Whole life versus IUL for a client who says they hate market risk

"I don't want anything tied to the market." That sentence rules out a lot, and agents sometimes hear it as "no IUL" when the client means something narrower. Ask what they're afraid of before you pick a product.

If they're afraid of losing principal. IUL's floor means the credited rate can't go negative from index performance, but charges can still reduce cash value in a flat year. Whole life's guaranteed cash value schedule is a contract. For a client who wants to see a guaranteed number in the policy, whole life is the straight answer.

If they're afraid of volatility in the income. Whole life dividends are not guaranteed but move slowly; the guaranteed column alone is often enough to plan around. IUL's income projections swing with the assumed rate. The client who wants predictable retirement income from the policy is usually a whole life client.

If they want growth and can tolerate a lower guarantee. IUL has a higher ceiling in good index years, and a properly designed policy can outperform a whole life illustration at the mid-rate. But that's exactly the market exposure they said they didn't want, just filtered through caps and participation rates.

The premium reality. Whole life for the same death benefit is more expensive up front. Some clients who say "no market risk" also say "that premium is too high," and then you're back to IUL or a smaller whole life.

Present both. Guaranteed column of the whole life next to the low-rate column of the IUL, same premium. Let them point at the one they'd sleep with.

Which carriers' whole life illustrations are you using for these comparisons, and are you showing the non-guaranteed column at all?