This shift to universal life by insurance companies has made premiums cheaper but removed many of the guarantees that came with traditional whole life insurance like guaranteed face amounts, guaranteed premiums and guaranteed cash values. The result is that there are a lot of underfunded universal life insurance policies out there which aren’t really permanent policies anymore since they can’t support themselves and will lapse instead of paying out.
Awesome article Matt! Couldn’t agree more – unfortunately not enough people know that whole life insurance should only be purchased in very limited circumstances and should not be considered for investment purposes. Thanks for joining the #wholeliferebellion. I created a Term v. Whole Life Insurance comparison calculator so people can crunch the numbers: http://www.insuranceblogbychris.com/term-vs-whole-life-insurance-comparison-calculator/
Crop insurance may be purchased by farmers to reduce or manage various risks associated with growing crops. Such risks include crop loss or damage caused by weather, hail, drought, frost damage, insects, or disease. Index based crop insurance uses models of how climate extremes affect crop production to define certain climate triggers that if surpassed have high probabilities of causing substantial crop loss. When harvest losses occur associated with exceeding the climate trigger threshold, the index-insured farmer is entitled to a compensation payment.
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.
Many great points and counterpoints. My two points against cash value in general is the monthly cost and the “investment”. Very few people can afford that monthly premium. It is good that you can borrow from the cash value because you will need to at times to make ends meet. Because once you try to make monthly premiums over and over on cash value, you realize the extra $200 to $300 per month that is going out could be in you pocket helping to pay basic living expenses. Then the investment that does have healthy returns. I can look at historical returns for Invesco, American Funds, Fidelity, etc. that go back to the 1960s and 1970s that return an average of 10% + since inception. Why would I pass that up for returns of 5% or lower? Plus, if the policy holder is not careful, their investment can go back to the insurance company. I want my investment to go to me and then my heirs. I strongly oppose cash value as it only benefits a small percentage of the population. The vast majority of the middle class cannot afford it. Once my investments reach a certain amount, I am dropping my term policy because I am now self-insured. Pay as little for insurance(premiums) and get the most coverage (death benefit). If cash value were so good, the investment portion would pop-up in other types of insurance (automotive, disability, etc.) Life insurance is the only type of insurance where it is located and is oversold to so many people that it will not help. Anybody reading the posts in this forum are already doing them selves a service by seeking to understand. Understand that Dave Ramsey and Suze Orman are on the side of the consumers. Base don the tone of my post, you can determine who I sell life insurance for and I am proud to do it. My commission is 1/10 of what a whole life agent makes. Also, we are the only life insurance company that encourages policy holders to drop their policy with us once they have financial independence. Our whole goal is get people out of insurance premiums and direct them to investment vehicles that build wealth. BTID. Buy term and invest the difference.
Your post on why whole life insurance is a bad investment was extremely informative. My father in law is deciding whether to buy a whole life policy because his term life premium is going up and he only has 5 years left until the policy expires. After reading your post and looking closely at the insurance companies offer my wife and I are advising to do something else with their money. Thanks and keep it up!
Matt; Thank you for the thought provoking information you have taken the time to post here. My question: I am 66 and my wife 54. We got a whole life policy several years ago. We wanted insurance that would extend into our 70’s and 80’s (if we are so blessed), because we experienced how end of life costs for elderly parents can add up and be a possible burden to the children. we also want the surviving spouse to be assured of not being cleaned out financially. When I looked at the numbers; Cash value plus death benefit plus a long-term care rider, it seems to be a pretty good return, after all, we know for sure that we will die. I am not aware of term insurance policies for people much past the age of 70 for $200,000 or more. Am I looking in the wrong places or is my think askew?
Life insurance policies often have hidden costs, such as fees and large commissions, that you may not find out about until after you purchase the policy. There are so many different kinds of life insurance, and so many companies that offer these policies, that you should use a fee-only insurance adviser who, for a fixed fee, will research the various policies available to you and recommend the one that best suits your needs. To ensure objectivity, your adviser should not be affiliated with any particular insurance company and should not receive a commission from any policy.
Insurance brokers represent the insurance buyer – you the consumer or business owner. They are appointed or contracted with multiple insurance companies. They have the flexibility to discuss many options and companies that meet your needs and budget. Insurance brokers have been around as long as insurance agents. In many cases people will refer to insurance brokers as independent insurance agents.
Here are a few more important items to keep in mind when dealing with Agents and Health Insurance: * There is no cost to using a Broker or Independent agent. If an agent helps a client purchase a plan with a specific company, the insurance company will pay the agent a small stipend each month in which the health insurance plan is kept in place. * With Affordable Care Act - ACA in effect insurance companies are dropping the multiple network option for more specific smaller networks, or only one network. Agents, whom do their job correctly, will help to make sure that your doctor is in network with the insurance company that you choose. * If you work with a Captive Agent make sure to check other options with non-captive agents so that you have all the information you need to make an informed decision. * Using an Agent as your personal representative should go beyond just purchasing a plan. When you have an issue with if a doctor is on a plan or if your medications are covered you should be able to refer back to your agent for help in getting these issues answered or resolved. A good agent will go above and beyond just "selling" a plan to you. * Agents are aware of the Open Enrollment times in which you can change plans. A good agent will send an email out reminding their clients each year that now is the time to move plans or insurance companies since there is only a small period of time (Open Enrollment in the Fall) in which you may move to a different insurance company each year for a Jan 1st effective date. * Each year when rates increase Brokers and Independent Agents will be able to see all the companies rates and plans for the new year and help you decide if you should move to a new insurance company or plan for the new year *Agents are aware of what a Qualifying Event is and if you can change plans each year, how to do that and what is required. With all the knowledge agents possess...why not take advantage of free!
2. My analogy to a house wasn’t intended to compare the merits of an investment. It was simply a way to explain the Cash Value of a policy, in terms that people could understand better. We many times hear the argument about Whole Life Cash value: “It’s my money. Why do I have to borrow against it?” Giving the analogy of a home (or for that matter any asset of value, be it real estate, or stocks, bonds or mutual funds held in an account that allows for margin loans) helps people understand the difference between an asset that has value, to actual cash. It also helps people understand why sometimes it is preferable to borrow against an asset, rather than liquidate the asset.
Whole life is insurance not an investment. You buy it so the day you pass on your family will have money to ease their grieving by giving them time off, financial security, and most importantly for whole life insurance to pay the cost of your funeral, etc. It can mean a lot to people to have a nice funeral for their loved one as a proper send off. I view whole life as a product, like my house, which I also don’t view as an investment.
Separate insurance contracts (i.e., insurance policies not bundled with loans or other kinds of contracts) were invented in Genoa in the 14th century, as were insurance pools backed by pledges of landed estates. The first known insurance contract dates from Genoa in 1347, and in the next century maritime insurance developed widely and premiums were intuitively varied with risks. These new insurance contracts allowed insurance to be separated from investment, a separation of roles that first proved useful in marine insurance.
I am looking into different investment options to start a retirement plan. What i have learned thus far, is that the majority of people seem to be looking at the total amount of the investment at the time of retirement. One of my primary concerns is the amount of taxation incurred once the funds start to be distributed. Deferred taxed 401K does not seem to be a viable option when you consider the taxation in say 30 years (even with the employer match) VS post-tax investments at the current tax rate. A Roth IRA seems to be a better option. I recently spoke to an advisor who recommended Whole Life as an investment option due to the non-taxable nature of the investment – i am currently researching how this may work. To your knowledge, has anyone performed a apples to apples comparison of the differing investment strategies to include estimated taxation at the time of disbursement?
Actually I’m satisfied with your response. Because it makes sense, people without the money shouldn’t purchase whole life. We only tell our clients if they can afford it to purchase it. That’s common sense. And if you need something that will take care of your expenses when you are gone and don’t have a lot of money, then term is the way to go. If you have the money whole life is a good tool for tax diversification. But there is too much to talk about that those of us that are in the industry and are actually licensed to help people in these areas and it would take up too much space. We’d be having this discussion for months. But you make valid points, but to say whole life is a bad investment just seems wrong, because of the percentage of people that can use it, it works perfect. I have a friend who makes $80,000 a month who recently came into oil and was discouraged by blogs like this. After I explained to her how ridiculous blogs like this are for her situation she was actually calm and more receptive. I appreciate you informing the public. And in our jobs we do that well enough, I think instead of trying to be Dave Ramsey, you should just title it, “Why Whole Life is a Bad investment for the average Joe or 98% of the population.
People in the tobacco category typically have to pay higher premiums due to the higher mortality. Recent US mortality tables predict that roughly 0.35 in 1,000 non-smoking males aged 25 will die during the first year of a policy. Mortality approximately doubles for every extra ten years of age, so the mortality rate in the first year for non-smoking men is about 2.5 in 1,000 people at age 65. Compare this with the US population male mortality rates of 1.3 per 1,000 at age 25 and 19.3 at age 65 (without regard to health or smoking status).
An insurance company may inadvertently find that its insureds may not be as risk-averse as they might otherwise be (since, by definition, the insured has transferred the risk to the insurer), a concept known as moral hazard. This 'insulates' many from the true costs of living with risk, negating measures that can mitigate or adapt to risk and leading some to describe insurance schemes as potentially maladaptive. To reduce their own financial exposure, insurance companies have contractual clauses that mitigate their obligation to provide coverage if the insured engages in behavior that grossly magnifies their risk of loss or liability.
In the United Kingdom, The Crown (which, for practical purposes, meant the civil service) did not insure property such as government buildings. If a government building was damaged, the cost of repair would be met from public funds because, in the long run, this was cheaper than paying insurance premiums. Since many UK government buildings have been sold to property companies, and rented back, this arrangement is now less common and may have disappeared altogether.
Unless otherwise noted, the graphic images, buttons, layout, and text contained in this website are the exclusive property of SelectQuote Insurance Services and its related, affiliated and subsidiary companies, and may not be copied or distributed, in whole or in part, without the express written consent of SelectQuote Insurance Services. Permission is granted to print copies of this document, and to display and use this document with a computer solely for personal or internal use. Insurance company logos are the exclusive property of the respective insurance companies, and are used with permission.
Most people are familiar with or have worked with an insurance agent at some point in their lives. However, a broker has an entirely different role from an insurance agent. Unlike insurance agents, insurance brokers do not work for an insurance company. They work for their clients, providing advice on the best insurance options for their clients’ needs. Their goal is to support their clients’ interests — not to sell a particular policy on behalf of an insurance company.
Regarding pension vs registered accounts: It is hard to know what is better, relying on your pension or relying on an individually held mutual fund account (or some variation thereof using other securities). This would require a close reading of the pension and securities legislation in your region. For us in Canada, a defined benefit pension (prescribed benefits upon retirement based on a formula where the employer is responsible for funding any shortfall) can be incredibly enticing due to the guarantees attached to them. It is the preferred pension and stacks up really well against defined contribution pensions (where employers match the contributions of employees to at least a certain degree and where the account grows until retirement and the pensioner draws down the account and is burdened with any shortfall) but defined benefit plans are going the way of the dodo over here. It’s still available to government employees but most private employers don’t want to take on the risk of having to meet funding requirements. That’s a huge liability on the balance sheet. In any case, pensions have a few benefits over individual savings vehicles. First, they benefit from reduced management fee pricing, thereby improving returns marginally over the course of fund accumulation. Second, they benefit from a longer investment horizon since they are always looking many years in the future as their pension liabilities are long-term by definition. Third, actuaries are required to evaluate pensions regularly to make sure funding targets are established and followed.
As for the specifics of the infinite banking model, I’ll admit that I don’t know a lot of details. It’s always seemed to me to mostly be a clever marketing ploy more than anything else, but if you want a more informed opinion I would check out this article here: http://www.mypersonalfinancejourney.com/2013/04/infinite-banking-concept-whole-life-insurance.html.