Life insurance

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

lykaon78

Golden Member
Sep 5, 2001
1,174
9
81
Paperdoc - Not trying to flame but your facts are off (eg premiums on a level term policy are constant during the term period not increasing, they increase drastically after the term period) and your explanations are overly simplified (eg your whole life definiation). Not to mention that most finanical advisors will tell you that decreasing term is a poor investment.

Check out http://www.life-line.org/ which is an industry sposored but company neutral education web site.

OP: YGPM

Disclaimer: I work in the life insurancce industry
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,204
66
91
Originally posted by: lykaon78
Paperdoc - Not trying to flame but your facts are off (eg premiums on a level term policy are constant during the term period not increasing, they increase drastically after the term period) and your explanations are overly simplified (eg your whole life definiation). Not to mention that most finanical advisors will tell you that decreasing term is a poor investment.

Check out http://www.life-line.org/ which is an industry sposored but company neutral education web site.

OP: YGPM

Disclaimer: I work in the life insurancce industry
You mean most financial advisors that work for insurance companies. That might be because insurance is not meant to be an investment. It's insurance.

Decreasing term is the only wise purchase unless you're buying a single premium whole life policy for a newborn.

Why would you need a large payout when you're 30 years older and more settled financially?

Crunch the numbers. See what would happen if you took the difference in policy costs and put that into a secure investment. You'll do better investing the money yourself.
 

lykaon78

Golden Member
Sep 5, 2001
1,174
9
81
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: lykaon78
Paperdoc - Not trying to flame but your facts are off (eg premiums on a level term policy are constant during the term period not increasing, they increase drastically after the term period) and your explanations are overly simplified (eg your whole life definiation). Not to mention that most finanical advisors will tell you that decreasing term is a poor investment.

Check out http://www.life-line.org/ which is an industry sposored but company neutral education web site.

OP: YGPM

Disclaimer: I work in the life insurancce industry
You mean most financial advisors that work for insurance companies. That might be because insurance is not meant to be an investment. It's insurance.

Decreasing term is the only wise purchase unless you're buying a single premium whole life policy for a newborn.

Why would you need a large payout when you're 30 years older and more settled financially?

Crunch the numbers. See what would happen if you took the difference in policy costs and put that into a secure investment. You'll do better investing the money yourself.


First off, I don't sell insurance, my company does.

I guess it comes down to your financial goals as to whether or not decresing term makes sense. If mortgage protection is your goal then decreasing term makes sense. If income replacement is your goal them level term and possibly a whole life plan make sense.
 

randym431

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2003
1,270
1
0
Getting life insurance when buying a house is a good idea. Most mortgage companies offer their own insurance on the mortgage. Dont get that. Its a rip off, costs a lot and only covers the mortgage co interest.
Better to get $100000 or more for you and the same for the wife, while you are paying that mortgage. If its paid off in 20-30 years, then at least you were covered for that time.
 

PG

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,426
44
91
Originally posted by: LolaWiz
A Term policy is going to be the cheapest... if you get a 30 year term policy for 200,000, after 30 years, if you are not dead(don't use it) thats it. You don't get any of your money back. you are basically renting a policy. Most people get this to coinside with the term of their mortgage.

A permanant(whole life) policy will last you until 100(or til your choosing) years old. It is more expensive, however, you can borrow against it, take money from it, etc.

That is a VERY BASIC way to look at it.

I would at least get you and your wife the value of the house on each of you for at least 15 years.
Rates will also be determined by health, if you smoke, etc.

each policy is not better or worse than the other, they are just different.

Term will always be cheaper than whole life, but you get more with the whole life policy


No, this is not a complete or correct answer, but it's what the cash value insurance agents want you to say.


Here are problems with cash value insurance:

1. No cash value buildup for the first 2 years, maybe 3. These policies have large commisions that need to be paid.
Would you put money in a bank if you knew they would take all your money for the first two years? Think about it.
2. Low rate of return. 1 to 5% is typical. You can find many FDIC insured banks online that give 5% and a mutual fund will do even better than that, right?
3. If you want to take that cash value and use it you have to take out a policy loan and pay it back with intrest. Yes, you have to borrow your own money and pay it back with intrest, and the intrest rate is usually about 8%. Now go back and compare that to what they give you in number 2.
4. There are two "options" on cash value policies. These describe what your beneficiary gets if you pass away. With one option they get the face value and the cash value. This is much more expensive than the other option where the beneficiary get one or the other so most people have the option where the insurance company pays out the face value but they keep your cash value. What a deal right?

Buy Term and Invest the Difference - this is the proper strategy

You can get much more protection with term, and at a cheaper price. Invest the difference in a mutual fund and when the term is over you have a large chunk of money.
This strategy beats whole life during the term and after.

Don't belive me? Read what the pros say:

"Next, you should only look for one type of coverage: Term life insurance. Do not-I repeat, do not-buy any other type of life insurance. There's another kind, called "cash value," which is a colossal waste of money, if you ask me. These cash value policies come in a variety of flavors, including whole life, universal life, and variable life. Just say no to anyone who tries to talk you into one of these plans. They can be more than 10 times as expensive as a term policy, yet you don't need any of the "extras" they come with. In fact, the big added feature of a cash value policy is that it provides an investment component. I won't go into a ton of details here other than to tell you that a life insurance policy is a lousy way to save and invest. So stick to a policy that simply provides life insurance and leave off all the expensive bells and whistles."

http://finance.yahoo.com/columnist/article/moneymatters/961

 

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,745
1
81
Originally posted by: lykaon78
I guess it comes down to your financial goals as to whether or not decresing term makes sense. If mortgage protection is your goal then decreasing term makes sense. If income replacement is your goal them level term and possibly a whole life plan make sense.

I've never seen a case where decreasing term makes sense.
 

PG

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,426
44
91
Here is how you properly calculate what you need for Life Insurance. It's called the DIME method. Note that there are 2 Ds really:

D = Death expenses, you can usually guess about $15,000 unless you just want cremated and that might be cheaper
D = Debt, including things like credit cards, student loans, car payemts, etc.
I = Income replacement
M = Mortgage
E = Education for your children

Put a monetary figure to each and add them up.
Income Replacement is the hardest one to pick and the one that you usually have to compromise on. One or two years should be the miniumum in this category.

Do this for each spouse if married. Yes, wives who are not working need coverage too. Think of the added childcare expenses and burdens on the surviving spouse if they were not around anymore.


 

PG

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,426
44
91
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: lykaon78
I guess it comes down to your financial goals as to whether or not decresing term makes sense. If mortgage protection is your goal then decreasing term makes sense. If income replacement is your goal them level term and possibly a whole life plan make sense.

I've never seen a case where decreasing term makes sense.


It always makes sense. When you are young you will have more debt. It's just common sense. A new mortgage, children, car payments, school loans, credit cards, etc.

As you get older these things will eventually get paid down and you will have built some wealth. With less debt you need less coverage.

This is called the Theory of Decreasing Responsiblity.

Just think about it, if you have no debt and enough money in the bank do you even need life insurance? Does Bill Gates need life insurance?

If you don't need insurance for your whole life why pay for your whole life?