LIFE INSURANCE

[Alexsei]

I believe this analogy has been mentioned multiple times but again when you are comparing two things it always depends on your goal for example it's your goal is to get from point A to point B you might as well compare a car to a motorcycle but if you are comparing a transportation vehicle to own they might be two different things.
You might want to compare life insurance to another investment to decide which vehicle to invest in however you can still not compare the two products using the same criteria but you should be able to compare the outcomes

[aygart]

You can compare two different cars. But a car vs a motorcycle is a completely different skill set and experience.

Apples and oranges are also both fruit. But we still don't compare apples and oranges.

Why wouldn't we compare apples and oranges? They are both fruit. They both satiate

[ExGingi]

Why wouldn't we compare apples and oranges? They are both fruit. They both satiate

IDK. It's a common expression.

OK. Replace apples (pomme) with potatoes (pomme de terre).

Do you also compare a savings account to an S&P mutual fund or ETF?

[Alexsei]

Why wouldn't we compare apples and oranges? They are both fruit. They both satiate

We do, we just need to be aware that we can't compare some specifics because they're two different fruits. Same goes here

[Alexsei]

GPT 4o:

The phrase "comparing apples and oranges" is a common idiom that highlights the difficulty or impossibility of comparing two things that are fundamentally different in nature. Here are some reasons why this comparison is often seen as impractical:

1. **Different Categories**: Apples and oranges belong to different categories of fruit, with distinct characteristics, flavors, textures, and nutritional values. Comparing them directly is akin to comparing unrelated items.

2. **Subjective Criteria**: The criteria for comparison may vary widely. For instance, if you compare them based on taste, texture, or nutritional content, the results will be highly subjective and context-dependent.

3. **Purpose and Usage**: Apples and oranges are used differently in culinary contexts. Apples might be preferred for pies, while oranges are favored for juice. Their uses and culinary applications differ significantly.

4. **Variety and Species**: Both apples and oranges come in many varieties, each with unique properties. Comparing a Granny Smith apple to a Navel orange is different from comparing a Fuji apple to a Blood orange, further complicating the comparison.

In essence, the idiom suggests that some comparisons are inherently flawed because the items being compared are too different to yield meaningful conclusions.

[Wolf Pack]

IDK. It's a common expression.

OK. Replace apples (pomme) with potatoes (pomme de terre).

Do you also compare a savings account to an S&P mutual fund or ETF?

I may be wrong, but I imagine most uneducated consumers like myself (prior to spending hours online educating myself) view whole life policies primarily as death insurance with some living benefits in the form of cash value accumulation. Therefore, simply saying it's "apples and oranges" without explaining why, while focusing primarily on the death benefits, is not very helpful. These days, I view the death benefit in whole life policies as the smaller benefit or side benefit, and obviously, Indexed Universal Life and whole life policies are not comparable.

[ExGingi]

I may be wrong, but I imagine most uneducated consumers like myself (prior to spending hours online educating myself) view whole life policies primarily as death insurance with some living benefits in the form of cash value accumulation. Therefore, simply saying it's "apples and oranges" without explaining why, while focusing primarily on the death benefits, is not very helpful. These days, I view the death benefit in whole life policies as the smaller benefit or side benefit, and obviously, Indexed Universal Life and whole life policies are not comparable.

Most people comparing types of life insurance go to the term vs. whole life, for which renting vs buying is a decent analogy (though there are obviously some differences).

You are trying to compare permanent types of life insurance, and with that, you're also trying to compare products that are related to market returns (you initially asked about Variable, not about IUL) to products that have fixed returns and guarantees, which is why I balked.

If you were to compare UL to WL, I'd explain the differences in guarantees, mechanics of the products, etc.

But variable products have no place being compared to fixed products (and don't belong as a (primary, or even secondary) personal protection product IMHO.

[notyettaken]

Do you also compare a savings account to an S&P mutual fund or ETF?

sure why not.

savings account is for money you may need in the short term but will grow minimally, however it is very safe.

s&p is for longer term savings, less safe (but still pretty safe in the long run) and will grow moderately.

there, I compered them by showing their similarities and differences.

feel free to use this template to compare other things

[ExGingi]

sure why not.

savings account is for money you may need in the short term but will grow minimally, however it is very safe.

s&p is for longer term savings, less safe (but still pretty safe in the long run) and will grow moderately.

there, I compered them by showing their similarities and differences.

feel free to use this template to compare other things

Pretty bad template. I wouldn't even attempt to use it.

[yos9694]

I seeking to compare a WL policy to a product that the cash value growth is pegged to an index fund such as the S&P500, is there no such product?

I would like to compare prior to going to a broker so I do not have an illustration. Is the information available online?

Almost definitely not available online, you're going to need to talk to an insider of some kind. Not many people would be able to make use of the information on their own anyway.

A WL policy has implicit fees, rather than explicit. It would be impossible for you to decompose the illustrated values without access to proprietary information. That's in contrast to VUL or IUL which do show explicit fees, but those may still be hard to properly interpret.

I'd suggest keeping it simple- just focus on the ins/outs under different scenarios. With WL, your premium is always guaranteed as is a portion of the cash value. The non-guaranteed portion of the cash value is variable but not correlated to any market instrument that you could measure, so you'd have to be creative about scenarios. With VUL or IUL, you might be able to come up with scenarios to show how the invested cash value would grow under different market conditions, but the policy fees are not guaranteed so you'll still have the challenge of guessing how to play those out.

If you want more helpful responses, you could try being clearer and more specific about your goal. And if you have a strategy for comparing the two streams of value that you have in mind, explain what that is. Saying that you want to compare WL to "WL but pegged to the S&P" will just get dismissive responses. Not aware of any company offering a product with guaranteed a premium level and guaranteed cash value growth that also has full market exposure.