Should You Use IRA Withdrawals to Fund an IUL for Retirement?

Let’s say you’re 62.

You have $1.2 million sitting in a Traditional IRA.

You know most of that money has never been taxed.

You also know required minimum distributions will eventually force money out of the account under current federal rules.

Now you’re looking at an indexed universal life strategy and asking a different question:

“What if I intentionally take some money out of my IRA, pay the taxes, and use what’s left to fund the IUL?”

That’s a legitimate question.

But it’s completely different from saying:

“I’m rolling my IRA into an IUL tax-free.”

You’re not.

In the strategy we’re discussing here, you’re intentionally taking IRA distributions and using available after-tax dollars to pay life insurance premiums.

That means the tax cost has to earn its way into the strategy.

The First Question Isn’t “How Good Does the IUL Look?”

It’s:

“What does it cost me to get the money out of the IRA?”

That’s where I would start.

If you’re taking money from a Traditional IRA, the taxable portion of the distribution is generally included in income under current federal rules.

So before looking at an IUL illustration, calculate what actually happens when the IRA distribution hits your tax return.

$50,000 Inside an IRA Is Not Automatically $50,000 of IUL Premium

This sounds obvious when you say it out loud.

But it’s one of the easiest ways to make a comparison look better than it really is.

Suppose you want to put $50,000 into an IUL.

If you have $50,000 sitting inside a fully taxable Traditional IRA, you generally can’t assume that withdrawing $50,000 gives you $50,000 available to pay the premium.

Taxes may consume part of the distribution.

So you may need a larger gross IRA distribution to produce the desired amount of after-tax cash.

That difference belongs in the math.

Here’s a Simple Hypothetical Example

Imagine you want $30,000 of after-tax cash available for an insurance premium.

For illustration only, suppose your combined applicable tax cost on the additional Traditional IRA distribution worked out to 25%.

If you simply withdrew $30,000, a 25% hypothetical tax cost would equal $7,500.

That would leave $22,500 before considering any other applicable consequences.

If the goal were actually to have $30,000 left after that hypothetical 25% tax cost, the gross distribution would need to be larger.

This is not a recommendation or tax calculation for your situation.

It’s showing why the starting numbers matter.

Now Ask the Harder Question

If you’re voluntarily paying taxes earlier than you otherwise might have, what are you getting in return?

That’s the real decision.

You’re giving up part of a tax-deferred asset today.

So the new strategy needs to create enough value to justify that cost.

Not in a sales illustration.

In the actual retirement math.

Why Would Someone Even Consider Doing This?

Usually because they’re looking at a large Traditional IRA and realizing the account has a future tax liability attached to it.

The thought sounds something like:

“I’ve done a great job accumulating money. Now how do I turn it into income without losing control of the tax side?”

Maybe you’re 58 with $900,000.

Maybe you’re 63 with $1.5 million.

Maybe you’re 67 with $2 million and don’t need most of it to live on right now.

The account balance looks great.

But you know distributions from the pretax portion generally create taxable income.

And eventually, RMD rules may dictate minimum distributions whether you need the money or not.

That Can Make Someone Think About Moving Taxes Forward

You may decide you’d rather recognize some taxable income during selected years instead of leaving every pretax dollar untouched for as long as possible.

That concept isn’t unique to IUL.

It’s also one reason people evaluate Roth conversions.

The question is what you’re trying to accomplish after recognizing the tax.

Using IRA Distributions to Fund an IUL Is Not a Roth Conversion

This distinction matters.

With a Roth conversion, eligible Traditional IRA assets are converted to a Roth IRA and applicable taxable income is recognized.

The converted assets remain inside the retirement-account system.

Using a Traditional IRA distribution to fund an IUL is different.

The IRA distribution occurs.

Applicable taxes are considered.

Then available cash is used to pay premium into a life insurance policy.

The end result is life insurance, not a Roth IRA.

So Which One Makes More Sense?

Don’t answer that from a brochure.

Model both.

If you have $1 million in a Traditional IRA, show me what happens if you leave it there.

Then show me a multi-year Roth conversion strategy.

Then show me an IUL funded from available cash flow.

Then, if you’re considering it, show me an IUL funded using intentional Traditional IRA distributions.

Now we have choices.

Taxes Can Affect More Than the IRA Withdrawal

This is where timing becomes critical.

Increasing taxable income through IRA distributions can interact with other parts of your retirement finances.

Potential considerations can include:

• Federal income-tax brackets
• State income taxes where applicable
• Taxation of Social Security benefits
• Medicare income-related premium adjustments in later measurement periods
• Other income-sensitive tax provisions

If you’re going to intentionally accelerate taxable IRA income, those effects belong in the analysis.

Medicare Can Make a “Small” Decision Bigger Than It Looks

Suppose you’re 65 or older and already on Medicare.

You take a substantially larger IRA distribution to fund an IUL.

That additional income may affect future Medicare income-related premium adjustments under applicable rules.

So your economic cost isn’t necessarily limited to:

IRA distribution × marginal tax rate.

You need to look at the broader picture.

Social Security Can Matter Too

If you’re receiving Social Security, additional IRA income can affect how much of your Social Security benefit is included in taxable income under current federal rules.

Again, the point isn’t that IRA distributions are automatically bad.

The point is that you need to see the full effect before deciding how much to take out.

What If You’re Under 59½?

Be especially careful.

Certain taxable IRA distributions before age 59½ may be subject to an additional federal tax unless an applicable exception is satisfied.

If you’re considering using retirement money to fund life insurance at 45, 50, or 55, this issue can materially change the economics.

Don’t assume an exception applies.

Verify it before moving money.

What If You’re Already Subject to RMDs?

Now the conversation changes again.

If you’re required to take money from the Traditional IRA anyway, you may be asking:

“I don’t need all this RMD money to live on. Could some of the after-tax cash be used for life insurance?”

That’s a much more precise question.

The RMD itself is still subject to the applicable retirement-account tax rules.

Using some of the distributed after-tax cash to pay an insurance premium is a separate transaction.

Don’t Assume Life Insurance Makes the Original IRA Tax Disappear

It doesn’t.

If the Traditional IRA distribution is taxable, buying life insurance afterward doesn’t erase that income.

You’re making a deliberate trade.

You’re recognizing tax on retirement money now and moving available after-tax dollars into a different financial structure.

That structure needs to prove that the trade was worthwhile.

This Is Where the IUL JUMP Strategy Gets Interesting

The reason someone might consider the JUMP Strategy isn’t simply:

“IUL has tax advantages.”

That’s too shallow.

The real question is whether the policy design and Matching Indexed Participating Loan mechanics can potentially turn the client’s premium into substantially more projected retirement income than the alternative being compared.

That’s what needs to be tested.

How the JUMP Funding Structure Works

Using our common $10,000 annual client-contribution example:

By Year 11 in this example, the client is still contributing:

$10,000 out of pocket.

The additional $50,000 shown comes from the Matching Indexed Participating Loan.

That creates $60,000 of total annual funding shown in the example.

That $50,000 Is Not a Free Match

This needs to be crystal clear.

The Matching Indexed Participating Loan is an actual policy loan.

It creates policy indebtedness.

The loan proceeds are redeployed into the same policy as additional funding.

The loans accumulate over time.

A later JUMP doesn’t simply erase the previous loans.

So when you’re looking at the additional policy funding, you also need to look at the accumulated indebtedness.

Think of the Strategy as Two Buckets

Bucket One: the client’s contributed money.

Bucket Two: the accumulated Matching Indexed Participating Loan money that’s redeployed into the policy.

Under the indexed strategy used in our 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 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 the applicable rate is guaranteed to remain 5%.

That’s why I want the analysis run using the current rate and stress-tested using the 6% maximum.

Why Does the Loan Structure Matter?

Because the borrowed dollars are being redeployed into the policy rather than spent outside it.

Under the applicable indexed strategy, those loan-funded dollars remain subject to the policy’s indexed-crediting mechanics.

If the applicable indexed-crediting result exceeds the applicable loan cost, the loan-funded portion can experience favorable economics under the model.

That’s the positive-arbitrage concept.

One Historical Analysis Produced a 6.87% Indexed-Crediting Result

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

Dividends were excluded because the policy isn’t directly invested in the S&P 500.

The analysis applied a 10% cap and 0% indexed-crediting floor.

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

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

Under those assumptions, the period produced a:

6.87% historical average indexed-crediting result.

That’s not the historical return of the S&P 500.

It’s not a guaranteed future indexed-crediting rate.

It’s not a guaranteed policy return.

6.87% Versus a Current 5% Loan Rate

Under those assumptions:

6.87% – 5.00% = 1.87 percentage points.

That’s the modeled positive spread.

But now reverse it.

Suppose indexed crediting for the applicable period is 0% while the loan rate is 5%.

Now you have unfavorable loan economics for that period.

Positive arbitrage is not guaranteed.

What Happens as the JUMPs Build?

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 aren’t S&P 500 returns.

They aren’t indexed-crediting rates.

They aren’t guaranteed policy returns.

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

Now We Can Ask Whether Paying the IRA Tax Was Worth It

This is the point of the entire exercise.

You intentionally took money out of a tax-deferred IRA.

You paid or created an applicable tax liability.

You used available cash to fund the policy.

Now show me what happened.

How much projected retirement income did the IRA strategy produce?

How much did the JUMP Strategy produce?

How long did each income stream last?

What assumptions created the difference?

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

That’s highly relevant when someone is considering using Traditional IRA money to fund an IUL.

But it doesn’t answer the question by itself.

If the IRA Money Has to Be Taxed First, Put That Tax Cost Into the 300% Comparison

Otherwise the comparison is incomplete.

If $100,000 needs to leave a Traditional IRA to produce the cash used for the IUL, show the tax consequences associated with that distribution.

Then show the actual net premium.

Then run the policy.

Then compare the retirement income.

That’s the comparison I care about.

Don’t Believe the 300% Number Because It Sounds Good

Ask:

Was the IRA starting value the same?

Were taxes included?

Were policy charges included?

Were investment expenses included?

What IRA return was assumed?

What IUL indexed-crediting assumption was used?

What policy loan rate was used?

Were future JUMPs assumed?

How much retirement income was taken?

How long did retirement last?

What happened to the remaining value?

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

Show me exactly where the difference comes from.

Then Try to Break the JUMP Strategy

Lower the indexed-crediting assumption.

Raise the applicable loan rate from the current 5% to the contractual 6% maximum.

Do both at the same time.

Remove a future JUMP.

Run retirement longer.

Increase the distribution need.

Then strengthen the IRA side.

Use stronger investment returns.

Use lower expenses where appropriate.

Change future tax assumptions.

See whether the projected advantage survives.

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

What About the Approximately 40% Difference Versus a Traditional IUL?

In certain modeled comparisons we’ve evaluated, the JUMP Strategy has produced approximately 40% more projected retirement income than the traditional IUL structure being compared.

That’s important because even after you’ve decided that life insurance deserves consideration, you still haven’t answered:

“Which IUL design?”

Loan mechanics can matter.

Funding design can matter.

Policy charges can matter.

Crediting assumptions can matter.

Two IUL illustrations with the same client contribution can potentially show very different retirement-income results.

Future JUMPs Are Another Risk You Have to Model

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

Future approval is not guaranteed.

Qualification can be affected by:

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

This matters even more if you’re intentionally taking taxable IRA distributions to fund the strategy.

You don’t want to recognize taxes today while pretending every future JUMP is guaranteed tomorrow.

What If the Next JUMP Isn’t Approved?

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

If you’ve already achieved a particular matching-loan level, the prior successful progression doesn’t automatically disappear under the mechanics described here.

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

But the retirement-income projection needs to be updated.

There’s Also the MEC Question

Life insurance has funding limits if you’re trying to maintain the intended non-MEC tax treatment.

You cannot simply decide:

“I have $500,000 in my IRA, so I’ll take it out and put all $500,000 into this policy.”

The policy design, premium timing, death benefit and applicable tax testing matter.

Under the JUMP design, planned death-benefit increases are used to create additional funding capacity while seeking to maintain the intended non-MEC structure.

Actual policy design, underwriting, carrier procedures and tax rules govern the result.

Should You Spread the IRA Distributions Over Several Years?

That’s one of the scenarios I would model.

A single large distribution can create a very different tax result from a series of smaller distributions.

For example, compare:

$200,000 distributed in one year.

Against:

$40,000 per year for five years.

The gross dollars may add up to the same amount.

The tax results may not.

Other income-sensitive consequences may differ too.

That’s why timing deserves its own analysis.

And Compare the Same Years Against Roth Conversions

This is where the decision becomes much more interesting.

If you’re willing to recognize taxable income from your IRA, you have more than one possible use for that tax capacity.

You could potentially convert eligible Traditional IRA assets to Roth.

You could intentionally take distributions and use available after-tax cash to fund an IUL.

You could use a combination.

Now ask:

“Which use of the tax I’m willing to pay produces the strongest modeled retirement outcome?”

That’s a Better Question Than “Is IUL Better Than an IRA?”

Because you already own the IRA.

The decision is about what to do from here.

Maybe leaving it untouched wins.

Maybe Roth conversion wins.

Maybe using some distributions to fund an IUL wins.

Maybe combining the strategies creates a better balance of income, tax treatment, liquidity and legacy.

Don’t force the answer before running the numbers.

Here’s What I Want to See on the IRA Side

• Current Traditional IRA balance
• Cost basis, if any
• Current investment allocation
• Investment expenses
• Projected growth
• Projected taxable distributions
• Applicable RMD assumptions
• Projected retirement income
• Estimated future taxes
• Projected ending value

Then Show Me the Cost of Funding the IUL From IRA Distributions

• Gross IRA distribution
• Taxable portion
• Estimated federal income tax
• Estimated state income tax where applicable
• Potential additional tax where applicable
• Potential Medicare-related effects where applicable
• Other income-sensitive effects where applicable
• Net cash available for policy premium

Then Show Me the IUL

• Actual client premium
• Death benefit
• Policy charges
• Cost of insurance
• Indexed-crediting assumptions
• Matching Indexed Participating Loans
• Accumulated policy indebtedness
• Current 5% applicable loan rate
• Contractual maximum 6% loan rate
• Future JUMP assumptions
• Projected retirement distributions
• Policy durability
• Projected net death benefit

Now Ask the Question That Actually Matters

“After paying the tax required to get these dollars out of my IRA, did I improve my retirement?”

Not:

“Did I get a nice-looking IUL illustration?”

Not:

“Did I reduce the size of my IRA?”

Not:

“Did somebody tell me this was tax-free?”

Did you improve the retirement outcome?

There Is a Real Emotional Conflict Here

You’ve spent decades being told:

“Don’t touch your IRA.”

Save.

Defer taxes.

Let it compound.

Then you get close to retirement and someone tells you:

“Maybe you should start taking money out intentionally.”

Of course that feels wrong.

You’re being asked to do the opposite of what you’ve trained yourself to do for 30 years.

The Bigger the IRA, the Harder the Decision Feels

It’s one thing to talk about this with $50,000.

It’s another thing when your statement says:

$1,486,000.

That’s not just an account anymore.

That’s your retirement.

That’s years of work.

That’s the money that’s supposed to keep you independent when the paycheck stops.

And You Know You Don’t Get Unlimited Do-Overs

At 35, you can tell yourself:

“If this doesn’t work, I’ll earn more.”

At 62, that feels very different.

You start thinking:

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

You don’t want to pay a huge tax bill and discover five years later that the new strategy didn’t perform the way you thought it would.

What You’re Really Protecting Is Independence

You want the money to last.

You want enough income to live the way you planned.

You want options if one of you needs care.

You want to help the kids rather than need help from them.

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

“We should be able to handle this ourselves.”

That’s why this decision deserves more than an insurance illustration.

So, Should You Use IRA Withdrawals to Fund an IUL?

Don’t start with yes or no.

Start with the transaction.

How much has to leave the IRA?

How much of that distribution is taxable?

What other financial effects could the additional income create?

How much is actually left to fund the policy?

Then model what that policy is projected to produce.

Finally, compare that result with what the same retirement assets could potentially accomplish if they remained in the IRA, were strategically converted to Roth, or were used in another appropriate strategy.

The Strategy Has to Earn the Tax Cost

That’s the simplest way I can put it.

If you’re voluntarily recognizing tax today to move money into a different retirement-income structure, the projected benefit needs to justify the cost and risks of making that change.

And if it can’t?

Don’t force it.

How We Look at This at FPP Financial

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

If you come in with $1.5 million in a Traditional IRA, I’m not going to start with:

“How much can we move into an IUL?”

I want to know what happens to the $1.5 million if we leave it alone.

Then what happens under different Roth conversion scenarios.

Then what happens if we fund an IUL using other available cash flow.

Then, if it makes sense to evaluate, what happens if we intentionally use IRA distributions to fund the policy.

And on that last scenario, the tax doesn’t disappear from the spreadsheet.

We put it right in the math.

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

Want to See Whether Using IRA Distributions to Fund an IUL Actually Improves Your Retirement?

If you have $500,000, $1 million, $2 million or more sitting in tax-deferred retirement accounts, this is exactly the type of decision that should be modeled before money moves.

We’ll look at the IRA.

We’ll look at the projected taxes.

We’ll look at potential Roth conversion scenarios.

We’ll look at the IUL JUMP Strategy.

If IRA distributions are being considered as the funding source, we’ll make the tax assumptions visible.

We’ll look at the Matching Indexed Participating Loans.

We’ll look at policy charges and accumulated indebtedness.

We’ll test the current 5% applicable loan rate.

We’ll stress-test the contractual 6% maximum.

We’ll lower the indexed-crediting assumptions.

We’ll test what happens if a future JUMP isn’t approved.

Then we’ll compare projected retirement income.

If paying taxes today doesn’t create enough projected benefit to justify the move, you should see it.

If the JUMP Strategy creates substantially more projected retirement income even after accounting for those costs, you should see exactly why.

The number isn’t the reason to buy it. The assumptions behind the number are what you need to understand.

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

• Can You Move IRA Money Into an IUL Without Paying Taxes?
• IUL JUMP Strategy vs. Traditional IRA: Which Can Produce More Retirement Income?
• What Is the IUL JUMP Strategy and How Does It Work?

Disclosure

This material is for educational purposes only and is not intended as individualized investment, securities, tax, legal, retirement-plan or insurance advice. Indexed universal life insurance is not an IRA, qualified retirement plan, brokerage account or direct investment in a market index.

Distributions from Traditional IRAs are generally subject to federal income taxation to the extent applicable. Nondeductible contributions, basis and other circumstances can affect the taxable portion. Certain distributions before age 59½ may also be subject to an additional federal tax unless an applicable exception is satisfied. Required minimum distribution rules may apply under current law based on the account owner’s circumstances.

Using proceeds from an IRA distribution to pay a life insurance premium does not make the IRA distribution tax-free. An IUL is not an eligible destination for a direct tax-free IRA rollover. Any strategy involving intentional IRA distributions should account for applicable federal and state income taxes and other potential income-related effects.

Additional taxable income from IRA distributions may interact with taxation of Social Security benefits, Medicare income-related premium adjustments and other income-sensitive tax provisions. State tax treatment varies. Tax laws and thresholds can change.

A Roth conversion is different from taking an IRA distribution and using the proceeds to fund life insurance. Roth conversions, IRA distributions and life insurance transactions have separate rules and tax consequences. Qualified Roth distributions are generally tax-free under current federal rules when applicable requirements are satisfied.

Indexed universal life insurance is permanent life insurance. IUL policies do not directly invest in a market index, do not own the underlying index securities and do not receive index dividends. Indexed interest is determined according to applicable policy crediting terms, which may include caps, participation rates, spreads and other provisions.

A 0% indexed-crediting floor does not guarantee that overall 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. They are not free carrier contributions, employer contributions, bonuses, tax credits, 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. 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 recommendation to take IRA distributions, liquidate retirement assets or purchase life insurance, and it does not guarantee that an individual comparison will produce the same result. When IRA distributions are used as a source of IUL premiums, applicable taxes and other financial consequences should be incorporated into the comparison.

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. Income, employment, health and other circumstances can affect future underwriting. 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.

FPP Financial does not provide tax or legal advice. Consult qualified tax, legal and financial professionals regarding your individual circumstances before taking an IRA distribution, completing a Roth conversion, purchasing life insurance or using retirement assets to fund insurance premiums.