Does It Work?
• What Is a Matching Indexed Participating Loan in an IUL?

Disclosure

This material is for educational purposes only and is not intended as individualized investment, securities, tax, legal, retirement-plan, or insurance advice. A 403(b) is an employer-sponsored retirement arrangement for eligible employees and is fundamentally different from indexed universal life insurance. Plan provisions, employer contributions, investment choices, expenses, distribution rules, tax treatment, and other features vary by plan.

Traditional pretax 403(b) contributions and earnings are generally subject to ordinary income taxation when distributed under current federal rules. Roth 403(b) contributions and qualified distributions have different tax treatment. Required minimum distribution rules, contribution limits, withdrawal provisions, and other retirement-plan rules are governed by applicable law and can change. Individual circumstances can materially affect tax treatment.

Employer contributions can be a significant component of a 403(b) benefit. Any comparison between a 403(b) and an IUL strategy should include applicable employer contributions, vesting provisions, plan expenses, investment expenses, and other plan-specific benefits rather than comparing only the employee’s contribution.

Market-based investments held through a 403(b) can fluctuate in value and can lose principal. Past investment performance does not guarantee future results. Investment options and fees vary by plan.

Indexed universal life insurance is permanent life insurance and is not a qualified retirement plan, brokerage account, or direct investment in a market index. IUL policies do not own the underlying index securities and do not receive index dividends. Indexed interest is determined according to the policy’s applicable crediting terms, which may include caps, participation rates, spreads, and other provisions.

A 0% indexed-crediting floor does not guarantee that overall IUL policy value cannot decline. Policy charges, cost of insurance, loan costs, withdrawals, and other policy mechanics continue to apply. Caps, participation rates, spreads, loan rates, and other nonguaranteed elements may change when permitted by the insurance contract.

Policy loans are actual policy indebtedness and generally accrue applicable loan charges. Loans and withdrawals can reduce policy values and death benefits and may increase lapse risk. Outstanding policy indebtedness generally reduces the net death benefit payable under the insurance contract.

Policy values from a properly structured and maintained non-MEC life insurance policy may potentially be accessed through withdrawals to basis and policy loans without current income taxation under current federal rules, subject to applicable requirements. Tax treatment can be affected by basis, Modified Endowment Contract status, policy lapse, surrender, and other circumstances. A policy that lapses or is surrendered with gain and outstanding indebtedness may create taxable income.

Matching Indexed Participating Loans are policy loans, not employer contributions, free matching dollars, bonuses, guaranteed gains, or direct investments in a market index. Under the JUMP Strategy described here, Matching Indexed Participating Loan proceeds are modeled as being redeployed into the same policy as additional funding. The associated indebtedness and applicable loan costs remain part of the policy economics.

The JUMP Strategy is modeled with applicable loan charges carried forward during the accumulation design rather than requiring the client to pay those charges out of pocket each year. This does not eliminate the economic cost of borrowing, guarantee positive arbitrage, or guarantee that policy values will remain sufficient to support outstanding indebtedness.

References to the $10,000 annual contribution example, JUMP progression, 6.87% historical indexed-crediting example, 1.87 percentage-point modeled positive spread, modeled effective results of 8.74%, 11.61%, 14.48%, and 17.35%, current 5% loan rate, contractual maximum 6% loan rate, approximately 40% more projected retirement income, or up to approximately 300% more projected retirement income are illustrative and are not guarantees of future policy performance, positive arbitrage, policy durability, funding capacity, non-MEC status, future JUMP approval, death benefit, or retirement income.

The up-to-approximately-300% projected retirement-income result cited in this article refers to certain modeled comparisons involving the IUL JUMP Strategy and a 401(k), Traditional IRA, or comparable tax-deferred retirement strategy. It should not be interpreted as a claim that every 403(b) comparison will produce the same result. A 403(b) comparison must be modeled separately using the actual plan’s employer contributions, expenses, investment assumptions, tax assumptions, distribution strategy, and other relevant factors.

The approximately-40% projected retirement-income result refers to certain modeled comparisons involving the JUMP Strategy and the traditional IUL structure being evaluated. It is not a universal result and does not guarantee future retirement income.

The historical 6.87% indexed-crediting example discussed in this article is based on an analysis of annual S&P 500 price changes from 2006 through 2020, excluding dividends, and applying the stated 10% cap and 0% indexed-crediting floor. Historical results do not predict future policy performance. The modeled effective JUMP results discussed above are not S&P 500 returns, indexed-crediting rates, or guaranteed policy returns.

Positive arbitrage is not guaranteed. Periods in which indexed crediting is below the applicable loan cost can produce unfavorable loan economics. Policy charges and other expenses must also be considered when evaluating overall policy performance.

Future JUMPs and associated death-benefit increases are subject to carrier approval and applicable medical, financial, occupational, and other underwriting requirements. Future approval is not guaranteed. Failure to complete a planned future JUMP can materially change projected funding, policy values, indebtedness, death benefits, and retirement-income results.

Policy-specific guarantees, nonguaranteed elements, loan provisions, loan rates, caps, participation rates, spreads, crediting methods, expenses, surrender provisions, MEC testing, lapse provisions, and death-benefit provisions should be verified against current carrier-approved illustrations and the actual insurance contract.

Tax laws and retirement-plan rules can change, and the tax consequences of 403(b) plans and life insurance transactions vary with individual circumstances. FPP Financial does not provide tax or legal advice. Consult qualified tax, legal, and retirement-plan professionals regarding your individual circumstances.