A LiteStrats Publication
Trust & Legitimacy
What Suze Orman Gets Wrong About IUL (And What She Gets Right)
Suze Orman has real criticisms of how IULs are sold. Most are legitimate, but they're criticisms of bad agents and bad structures, not the product itself. Here's what she gets right, what she misses, and why a properly structured IUL answers her actual objections.
Suze Orman has spent decades warning people away from IUL policies. She calls them complicated, expensive, and a poor substitute for term life plus investing. She is right about what she is criticizing. She is wrong about what she thinks it condemns.
Most IULs sold today are structured poorly. Agents oversell them to the wrong people. Commission incentives are real. But when Suze condemns IUL itself, she’s condemning a product based on how badly it’s usually sold, not how it can work.
What Does Suze Orman Get Right About IUL?
Most of her criticism lands. Suze is right that IULs are usually sold with terrible transparency, distorted by commission, and structured so poorly they never build the cash value they promise.
Transparency is genuinely bad. Most people who buy IUL can’t compare costs across carriers or explain the cap rates, spreads, and insurance charges to a friend. A properly structured IUL should come with a one-page fee breakdown and a 10-year projection showing every cost, and state regulators through the NAIC publish buyer guides precisely so a shopper can see those numbers. If your agent won’t provide them, Suze’s instinct to pass is correct. Commission distorts the market too: an agent selling IUL often makes 50-75% commission in year one, far more than selling term, and that motive drives a lot of bad recommendations.
She’s also right that most IULs fail to deliver on cash value. Fund a policy with a death benefit that’s too high and a premium that’s too low, and it will never accumulate anything meaningful. And she values term life’s simplicity, a known premium for a known benefit, which is a fair thing to want. Those are all real problems worth taking seriously.
What Does Suze Orman Miss About How IUL Works?
She misses the participating policy loan, the mechanism that turns an IUL from a savings account into a leverage vehicle.
A policy loan is not you borrowing your own money. The carrier lends against your cash value as collateral, and if the policy is structured right you earn more in the cash value than you pay in loan interest. That’s one dollar doing two jobs, and the IRS treats that loan as borrowed money rather than a taxable withdrawal. Suze doesn’t discuss this mechanism, and most agents don’t either, but it’s the difference between IUL as a piggy bank and IUL as a wealth tool.
A properly structured IUL answers every legitimate criticism Suze raises. The problem is how it’s usually sold, not what it can do.
She also cites lapse rates as proof of danger. She’s right that underfunded IULs fail, but a policy max funded with minimum death benefit and annual funding discipline lapses at rates comparable to whole life. Underfunding is the risk, not the product itself.
Does “Buy Term and Invest the Rest” Actually Work?
For Suze’s most disciplined listeners, yes. For most people it quietly fails, because the money they were supposed to invest gets spent instead.
“Buy term and invest the rest” assumes you’ll actually invest the rest. The premium difference is supposed to go to work, but for most households it sits in a checking account and gets spent on a car, a kitchen, or next year’s expenses. An IUL forces the funding. That isn’t sophisticated, and it isn’t optimal for a perfect saver, but it’s real for how people actually behave. Suze’s advice is correct for the audience that follows it precisely. The gap is that most Americans don’t, and a structure that enforces the habit can beat a better plan that never actually happens.
What is the Real Question Suze Doesn’t Ask?
The real question isn’t term versus IUL, it’s what job you need the money to do. A properly structured IUL is a supplement to a sound plan, not a replacement for one.
Suze’s ultimate objection is “why not term plus disciplined investing?” If you’ll reliably invest the difference, that’s a fine answer for most people. An IUL is not a replacement for that; it’s a supplement. It earns its place when you want leverage against a large asset base like real estate or a business, need a tax-free income floor in retirement, or want insurance that also compounds wealth. The funding discipline that makes all of this hold up lives inside the seven-pay limit in Internal Revenue Code section 7702A. Suze has seen the badly-sold case a hundred times and concluded the good case doesn’t exist. It does. The claims her audience hears most often do not match what a properly structured IUL actually does at the policy level:
| The claim | What actually happens in the policy |
|---|---|
| IUL cash value grows with the market, so you can lose money in a down year | IUL crediting uses a floor, typically 0%, so a down index year credits zero growth rather than a negative return; principal inside the policy is not reduced by market losses |
| Taking money out of an IUL means borrowing your own savings | Policy loans are issued by the carrier against your cash value as collateral; the cash value itself keeps compounding on the full balance, so the borrowed dollars and the collateral dollars work simultaneously |
| A $100,000 deposit into an IUL leaves you with $100,000 working for you | With a participating loan, you can deposit $100,000, borrow $80,000 out for another use, and still have the full $100,000 compounding inside the policy |
| IUL is just expensive whole life with a market twist | Whole life carries guaranteed costs and a guaranteed rate of return; IUL carries lower baseline costs, a cap on upside, and a floor on downside, making the cost and growth profile structurally different from whole life |
Frequently Asked Questions
What Does Suze Orman Recommend Instead of IUL?
Suze recommends term life plus investing the difference on your own. If you execute it perfectly, the math favors that path. For most people it doesn’t get executed, and the money that was supposed to be invested sits in a checking account instead.
Can an IUL Collapse or Run Out of Money?
An IUL can lapse if underfunded, if cost-of-insurance charges spiral from over-leverage, or if you have consecutive zero return years with unpaid loans. A properly structured IUL with annual funding discipline rarely does. That’s different from never.
Who Should Actually Buy an IUL?
Someone who will fund it reliably every year, wants insurance that also builds cash value, understands the rate caps and fees, or is considering leverage against real estate or business assets. Not someone hoping an agent will manage it for them.
Is IUL a Scam?
IUL is a tool. Bad agents using bad structures on the wrong clients makes it feel like a scam. The product itself isn’t; the sales execution usually is. That’s why transparency and structure matter.
How is IUL Different from Whole Life?
Whole life has a guaranteed rate of return and guaranteed costs. IUL has higher upside potential (the cap), a lower floor (often 0-1%), and lower costs. Neither is universally better. A properly structured IUL can potentially accumulate more wealth over time, depending on index performance and your funding discipline.
Suze Orman’s skepticism isn’t wrong. It’s incomplete. She’s seen bad IULs sold by bad agents and concluded the product is bad. Most agents do sell IUL badly. That’s the problem to solve.
If you’re considering IUL, use Suze’s standards: demand transparency, understand the structure, confirm it’s max funded with minimum death benefit, and ask your agent what they’d recommend if commission was equal across all products.
Ready to see if a properly structured IUL fits your wealth-building strategy? Book a strategy call with the LiteStrats team.
Free Strategy Guide
Become Your Own Bank
Get an overview of how to build tax-free wealth and income by changing where your money is stored and how you access it, plus an example built around your age.
Get Your Free Guide