Thanks Jason! Your question is a good one, and the truth is that it really depends on the specifics of your situation. What are your college savings goals? What does the policy look like now? What is it expected to look like when you need the money? What other funds do you already have in place? I’m not asking you to answer those questions here, just want to give you a sense of the kinds of things I would consider.
The insurance company calculates the policy prices (premiums) at a level sufficient to fund claims, cover administrative costs, and provide a profit. The cost of insurance is determined using mortality tables calculated by actuaries. Mortality tables are statistically based tables showing expected annual mortality rates of people at different ages. Put simply, people are more likely to die as they get older and the mortality tables enable the insurance companies to calculate the risk and increase premiums with age accordingly. Such estimates can be important in taxation regulation.[10][11]
Response 3: I’m sure that some are. It is up to you who to trust. I’d suggest asking up-front how these people are paid, because some are non-commissioned (e.g. if your employer pays them a flat fee to consult). But also keep in mind that you don’t want to take your advice from people with the opposite bias, either. Financial advisers are often paid on discretionary assets managed. If they are, then their incentive is clearly for you to buy term insurance (or no insurance) and let them invest as much as possible on your behalf. Just be careful and take a long time to think through the issues.
So let me ask, does she have a need for life insurance? That is, what would the insurance proceeds actually be used for? It may be that she no longer has a need and could simply unload the policy. If that’s the case, I have heard of people having some luck selling these policies to a third party. It’s not something I have experience with, but I could ask around for you if you’d like.
Underfunded whole life insurance may have only performed 4%. However, designed with additional premiums they have actually earned closer to 7% in the 30 years from 1984-2013. Even during the period between 1977 and 1982 where interest rates shot through the roof and bond holders didn’t recapture their losses for several years, over funder whole life returned 35% after the cost of insurance is considered.
For term life, I’d agree that it is usually a really bad investment. Why? Because a lot of people only pay in their premiums and never get any return. If you have term, then by the time you are older and your kids are self-sufficient (hopefully), your incentive to keep renewing will be pretty low. You may indeed just stop paying in and let the insurance lapse. Or, also quite possible, you will have to renew your policy but the premiums will be way too high because you are now much older and your health is worse. In some cases, you won’t be able to renew it at all.
It is not a valid argument to me to say that the “administrative pain in the ass” is a reason to ignore the tactic. It’s a pretty simple procedure and certainly not worth paying all the extra costs of a whole life approach just to avoid. Yes, you have to be careful if you have Traditional IRAs, but there are ways around that too. No, it’s not for everyone, but I would much rather try to make the backdoor Roth work first than immediately jump to whole life.

Yes, backdoor Roths are capped at $5,500 per year. Still, I think they’re a better first option than whole life for all of the reasons mentioned in the post. Exposure to market risk is not an inherent problem, and is also not a characteristic of Roth IRAs. A Roth IRA is just a type of account within which the individual can invest however they want. If they want to be exposed to market risk (something that many people deem desirable), they can be. If not, they don’t have to be. It’s up to them.
Moreover, with hindsight, because I suspect that the conversion options in the term policies, as I look into them, won’t prove all that attractive, I am thinking that it would have been optimum to have had universal or whole life coverage for closer to 20% of our aggregate, total original insurance coverage, rather than 10%. Still, while I am pretty satisfied that my prior decision-making was close to right, I do wonder if you see this all very differently.

Several comments……first, I didn’t read all the posts so I apologize if this has already been discussed/addressed………you mentioned loans on a whole life policy is the means by which “tax free” income is distributed and that makes for the equivalent of double taxation, however the first monies coming out of a whole life policy would be your own contributions and therefore no taxation would be in effect as those monies, when contributed, had already been taxed…….the loan process would kick in when the policy detects taxable growth and would switch to loans instead of withdrawals………..also, let me just mention the insidious monster called “sequence of returns” and how it pertains to “returns” in the market……..returns in the market are reported by averages…….once you look at the “real rate of return” of a stock or mutual fund you might find the long term return of a whole life policy much more palatable……….example: what is the average rate of return in this example and real rate of return……..you have a $1,000,000 home and in the first year it goes down by 40%……….your home is worth $600,000…….the very next year your home goes up by 60%……..your home is now worth $960,000…….but what is going to be your reported average rate of return?……….10%, yet you are still under water; the “real rate of return is -4%…….this is a very eye opening expose on how the “market” makes things look…..it is the downs in the market that kill an investments return…….there are no downs in a whole life policy………..I hope this helps in perspective.

I can’t honestly comment on whether you made the right decision for your personal situation because there are many variables I don’t know. I will say that even if you are happy with the way it turned out, which in the end is really all that matters, it is still possible that other routes could have worked out better. I will also restate my position that while some kind of permanent life insurance coverage can be useful in rare and specific circumstances, it is generally not a good idea for most people in most situations.

Formal self-insurance is the deliberate decision to pay for otherwise insurable losses out of one's own money.[citation needed] This can be done on a formal basis by establishing a separate fund into which funds are deposited on a periodic basis, or by simply forgoing the purchase of available insurance and paying out-of-pocket. Self-insurance is usually used to pay for high-frequency, low-severity losses. Such losses, if covered by conventional insurance, mean having to pay a premium that includes loadings for the company's general expenses, cost of putting the policy on the books, acquisition expenses, premium taxes, and contingencies. While this is true for all insurance, for small, frequent losses the transaction costs may exceed the benefit of volatility reduction that insurance otherwise affords.[citation needed]
In other words, if you put a dollar into the market, and then the market drops resulting in a panic and you pull out what you put in, you’re more than likely pulling out .65 cents as opposed to the dollar. You’ve lost money, because you pulled out in a low market. However, if you have 3 to 4 years worth of living expenses in a non-correlated asset (I.E. Whole Life) you can use that as an effective way to bridge the gap until the market comes back up again. Sure it may cost a little more, but in the end you’re making a lot more money, since you’re selling your dollar for a dollar or more, as opposed to selling it for .65 cents.
Then your example of paying $16,200 for $45,585 in coverage is interesting for a few reasons. First, I just want people to understand that again these numbers are simply illustrations, NOT guarantees. Second, using the site term4sale.com I see that a 40 year old male can purchase a $50,000, 30-year term policy right now for $135 per year, or $4,050 for the full 30 years. That’s 1/4 of what you quote for whole life, and the extra money is then available for whatever else that person might want to do, like investing, saving for college, or maybe even leaving a gift as you mention.
I would 100% agree that whole life doesn’t yeild a great return and in most cases is used inappropriately. With that being said, for the right individuals it is in fact a great product. It can not only be used as a rich mans ira, but also a vehicle to max out pensions, and a great was to save money for college without disqualifying the student for financial aid.

All points have merit but, like any service, unprofessional service can be punished by walking. However, point #4, “market blocking” is a particularly confounding practice in P&C (I don’t think this occurs in LIfe & Health). Market blocking is a matter which Insurance Commissioners could easily correct nationwide to the immediate benefit of the customer.


Collision and comprehensive only cover the market value of your car, not what you paid for it—and new cars depreciate quickly. If your car is totaled or stolen, there may be a “gap” between what you owe on the vehicle and your insurance coverage. To cover this, you may want to look into purchasing gap insurance to pay the difference. Note that for leased vehicles, gap coverage is usually rolled into your lease payments.
First, there are your regular whole life policies that are non-{articipating and then there are those that are Participating. Participating policices earn dividends which is called a “return of premium” however with that dividend it purchases more insurance and the coverage keeps going on as long as a dividend is paid, the more coverage the more dividend, the more dividend the more coverage etc. After 25-30 years a person can stop paying for the policy and take reduced paid up insurance and keep the insurance enforced for the rest of their lives without paying a single cent. This is one of the features I absolutely love about participating whole life.
Large loss: The size of the loss must be meaningful from the perspective of the insured. Insurance premiums need to cover both the expected cost of losses, plus the cost of issuing and administering the policy, adjusting losses, and supplying the capital needed to reasonably assure that the insurer will be able to pay claims. For small losses, these latter costs may be several times the size of the expected cost of losses. There is hardly any point in paying such costs unless the protection offered has real value to a buyer. 

I have a Dividend Option Term Rider that will expire soon. I am 57 years old. New York life wrote to me stating I can change over to whole life insurance without having to answer health questions or take a physical exam. What are the advantages or disadvantages of this for someone of my age? I currently have a 401K. Would my money be better invested in that or elsewhere? Thanks.

Insurance Rates By Car

×