In cases where the policy owner is not the insured (also referred to as the celui qui vit or CQV), insurance companies have sought to limit policy purchases to those with an insurable interest in the CQV. For life insurance policies, close family members and business partners will usually be found to have an insurable interest. The insurable interest requirement usually demonstrates that the purchaser will actually suffer some kind of loss if the CQV dies. Such a requirement prevents people from benefiting from the purchase of purely speculative policies on people they expect to die. With no insurable interest requirement, the risk that a purchaser would murder the CQV for insurance proceeds would be great. In at least one case, an insurance company which sold a policy to a purchaser with no insurable interest (who later murdered the CQV for the proceeds), was found liable in court for contributing to the wrongful death of the victim (Liberty National Life v. Weldon, 267 Ala.171 (1957)).
5The monthly rate shown is for Preferred Elite based on a Male, age 37. Whole Life Advantage® is a whole life insurance policy issued by Allstate Life Insurance Company, 3075 Sanders Rd, Northbrook IL 60062. Whole Life Advantage is available in most states with series LU11040 or form ICC12A1. In New York, issued by Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York, Hauppauge, NY, and is available with contract NYLU796.
I have whole life that I’m not understanding . I’m under the understanding I pay $401 for 7 years I’m done paying on a &135,000 policy that they tell me the more I borrow from the more it grows.But I’m starting to question if the interested charged doesn’t go back to me how it’s it growing. I’m very confused suopose to sit down with agent so he can explain it better. But from talking to other insurance people like my house and car insurance agent he says this is not possible about it growing. HELP
“In the policy that was attempted to be sold to me, the “guaranteed return” was stated as 4%. But when I actually ran the numbers, using their own growth chart for the guaranteed portion of my cash value, after 40 years the annual return only amounted to 0.74%. There are a number of explanations for this difference, including fees and the way in which the interest rate is applied.”
To all of those saying "I'd rather do it on my own," you're definitely taking a huge chance, and more than likely are throwing a ton of money away. There are certain fields where you can do things on your own. However, insurance isn't one of those fields that would be advisable to take that course of action. The laws/rules are sky high, and many of these laws and rules change every single year. Trust me, even if you don't think you're throwing money away, you more than likely are. Whether you choose a broker or captive agent captive agent, I would recommend using a professional who has in depth knowledge. I mean, it's free, anyway. Insurance is similar to the legal/lawyer field. If I had a case, I certainly wouldn't want to represent myself.
4. If the monthly premium is within your budget and and individual has saved money into other forms of retirement savings. Then why not get the benefit of having the safety net that the whole life insurance gives you then Surrendering that policy when you no longer need it and receiving (what I believe to be tax free) money for having that safety net in place
However, there may be areas where your pension doesn’t stack up to individual plans. For example you can leave your individual account to a beneficiary but that may not be possible with your pension. Also, survivor benefits may be insufficient or altogether absent. The nice thing about transferring your pension to an individual account today is that with interest rates at all-time lows, the amount the pension has to provide you on exit (the commuted value) is inflated to reflect the larger pool of capital required to fund your retirement years. This means you can leave with a bigger pool of dough than you could in an era where interest rates were much higher and so if things turn around and we find ourselves in a rising rate environment with improved fixed income opportunities, you can make out like a bandit. Of course, things could slide into negative interest rate territory and you could be left years left to live and no cash to live it on.
I chose not to discuss the difference between stock and mutual companies here because I don’t think it’s very relevant to the conversation. You aren’t clear why you think it’s important, but my best guess is that you think your returns are more guaranteed with a mutual company. I would agree that you’re better off with a mutual company, but you’re still hinging a large amount of money on the prospects and policies of a single company. It is still undiversified and still exposes you to a lot of unnecessary risk. If you have a different reason for bringing up this distinction I would be interested to hear it.
One other point. You emphasize the “tax free” nature of whole life here. I feel like I was pretty clear about that in the post and would be interested to hear your thoughts. Just blindly calling it “tax free” ignores the presence of interest (on your own money, by the way) which over extended periods of time can actually be more detrimental than taxes.
With whole life, both the MINIMUM size (your guaranteed cash value or your death benefit, depending on how you’re modeling it) and probability (100% if you keep paying) are known. So it is easy to model out your minimum expected return. And yes, that return stinks. It is usually far less than what you’d expect from investing in stocks. But there is a good reason for that.