The way I hear it, and I do believe I hear it correctly, is that whole life
was a life insurance product developed in the 1970s. Later, in the 1990s, some great minds got together and said, "Let's make whole life insurance more flexible and also allow some options in universal life to credit consumers with a potential higher rate of return on their sub-accounts than what whole life can pay".
The way it was told to me is that one of the flexibilities of universal life
is that you can pay for, say, 10 or 15 years and then you may not need to pay anymore. But with whole life, you have to pay for your whole life.
So, the way I hear it is that whole life agents are like guys who walk down the street in 1970s pimp gear, complete with bell bottoms and flower patches on their butts, while universal life agents have successfully adapted to "a better kind of policy" and moved into modern times with hybrid cars, DVDs, HDTV, the Internet and other modern faculties.
So, is it true that whole life agents are simply uninformed agents who are stuck in the 70s with an outdated, non-flexible product?