What is universal life insurance? Is it term or whole?
by Guest » Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:56 am
What is Universal Life (UL) Insurance? Is it considered term or whole?
Total Comments: 20
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:09 am Post Subject:
Nothing wrong with your examples of George and Sam, except that they shed no light on your dissatisfaction with any of the words that distinguish a term life policy from a cash value policy, and neither have you.
That's the point. Saying that a policy is a "cash value policy" doesn't have any meaning if we are going to call a policy that will never have any cash value a "cash value policy". From a consumer perspective, UL products with secondary guarantees are identical to term insurance when the guarantee lasts to a period of time that is less than the age at which a person may live. ie. Genworth's 20 year UL product is no different than 20 year term from the prospective of the consumer.
UL products with secondary guarantees that are purchased at a premium that will guarantee the product to age 121 are most easily understood by thinking of them as "lifetime term insurance". There is never a cash surrender value. The insurance lasts for as long as the person pays the guaranteed premium. The insurance lapses as soon as one doesn't pay.
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 01:29 am Post Subject:
When we are talking about UL contracts with secondary guarantees that are sold and purchased based upon these guarantees, why would anybody care about the COI?
Because it directly affects the insurance companies' profitability, and it affects all those policies that are in force without the guarantees. That's why it's a problem.
The person who owns the contract with the guarantee only needs to be sure their insurance company will be around to back up their guarantee. And if they're around but they can't back up the guarantee, we have a problem. That's what the actuaries are concerned about because they are forecasting the problems (it does have mostly to do with annuities, but life insurance is not immune).
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 02:09 am Post Subject:
the cash surrender value will still be $0.
Tell me where in a non-ROP term policy the words cash surrender value are found? That's not germane to the discussion.
If Charlie wants to renew his policy at age 60, and if he and all the other UL20 owners had genuinely underpaid based on their guaranteed level premium, but Genworth's actual cost of doing business, mortality experience, and lapse rates were not as their actuaries had once predicted, Charlie is likely to discover that Genworth is now charging the maximum guaranteed rates his contract permits, and that might be unaffordable.
So, that argues in favor of a different contract than term at age 40. That's precisely the responsibility of the agent today -- to pay attention to the future, and present a fair picture of that.
The UL/VUL illustrations that were once commonly calculated at 12% did a big injustice to those folks who purchased based on that scenario. But even today's typical 10% illustration is still pie in the sky unless we look at the guaranteed columns for cost of insurance and figure a maximum premium instead of the minimum.
And that's the crux of UL -- if someone wants cash accumulation. It generally won't happen with the kind of funding that most agents discuss with their clients.
Here's what you'll never see in a UL policy -- a guaranteed cost of insurance that prevents the policy from ever lapsing AND cash accumulation. So why don't we just call a spade a spade and tell folks, "Here's our new Term to Age 120 life insurance policy. No cash accumulation, and you pay $xxx.00 per month from now until you die. If you make it to age 120, having paid premiums all those years, we'll continue your insurance at our expense. No more premiums from you."
A little truth in advertising would be a breath of fresh air for an industry (and some of its agents) which still manages to find ways to conceal or misrepresent the facts on occasion.
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 02:19 am Post Subject:
The reality is that just because they are universal life policy, it is painting a false impression to call it a cash value policy.
OK, now we're on the same page. Except that the insurance companies substitute the words "permanent life insurance" for "cash value" and the courts are finally beginning to say, "Permanent? No way. Term."
I am in full agreement that a UL policy that never develops a cash value because of the guarantees, is a misnomer. It should be called Term to Age 121, because that's all it is.
Now, here's why the mythical cash value is important. It's what allows the premium of the Term to Age 121 to potentially be lower than a Genworth Term20 fully amortized to age 121. You and I know the GUL policy may have some cash value early on (that might endure), but it will eventually disappear -- swallowed whole by the insurance company due to increasing COI.
UL products with secondary guarantees that are purchased at a premium that will guarantee the product to age 121 are most easily understood by thinking of them as "lifetime term insurance". There is never a cash surrender value. The insurance lasts for as long as the person pays the guaranteed premium. The insurance lapses as soon as one doesn't pay.
100% agreed. That's why I can't stand the phrase "Secondary Guarantees." Without the continuous payment of premium there is no guarantee. UL wiith cash value demands the same thing . . . just more of it.
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 08:40 pm Post Subject:
Because it directly affects the insurance companies' profitability, and it affects all those policies that are in force without the guarantees. That's why it's a problem.
The person who owns the contract with the guarantee only needs to be sure their insurance company will be around to back up their guarantee. And if they're around but they can't back up the guarantee, we have a problem. That's what the actuaries are concerned about because they are forecasting the problems (it does have mostly to do with annuities, but life insurance is not immune).
I agree with you. I understand that it is a problem. I was looking at it strictly from the standpoint of the insurance purchasers. Jim and George both buy $500,000 policies. Both policies have prices that are guaranteed for the next 20 years at a premium of $400/year. Jim's policy is term. George's policy is UL.
Jim doesn't care that his policy has a $75 policy fee and insurance costs of $325/year to him. To him, it is simply $400/yr for 20 years.
George doesn't care that his policy has a $8/month fee of some sort, a $75 policy fee, and a cost of insurance fee that increases every year and a side fund that accumulates at 3.5% (and won't ever be above $0). To him, it is simply $400/yr for 20 years.
How the insurance company handles different fees makes no difference to the consumer because it is simply accounting games from the point of view of the consumer. Both Jim and George, as far as they are concerned are purchasing the exact same thing...insurance coverage for the next 20 years at a guaranteed price.
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 08:51 pm Post Subject:
Tell me where in a non-ROP term policy the words cash surrender value are found? That's not germane to the discussion.
They aren't. I am talking about a UL product sold as term like Genworth does. One can pay double the guaranteed minimum premium and the cash surrender value will still be $0.
If Charlie wants to renew his policy at age 60, and if he and all the other UL20 owners had genuinely underpaid based on their guaranteed level premium, but Genworth's actual cost of doing business, mortality experience, and lapse rates were not as their actuaries had once predicted, Charlie is likely to discover that Genworth is now charging the maximum guaranteed rates his contract permits, and that might be unaffordable.
If Charlie wants the ability to renew at age 60, he needs to consider something other than term or the UL20 product. We both know this, but for anybody reading, "renew" isn't the right word because the policy doesn't lapse. One can keep paying premiums, but they will be giant. This is true for both 20 year term or a UL20 product.
Charlie needs to assume that the prices will be giant and he won't be healthy after 20 years. The good news is that the rates won't be a shock to him since term and UL 20 products are now almost only illustrated with maximum costs.
[/quote]
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:53 pm Post Subject:
So, that argues in favor of a different contract than term at age 40. That's precisely the responsibility of the agent today -- to pay attention to the future, and present a fair picture of that.
Absolutely. If one is buying a policy that is only guaranteed for a certain number of years, they should do so with the assumption that they won't be healthy at the end of the time period and the costs to continue their current policy will be the most allowed.
The UL/VUL illustrations that were once commonly calculated at 12% did a big injustice to those folks who purchased based on that scenario. But even today's typical 10% illustration is still pie in the sky unless we look at the guaranteed columns for cost of insurance and figure a maximum premium instead of the minimum.
It's been a long time since I've seen something illustrated that high. I happen to be for the most part an anti-UL/VUL guy except when it is based solely on guarantees.
And that's the crux of UL -- if someone wants cash accumulation. It generally won't happen with the kind of funding that most agents discuss with their clients.
Regardless of funding levels, I find UL to be a poor vehicle for accumulation. There is one exception to this. There are some group and association plans that are good. As an example, the AICPA has has very cheap term insurance and there is even an annual rebate. The insurance costs for their VUL product are identical. All extra money can go into the guaranteed account. This account has a minimum guarantee of 4%. At worst case, this is 4% tax deferred. If the basis isn't exceeded, it is 4% tax free. Most CPAs should be taking advantage of this.
Here's what you'll never see in a UL policy -- a guaranteed cost of insurance that prevents the policy from ever lapsing AND cash accumulation. So why don't we just call a spade a spade and tell folks, "Here's our new Term to Age 120 life insurance policy. No cash accumulation, and you pay $xxx.00 per month from now until you die. If you make it to age 120, having paid premiums all those years, we'll continue your insurance at our expense. No more premiums from you."
A little truth in advertising would be a breath of fresh air for an industry (and some of its agents) which still manages to find ways to conceal or misrepresent the facts on occasion.
I think that from the agent standpoint, these products are being sold honestly. The 20 and 30 year products are being sold in the same way as level term products. The products guaranteed to age 120 are talked about as "lifetime term" insurance.
I also think that the industry is being honest with these products. The only illustrations being allowed are those that show maximum costs at all years. That is why even if an agent was trying to get someone to put in 2 or 3x the minimum premium, the illustration will still end up with a $0 cash surrender value.
My GUESS is that there are legal reasons why Genworth, for example, can't just call their UL20 product term insurance. I don't see anything being hidden with these products.
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:05 am Post Subject:
UL products with secondary guarantees that are purchased at a premium that will guarantee the product to age 121 are most easily understood by thinking of them as "lifetime term insurance". There is never a cash surrender value. The insurance lasts for as long as the person pays the guaranteed premium. The insurance lapses as soon as one doesn't pay.
100% agreed. That's why I can't stand the phrase "Secondary Guarantees." Without the continuous payment of premium there is no guarantee. UL wiith cash value demands the same thing . . . just more of it.
I like the term "secondary guarantee". A secondary guaranty doesn't say that a policy will always stay in force. It says that a policy will always stay in force if a certain premium is paid.
Sure, UL with cash value demands the same thing. However, the big difference is that because it is possible with a normal UL for it to stay in force with a smaller premium than the amount that will guarantee it and a smaller premium would cause a lapse at some distant time, a smaller premium is what is paid. With the secondary guarantee policies, a smaller premium will result in an immediate lapse.
In short, the amount needed for the guarantee is what is paid in the "secondary guarantee" contracts whereas, it is almost always an amount less that is paid in the "traditional UL" contracts. (not less than the guaranteed UL policies, but less than what is needed to guarantee the contract for life.)
Before you spend too much time responding, note that we are much more in agreement than disagreement with this subject.
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 02:51 am Post Subject:
I happen to be for the most part an anti-UL/VUL guy except when it is based solely on guarantees.
Welcome to the club.
In short, the amount needed for the guarantee is what is paid in the "secondary guarantee" contracts whereas, it is almost always an amount less that is paid in the "traditional UL" contracts.
Of course, because it's not going to accumulate CV. The only place the CV really comes from is the policyowner's contributions.
The industry simply needs to clean up its act. If we're going to make policies available to age 121 by paying premiums from now until then, let's just call them Term Insurance, and tell the client here's how much you pay for x number of years. The contract is the guarantee. You don't need "secondary guarantees" unless there is something wrong with the primary product.
VUL has had those "no lapse guarantees" for years. Typically, they were written for five years from the date the policy is issued. When I point that out to a client, and ask, "If the policy has a no lapse guarantee for five years, what do you think could happen after five years?" And the natural answer is, "I guess it could lapse."
So when I next say, "Is that what you want your policy to do?" the usual answer is, "No."
When you explore the reasons people have ended up with the UL/VUL products they have, it's almost always connected to the illustration. They saw big numbers without understanding what they were being shown.
I don't have a problem with guaranteed UL policies. But, as you've repeatedly mentioned here (and if you go back to some of my posts a few years ago, you'll see the same thing), they are only as good as the last payment made. When someone is sold a GUL policy for estate planning purposes, for example, expecting the money to be there after they die, the agent has a responsibility to make sure there is a never-ending source of funding to keep paying the premiums when the owner/insured has that stroke or heart attack that puts them in the hospital and their family doesn't realize a payment needs to be made. 'Cause it only takes one missed payment to screw a generation or two of folks out of a death benefit.
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 04:44 pm Post Subject:
It is usually considered whole, but, as the argument above illustrates, it's neither of the two and yet a combination of both. If the question is for a particular UL life insurance policy you own, then you should definitely ask for an in-force illustration.
If UL is not working for you and you just need to buy term, try checking up [Link removed by Moderator MaxHerr per TOU] quotes for affordable term insurance coverage.
Denise Mancini
Disclaimer: I work for [removed] and this is my personal opinion.
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:09 am Post Subject:
Nothing wrong with your examples of George and Sam, except that they shed no light on your dissatisfaction with any of the words that distinguish a term life policy from a cash value policy, and neither have you.
That's the point. Saying that a policy is a "cash value policy" doesn't have any meaning if we are going to call a policy that will never have any cash value a "cash value policy". From a consumer perspective, UL products with secondary guarantees are identical to term insurance when the guarantee lasts to a period of time that is less than the age at which a person may live. ie. Genworth's 20 year UL product is no different than 20 year term from the prospective of the consumer.
UL products with secondary guarantees that are purchased at a premium that will guarantee the product to age 121 are most easily understood by thinking of them as "lifetime term insurance". There is never a cash surrender value. The insurance lasts for as long as the person pays the guaranteed premium. The insurance lapses as soon as one doesn't pay.
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 01:29 am Post Subject:
When we are talking about UL contracts with secondary guarantees that are sold and purchased based upon these guarantees, why would anybody care about the COI?
Because it directly affects the insurance companies' profitability, and it affects all those policies that are in force without the guarantees. That's why it's a problem.
The person who owns the contract with the guarantee only needs to be sure their insurance company will be around to back up their guarantee. And if they're around but they can't back up the guarantee, we have a problem. That's what the actuaries are concerned about because they are forecasting the problems (it does have mostly to do with annuities, but life insurance is not immune).
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 02:09 am Post Subject:
the cash surrender value will still be $0.
Tell me where in a non-ROP term policy the words cash surrender value are found? That's not germane to the discussion.
If Charlie wants to renew his policy at age 60, and if he and all the other UL20 owners had genuinely underpaid based on their guaranteed level premium, but Genworth's actual cost of doing business, mortality experience, and lapse rates were not as their actuaries had once predicted, Charlie is likely to discover that Genworth is now charging the maximum guaranteed rates his contract permits, and that might be unaffordable.
So, that argues in favor of a different contract than term at age 40. That's precisely the responsibility of the agent today -- to pay attention to the future, and present a fair picture of that.
The UL/VUL illustrations that were once commonly calculated at 12% did a big injustice to those folks who purchased based on that scenario. But even today's typical 10% illustration is still pie in the sky unless we look at the guaranteed columns for cost of insurance and figure a maximum premium instead of the minimum.
And that's the crux of UL -- if someone wants cash accumulation. It generally won't happen with the kind of funding that most agents discuss with their clients.
Here's what you'll never see in a UL policy -- a guaranteed cost of insurance that prevents the policy from ever lapsing AND cash accumulation. So why don't we just call a spade a spade and tell folks, "Here's our new Term to Age 120 life insurance policy. No cash accumulation, and you pay $xxx.00 per month from now until you die. If you make it to age 120, having paid premiums all those years, we'll continue your insurance at our expense. No more premiums from you."
A little truth in advertising would be a breath of fresh air for an industry (and some of its agents) which still manages to find ways to conceal or misrepresent the facts on occasion.
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 02:19 am Post Subject:
The reality is that just because they are universal life policy, it is painting a false impression to call it a cash value policy.
OK, now we're on the same page. Except that the insurance companies substitute the words "permanent life insurance" for "cash value" and the courts are finally beginning to say, "Permanent? No way. Term."
I am in full agreement that a UL policy that never develops a cash value because of the guarantees, is a misnomer. It should be called Term to Age 121, because that's all it is.
Now, here's why the mythical cash value is important. It's what allows the premium of the Term to Age 121 to potentially be lower than a Genworth Term20 fully amortized to age 121. You and I know the GUL policy may have some cash value early on (that might endure), but it will eventually disappear -- swallowed whole by the insurance company due to increasing COI.
UL products with secondary guarantees that are purchased at a premium that will guarantee the product to age 121 are most easily understood by thinking of them as "lifetime term insurance". There is never a cash surrender value. The insurance lasts for as long as the person pays the guaranteed premium. The insurance lapses as soon as one doesn't pay.
100% agreed. That's why I can't stand the phrase "Secondary Guarantees." Without the continuous payment of premium there is no guarantee. UL wiith cash value demands the same thing . . . just more of it.
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 08:40 pm Post Subject:
Because it directly affects the insurance companies' profitability, and it affects all those policies that are in force without the guarantees. That's why it's a problem.
The person who owns the contract with the guarantee only needs to be sure their insurance company will be around to back up their guarantee. And if they're around but they can't back up the guarantee, we have a problem. That's what the actuaries are concerned about because they are forecasting the problems (it does have mostly to do with annuities, but life insurance is not immune).
I agree with you. I understand that it is a problem. I was looking at it strictly from the standpoint of the insurance purchasers. Jim and George both buy $500,000 policies. Both policies have prices that are guaranteed for the next 20 years at a premium of $400/year. Jim's policy is term. George's policy is UL.
Jim doesn't care that his policy has a $75 policy fee and insurance costs of $325/year to him. To him, it is simply $400/yr for 20 years.
George doesn't care that his policy has a $8/month fee of some sort, a $75 policy fee, and a cost of insurance fee that increases every year and a side fund that accumulates at 3.5% (and won't ever be above $0). To him, it is simply $400/yr for 20 years.
How the insurance company handles different fees makes no difference to the consumer because it is simply accounting games from the point of view of the consumer. Both Jim and George, as far as they are concerned are purchasing the exact same thing...insurance coverage for the next 20 years at a guaranteed price.
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 08:51 pm Post Subject:
Tell me where in a non-ROP term policy the words cash surrender value are found? That's not germane to the discussion.
They aren't. I am talking about a UL product sold as term like Genworth does. One can pay double the guaranteed minimum premium and the cash surrender value will still be $0.
If Charlie wants to renew his policy at age 60, and if he and all the other UL20 owners had genuinely underpaid based on their guaranteed level premium, but Genworth's actual cost of doing business, mortality experience, and lapse rates were not as their actuaries had once predicted, Charlie is likely to discover that Genworth is now charging the maximum guaranteed rates his contract permits, and that might be unaffordable.
If Charlie wants the ability to renew at age 60, he needs to consider something other than term or the UL20 product. We both know this, but for anybody reading, "renew" isn't the right word because the policy doesn't lapse. One can keep paying premiums, but they will be giant. This is true for both 20 year term or a UL20 product.
Charlie needs to assume that the prices will be giant and he won't be healthy after 20 years. The good news is that the rates won't be a shock to him since term and UL 20 products are now almost only illustrated with maximum costs.
[/quote]
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:53 pm Post Subject:
So, that argues in favor of a different contract than term at age 40. That's precisely the responsibility of the agent today -- to pay attention to the future, and present a fair picture of that.
Absolutely. If one is buying a policy that is only guaranteed for a certain number of years, they should do so with the assumption that they won't be healthy at the end of the time period and the costs to continue their current policy will be the most allowed.
The UL/VUL illustrations that were once commonly calculated at 12% did a big injustice to those folks who purchased based on that scenario. But even today's typical 10% illustration is still pie in the sky unless we look at the guaranteed columns for cost of insurance and figure a maximum premium instead of the minimum.
It's been a long time since I've seen something illustrated that high. I happen to be for the most part an anti-UL/VUL guy except when it is based solely on guarantees.
And that's the crux of UL -- if someone wants cash accumulation. It generally won't happen with the kind of funding that most agents discuss with their clients.
Regardless of funding levels, I find UL to be a poor vehicle for accumulation. There is one exception to this. There are some group and association plans that are good. As an example, the AICPA has has very cheap term insurance and there is even an annual rebate. The insurance costs for their VUL product are identical. All extra money can go into the guaranteed account. This account has a minimum guarantee of 4%. At worst case, this is 4% tax deferred. If the basis isn't exceeded, it is 4% tax free. Most CPAs should be taking advantage of this.
Here's what you'll never see in a UL policy -- a guaranteed cost of insurance that prevents the policy from ever lapsing AND cash accumulation. So why don't we just call a spade a spade and tell folks, "Here's our new Term to Age 120 life insurance policy. No cash accumulation, and you pay $xxx.00 per month from now until you die. If you make it to age 120, having paid premiums all those years, we'll continue your insurance at our expense. No more premiums from you."
A little truth in advertising would be a breath of fresh air for an industry (and some of its agents) which still manages to find ways to conceal or misrepresent the facts on occasion.
I think that from the agent standpoint, these products are being sold honestly. The 20 and 30 year products are being sold in the same way as level term products. The products guaranteed to age 120 are talked about as "lifetime term" insurance.
I also think that the industry is being honest with these products. The only illustrations being allowed are those that show maximum costs at all years. That is why even if an agent was trying to get someone to put in 2 or 3x the minimum premium, the illustration will still end up with a $0 cash surrender value.
My GUESS is that there are legal reasons why Genworth, for example, can't just call their UL20 product term insurance. I don't see anything being hidden with these products.
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:05 am Post Subject:
UL products with secondary guarantees that are purchased at a premium that will guarantee the product to age 121 are most easily understood by thinking of them as "lifetime term insurance". There is never a cash surrender value. The insurance lasts for as long as the person pays the guaranteed premium. The insurance lapses as soon as one doesn't pay.
100% agreed. That's why I can't stand the phrase "Secondary Guarantees." Without the continuous payment of premium there is no guarantee. UL wiith cash value demands the same thing . . . just more of it.
I like the term "secondary guarantee". A secondary guaranty doesn't say that a policy will always stay in force. It says that a policy will always stay in force if a certain premium is paid.
Sure, UL with cash value demands the same thing. However, the big difference is that because it is possible with a normal UL for it to stay in force with a smaller premium than the amount that will guarantee it and a smaller premium would cause a lapse at some distant time, a smaller premium is what is paid. With the secondary guarantee policies, a smaller premium will result in an immediate lapse.
In short, the amount needed for the guarantee is what is paid in the "secondary guarantee" contracts whereas, it is almost always an amount less that is paid in the "traditional UL" contracts. (not less than the guaranteed UL policies, but less than what is needed to guarantee the contract for life.)
Before you spend too much time responding, note that we are much more in agreement than disagreement with this subject.
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 02:51 am Post Subject:
I happen to be for the most part an anti-UL/VUL guy except when it is based solely on guarantees.
Welcome to the club.
In short, the amount needed for the guarantee is what is paid in the "secondary guarantee" contracts whereas, it is almost always an amount less that is paid in the "traditional UL" contracts.
Of course, because it's not going to accumulate CV. The only place the CV really comes from is the policyowner's contributions.
The industry simply needs to clean up its act. If we're going to make policies available to age 121 by paying premiums from now until then, let's just call them Term Insurance, and tell the client here's how much you pay for x number of years. The contract is the guarantee. You don't need "secondary guarantees" unless there is something wrong with the primary product.
VUL has had those "no lapse guarantees" for years. Typically, they were written for five years from the date the policy is issued. When I point that out to a client, and ask, "If the policy has a no lapse guarantee for five years, what do you think could happen after five years?" And the natural answer is, "I guess it could lapse."
So when I next say, "Is that what you want your policy to do?" the usual answer is, "No."
When you explore the reasons people have ended up with the UL/VUL products they have, it's almost always connected to the illustration. They saw big numbers without understanding what they were being shown.
I don't have a problem with guaranteed UL policies. But, as you've repeatedly mentioned here (and if you go back to some of my posts a few years ago, you'll see the same thing), they are only as good as the last payment made. When someone is sold a GUL policy for estate planning purposes, for example, expecting the money to be there after they die, the agent has a responsibility to make sure there is a never-ending source of funding to keep paying the premiums when the owner/insured has that stroke or heart attack that puts them in the hospital and their family doesn't realize a payment needs to be made. 'Cause it only takes one missed payment to screw a generation or two of folks out of a death benefit.
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 04:44 pm Post Subject:
It is usually considered whole, but, as the argument above illustrates, it's neither of the two and yet a combination of both. If the question is for a particular UL life insurance policy you own, then you should definitely ask for an in-force illustration.
If UL is not working for you and you just need to buy term, try checking up [Link removed by Moderator MaxHerr per TOU] quotes for affordable term insurance coverage.
Denise Mancini
Disclaimer: I work for [removed] and this is my personal opinion.
Add your comment