Whole life or term life?
Whole life or term life?
My dad is turning 55 soon. He wants to buy life insurance. According to him, he can buy term life insurance for 300K for 10 years for $526 a year or $3,000 a year for whole life. His wife or my step mom is 17 years younger than him. They have a 5 year old. Which plan should he buys?
-
- Posts: 13356
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:45 pm
- Location: Reading, MA
-
- Posts: 18461
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:05 am
- Location: 26 miles, 385 yards west of Copley Square
Re: Whole life or term life?
Term life protects the beneficiaries if he dies
Whole life provides a new BMW for the insurance salesman, a constant stream of unearned income for the insurance company and the same benefit for the beneficiaries.... At 10 times the cost
Buy term
Whole life provides a new BMW for the insurance salesman, a constant stream of unearned income for the insurance company and the same benefit for the beneficiaries.... At 10 times the cost
Buy term
Bogle: Smart Beta is stupid
Re: Whole life or term life?
He is wanting to buy whole life. His reason is: if he invests $250 a month for 30 years (when dad turns 85) at 4% annual rate of return after inflation, step mom will only get 175K. If he buys whole life, step mom will get 300K when he dies. His parents died at age 67 and 71.
Re: Whole life or term life?
There are people that can explain it much better than me, but term life is almost always better than whole life. However, salespeople unfortunately often steer you towards whole life. I wonder if the sales rep will actually tell you how expensive whole life really is.
Good luck and you will get some great advice here
Good luck and you will get some great advice here
Re: Whole life or term life?
If inflation is 2%, then 4% after inflation is 6%. At 6%, $250 a month for 30 years will be about $250,000. If he buys the term insurance he can also invest the $250 a month (actually $206 since he'll have to pay for the term insurance), so if he dies while the policy in effects his beneficiaries will get the $300,000 insurance proceeds plus whatever $206 a month grows to between now and his death.
Unless he intends to work for another 30 years he might not need insurance for 30 years. However, if he's concerned that a 10-year term policy might run out while he still needs insurance, he might want to consider buying, for example, two $150,000 policies, one for 10 years and one for 20 years.
Unless he intends to work for another 30 years he might not need insurance for 30 years. However, if he's concerned that a 10-year term policy might run out while he still needs insurance, he might want to consider buying, for example, two $150,000 policies, one for 10 years and one for 20 years.
Re: Whole life or term life?
No - If your dad is willing to spend $3,000 per year, take $526 to buy Term Life for $300,000 AND take the remaining amount per year $2,474 invest it in a low-cost Index Fund that will average 8% return.He is wanting to buy whole life. His reason is: if he invests $250 a month for 30 years (when dad turns 85) at 4% annual rate of return after inflation, step mom will only get 175K. If he buys whole life, step mom will get 300K when he dies.
If your dad passes away in 15 years, your step-mom will have $300,000 + $78,000 = $378,000
If your dad passes away in 30 years (like your example above), your step-mom will have $300,000 +$315,000 = $615,000
Buy Term.
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 52105
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: Whole life or term life?
Term. The insurance companies don't have any magic investments, they can't do anything better with the extra money than he can do himself. They invest it in something very safe and conservative that may or may not match what'd he'd do for himself yourself, they make it so obfuscated and intwingled that almost nobody has any idea what their investment really is or what it's doing, then they talk a lot about the good parts... and since it's hard to understand what's going on, it's easy for them to hide the high fees and the mediocre investments.
If he's determined to do what he wants to do, it may not be an awful thing. If he really wants your input, then term.
If he's determined to do what he wants to do, it may not be an awful thing. If he really wants your input, then term.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
Re: Whole life or term life?
SkierMom wrote:He is wanting to buy whole life. His reason is: if he invests $250 a month for 30 years (when dad turns 85) at 4% annual rate of return after inflation, step mom will only get 175K. If he buys whole life, step mom will get 300K when he dies.
If your dad passes away in 15 years, your step-mom will have $300,000 + $78,000 = $378,000
If your dad passes away in 30 years (like your example above), your step-mom will have $300,000 +$315,000 = $615,000
Buy Term.
Sorry but I don't get your math.
Re: Whole life or term life?
ktd,ktd wrote:My dad is turning 55 soon. He wants to buy life insurance. According to him, he can buy term life insurance for 300K for 10 years for $526 a year or $3,000 a year for whole life. His wife or my step mom is 17 years younger than him. They have a 5 year old. Which plan should he buys?
I'll let others convince your father of the merits of investing the difference between $3,000 and $526 a year for 10 years.
But, here is the big thing: paying $526 each year is a great deal easier than paying $3,000 each year, especially as he gets older and plans for retirement. If protecting his young child and wife are his main considerations in the event of his death, he should consider increasing the face amount of his level TERM policy.
-
- Posts: 18461
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:05 am
- Location: 26 miles, 385 yards west of Copley Square
Re: Whole life or term life?
Also, they sell whole life with a rate*
Do you know what the * means?
It means NOT guaranteed.
Do you know what the * means?
It means NOT guaranteed.
Bogle: Smart Beta is stupid
Re: Whole life or term life?
Why is he only considering 10-year term? If his wife is 17 years younger and the child is only 5, it seems at least a 15-20 year term would be more appropriate. He could still get 30-year term with some companies at his age too.
Re: Whole life or term life?
With permanent insurance you are ALWAYS paying the insurance plus the investment piece. There is no special deal. They invest primarily in bonds but have huge fees/commissions which drag the return. The insurance piece is also more expensive (just check the term rates for the company selling the whole life and you will find it isnt near the cheapest). The only ways whole life are going to be better is IF the company rates him wrong meaning they say he is super healthy and will live extra long and they are way off base AND he outlives the term purchased OR if he invests in real low producing high fee products or does something else silly with his investments where in essence he loses it all. There is no magic investments for the insurance company. Also paying monthly for whole life has a finance charge likely around 15% or more compared to paying yearly which he doesnt seem to know. Most people surrender whole life after they purchase it bc they realize too late what they have done. There are tons of threads on whole life on this site.
Re: Whole life or term life?
This may be a case where permanent life insurance makes sense. He might consider universal life. Another option is to investigate group life insurance options at his employer and understand the age limitations/conditions/underwriting. The fact of the matter is that this guy has huge liabilities that will extend beyond his likely mortality and needs to cover that risk. Unless he is wealthy - but I assume he is in a 'work till dead' mindset.
He will not be able to get term beyond a 10 year. which would leave him and his family potentially exposed.
I noticed some poster said he could invest in an index fund returning 8%. An 100% equity investment for a 55 yr old does not sound like a great idea to me.
He will not be able to get term beyond a 10 year. which would leave him and his family potentially exposed.
I noticed some poster said he could invest in an index fund returning 8%. An 100% equity investment for a 55 yr old does not sound like a great idea to me.
Re: Whole life or term life?
Another way to look at it is how much term life can he get for $3000/yr? Then ask him why is it so much higher than the $300k he'd get from whole life.
If I am stupid I will pay.
-
- Posts: 1546
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 10:09 pm
Re: Whole life or term life?
The answer is neither. This is one of the situations where a permanent policy makes sense, simply because of his age, and because he has a young child to support. A whole life policy is a money pit for this use but his eligibility for term is likely to run out in the future.
What comes to mind is a universal policy structured to be almost entirely death benefit, with just enough cash value to offset the increase in premium as he gets older. This is the same kind that is used for irrevocable life insurance trusts for estate tax issues.
The other one to consider is group insurance. I'm a member of AAA and was going through some old correspondence and was surprised to find annually renewable term insurance up to age 80, with premium increases every 5 years.
What comes to mind is a universal policy structured to be almost entirely death benefit, with just enough cash value to offset the increase in premium as he gets older. This is the same kind that is used for irrevocable life insurance trusts for estate tax issues.
The other one to consider is group insurance. I'm a member of AAA and was going through some old correspondence and was surprised to find annually renewable term insurance up to age 80, with premium increases every 5 years.
Re: Whole life or term life?
Theoretical wrote:The answer is neither. This is one of the situations where a permanent policy makes sense, simply because of his age, and because he has a young child to support. A whole life policy is a money pit for this use but his eligibility for term is likely to run out in the future.
What comes to mind is a universal policy structured to be almost entirely death benefit, with just enough cash value to offset the increase in premium as he gets older. This is the same kind that is used for irrevocable life insurance trusts for estate tax issues.
The other one to consider is group insurance. I'm a member of AAA and was going through some old correspondence and was surprised to find annually renewable term insurance up to age 80, with premium increases every 5 years.
That is probably NOT a good idea in this situation. No lapse gUL can be very dangerous in a situation where sufficient income isnt available to keep it in force. This person is considering paying their term monthly, thats not the same situation as a rich person with an irrevocable trust. The moment this person is even late on a payment then they will lose the no lapse guarantee and if the payment isnt immediately coughed up then the policy goes bust for zero regardless of years they have been paying. Insurance just isnt a magic bullet for a situation where someone hasnt saved properly. While i dont feel insurance beyond term is the answer (and of course i dont work in the insurance industry), if i wanted an insurance solution for this case with what has been written so far, id get an overfunded up to MEC WL blended with 1-15 years of term. IF the situation is such where the person actually has a bunch of money and there isnt risk of lapsing a policy (so really they dont need the insurance but for some reason want it) then id consider the no lapse gUL preferrably a short pay period like 10 if that could be afforded.
-
- Posts: 13356
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:45 pm
- Location: Reading, MA
Re: Whole life or term life?
At 55, I had a decent investment portfolio size.
Self insurance is feasible at some point, especially if the other spouse makes a decent income as well.
Life insurance isn't necessary for everybody and especially not to retirement age...
Self insurance is feasible at some point, especially if the other spouse makes a decent income as well.
Life insurance isn't necessary for everybody and especially not to retirement age...
Attempted new signature...
Re: Whole life or term life?
dhodson wrote:Theoretical wrote:The answer is neither. This is one of the situations where a permanent policy makes sense, simply because of his age, and because he has a young child to support. A whole life policy is a money pit for this use but his eligibility for term is likely to run out in the future.
What comes to mind is a universal policy structured to be almost entirely death benefit, with just enough cash value to offset the increase in premium as he gets older. This is the same kind that is used for irrevocable life insurance trusts for estate tax issues.
The other one to consider is group insurance. I'm a member of AAA and was going through some old correspondence and was surprised to find annually renewable term insurance up to age 80, with premium increases every 5 years.
That is probably NOT a good idea in this situation. No lapse gUL can be very dangerous in a situation where sufficient income isnt available to keep it in force. This person is considering paying their term monthly, thats not the same situation as a rich person with an irrevocable trust. The moment this person is even late on a payment then they will lose the no lapse guarantee and if the payment isnt immediately coughed up then the policy goes bust for zero regardless of years they have been paying. Insurance just isnt a magic bullet for a situation where someone hasnt saved properly. While i dont feel insurance beyond term is the answer (and of course i dont work in the insurance industry), if i wanted an insurance solution for this case with what has been written so far, id get an overfunded up to MEC WL blended with 1-15 years of term. IF the situation is such where the person actually has a bunch of money and there isnt risk of lapsing a policy (so really they dont need the insurance but for some reason want it) then id consider the no lapse gUL preferrably a short pay period like 10 if that could be afforded.
I confirmed with my dad. He will pay yearly not monthly. He thinks his situation makes sense for whole life. I just don't know.
-
- Posts: 18461
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:05 am
- Location: 26 miles, 385 yards west of Copley Square
Re: Whole life or term life?
It sounds like the salesman has convinced your dad that funding his new BMW is the right thing to do.
To give you an answer to the question you will likely ask 3 years from now....yes, it is true that if you cancel this policy, even though he has put nearly $10k into it, you won't get a cent back. The salesman's BMW payments do not offer refunds, so you are out of luck
To give you an answer to the question you will likely ask 3 years from now....yes, it is true that if you cancel this policy, even though he has put nearly $10k into it, you won't get a cent back. The salesman's BMW payments do not offer refunds, so you are out of luck
Bogle: Smart Beta is stupid
Re: Whole life or term life?
likely your dad doesnt understand what he is purchasing. thats his decision in the end. IF he insists on purchasing it then have the agent show him an illustration overfunded up to MEC limits. That way at least when he surrenders it, he will get something back. It can be blended with term if a little more initial death benefit of insurance is desired.ktd wrote:dhodson wrote:Theoretical wrote:The answer is neither. This is one of the situations where a permanent policy makes sense, simply because of his age, and because he has a young child to support. A whole life policy is a money pit for this use but his eligibility for term is likely to run out in the future.
What comes to mind is a universal policy structured to be almost entirely death benefit, with just enough cash value to offset the increase in premium as he gets older. This is the same kind that is used for irrevocable life insurance trusts for estate tax issues.
The other one to consider is group insurance. I'm a member of AAA and was going through some old correspondence and was surprised to find annually renewable term insurance up to age 80, with premium increases every 5 years.
That is probably NOT a good idea in this situation. No lapse gUL can be very dangerous in a situation where sufficient income isnt available to keep it in force. This person is considering paying their term monthly, thats not the same situation as a rich person with an irrevocable trust. The moment this person is even late on a payment then they will lose the no lapse guarantee and if the payment isnt immediately coughed up then the policy goes bust for zero regardless of years they have been paying. Insurance just isnt a magic bullet for a situation where someone hasnt saved properly. While i dont feel insurance beyond term is the answer (and of course i dont work in the insurance industry), if i wanted an insurance solution for this case with what has been written so far, id get an overfunded up to MEC WL blended with 1-15 years of term. IF the situation is such where the person actually has a bunch of money and there isnt risk of lapsing a policy (so really they dont need the insurance but for some reason want it) then id consider the no lapse gUL preferrably a short pay period like 10 if that could be afforded.
I confirmed with my dad. He will pay yearly not monthly. He thinks his situation makes sense for whole life. I just don't know.
Re: Whole life or term life?
Are you kidding? Run it with a conservative 55% equities/45% bond mix, or about a 5% return instead of 8%.edge wrote:This may be a case where permanent life insurance makes sense. He might consider universal life. Another option is to investigate group life insurance options at his employer and understand the age limitations/conditions/underwriting. The fact of the matter is that this guy has huge liabilities that will extend beyond his likely mortality and needs to cover that risk. Unless he is wealthy - but I assume he is in a 'work till dead' mindset.
He will not be able to get term beyond a 10 year. which would leave him and his family potentially exposed.
I noticed some poster said he could invest in an index fund returning 8%. An 100% equity investment for a 55 yr old does not sound like a great idea to me.
You still come out ahead.
Re: Whole life or term life?
The cash value certainly will come out ahead with the mixture your outlined. The death benefit depends on when you die. Agents like to pretend its likely you will die prematurely when the insurance company rates you super preferred. While thats technically possibly, if it happened very often then of course they would be out of business.
Re: Whole life or term life?
ktd,
You did not provide additional details, and these items may not be applicable to you, but you should make sure that your father is looking at his entire financial horizon for the next 20+ years. For example:
(1) Your Dad is 55 with a 5-year-old: he can file for SS early and obtain dependent benefits for his child until she is 19 and a full-time student. This would free up some of his funds for other things. He should not overlook this option.
(2) We do not know your Dad's other financial resources that may be available to support his widow and young child in the event of his death: if he is able to provide for them adequately while he is living and his greatest concern is for their support after his death (especially for his young child), then that IS precisely the purpose of life insurance. Then, he should look to buy the most coverage that he can at the lowest cost, while insuring against future uninsurability and rising premiums. This suggests a 20-year level term. If you go to term4sale.com, you can see that a 55-year-old man can obtain 20-year level term, barring some underwriting issues like his present health.
You did not provide additional details, and these items may not be applicable to you, but you should make sure that your father is looking at his entire financial horizon for the next 20+ years. For example:
(1) Your Dad is 55 with a 5-year-old: he can file for SS early and obtain dependent benefits for his child until she is 19 and a full-time student. This would free up some of his funds for other things. He should not overlook this option.
(2) We do not know your Dad's other financial resources that may be available to support his widow and young child in the event of his death: if he is able to provide for them adequately while he is living and his greatest concern is for their support after his death (especially for his young child), then that IS precisely the purpose of life insurance. Then, he should look to buy the most coverage that he can at the lowest cost, while insuring against future uninsurability and rising premiums. This suggests a 20-year level term. If you go to term4sale.com, you can see that a 55-year-old man can obtain 20-year level term, barring some underwriting issues like his present health.
Re: Whole life or term life?
If he can get 20 yr term he should go for it. The underwriting is going to be challenging.
See dhodson's post. In any case, trying to 'insure' using cash flow and hoping for investment returns over a short period of time is not a good strategy. This solution opens him up to severe risks in the next 10-15 years of having a very small portfolio and croaking while still having extensive liabilities.Are you kidding? Run it with a conservative 55% equities/45% bond mix, or about a 5% return instead of 8%.
Re: Whole life or term life?
I get different numbers. See the wiki: Comparing investmentsktd wrote:Sorry but I don't get your math.SkierMom wrote:If your dad passes away in 15 years, your step-mom will have $300,000 + $78,000 = $378,000He is wanting to buy whole life. His reason is: if he invests $250 a month for 30 years (when dad turns 85) at 4% annual rate of return after inflation, step mom will only get 175K. If he buys whole life, step mom will get 300K when he dies.
If your dad passes away in 30 years (like your example above), your step-mom will have $300,000 +$315,000 = $615,000
Buy Term.
Having a term policy of $300,000 and invest the rest ($250 / month at 4% annual interest rate):
0.33% nominal rate = NOMINAL(4%, 12)/12 <--- per month
$ 61,321.85 = FV(0.33%, 15*12,-250,0) <--- over 15 years
$171,280.57 =FV(0.33%, 30*12,-250,0) <--- over 30 years
So, your step-mom will have the term policy and additional income from the investments:
$361,321.85 = $300,000 + $61,321.85 (in 15 years)
$471,280.57 = $300,000 + $171,280.57 (in 30 years)
Re: Whole life or term life?
I would normally agree with term.
I recently read an article from one of the "good guys" (can't remember who or the source ) who compared buy term at a young age vs whole life paid up at 65. The gist of the article was that while the term buyer paid something like $4,000 less a year for a and had a larger investment portfolio at 65 the whole life buyer ended up with the potential to get higher income.
Assuming they were both male - the whole life buyer bought an annuity for the face amount of the Whole Life Insurance with his lesser portfolio - making it even lower. But, the annuity plus the same investment withdrawal rate, gave a higher income. Upon his death the spouse could collect the insurance and buy an annuity and continue the income advantage.
I think I have the author's conclusion correct but the details might be a bit off. Don't know of its applicability for the OP but I had never seen this approach mentioned before. Hopefully, someone else has read this recent article can produce the link to it. I would imagine if true there were two factors in play - pay more but have something of value at 65 and mortality credits with the annuity.
I recently read an article from one of the "good guys" (can't remember who or the source ) who compared buy term at a young age vs whole life paid up at 65. The gist of the article was that while the term buyer paid something like $4,000 less a year for a and had a larger investment portfolio at 65 the whole life buyer ended up with the potential to get higher income.
Assuming they were both male - the whole life buyer bought an annuity for the face amount of the Whole Life Insurance with his lesser portfolio - making it even lower. But, the annuity plus the same investment withdrawal rate, gave a higher income. Upon his death the spouse could collect the insurance and buy an annuity and continue the income advantage.
I think I have the author's conclusion correct but the details might be a bit off. Don't know of its applicability for the OP but I had never seen this approach mentioned before. Hopefully, someone else has read this recent article can produce the link to it. I would imagine if true there were two factors in play - pay more but have something of value at 65 and mortality credits with the annuity.
Re: Whole life or term life?
There is a thread on wade pfau article
Industry sponsored and not peer reviewed
Industry sponsored and not peer reviewed
- dodecahedron
- Posts: 6563
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:28 am
Re: Whole life or term life?
I don't disagree with LadyGeek's math but, with the present outlook, 4% in nominal aftertax return on the investments is going to involve taking a significant amount of risk. By contrast, the life insurance death benefit proceeds will be taxfree and relatively low risk (if bought from a conservative highly rated insurance company in a state with strong insurance regulations), at least in nominal terms.LadyGeek wrote:I get different numbers. See the wiki: Comparing investmentsktd wrote:Sorry but I don't get your math.SkierMom wrote:If your dad passes away in 15 years, your step-mom will have $300,000 + $78,000 = $378,000He is wanting to buy whole life. His reason is: if he invests $250 a month for 30 years (when dad turns 85) at 4% annual rate of return after inflation, step mom will only get 175K. If he buys whole life, step mom will get 300K when he dies.
If your dad passes away in 30 years (like your example above), your step-mom will have $300,000 +$315,000 = $615,000
Buy Term.
Having a term policy of $300,000 and invest the rest ($250 / month at 4% annual interest rate):
0.33% nominal rate = NOMINAL(4%, 12)/12 <--- per month
$ 61,321.85 = FV(0.33%, 15*12,-250,0) <--- over 15 years
$171,280.57 =FV(0.33%, 30*12,-250,0) <--- over 30 years
So, your step-mom will have the term policy and additional income from the investments:
$361,321.85 = $300,000 + $61,321.85 (in 15 years)
$471,280.57 = $300,000 + $171,280.57 (in 30 years)
Re: Whole life or term life?
^^^ My intent was to take the mystery out of these calculations. Learning the "Time Value of Money" basics is a worthwhile concept that will provide a life-long benefit. It's not black magic that only financial professionals can do. All you need is a spreadsheet* and the ability to copy-n-paste the formulas. With some practice, the ideas will sink in and you'll get a feel for how this works.
The purpose of the post was to show the effects of compound interest. Start investing now and look how much more you will get in 15 or 30 years. Start a few years later, and you'll get a lot less. IOW, investing later might not show as significant of an advantage over the whole life policy than starting now. (I'm just looking at the math side.)
* There's no need to own Microsoft Excel. You can download a free spreadsheet program from LibreOffice. Works fine.
The purpose of the post was to show the effects of compound interest. Start investing now and look how much more you will get in 15 or 30 years. Start a few years later, and you'll get a lot less. IOW, investing later might not show as significant of an advantage over the whole life policy than starting now. (I'm just looking at the math side.)
* There's no need to own Microsoft Excel. You can download a free spreadsheet program from LibreOffice. Works fine.
Re: Whole life or term life?
Thank you everyone. I showed my father this thread. Now its up to him.
-
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:50 pm
Re: Whole life or term life?
The Wizard wrote: Life insurance isn't necessary for everybody and especially not to retirement age...
He has a 5 year old!
Re: Whole life or term life?
May still not need insurance. Keep in mind his retirement savings for two (wife and him) may be sufficient. It just all depends. Having a 5 year old isn't the only factor.Hikes_With_Dogs wrote:The Wizard wrote: Life insurance isn't necessary for everybody and especially not to retirement age...
He has a 5 year old!
Re: Whole life or term life?
If he's retired, then they must have enough money right now to pay for him, his wife, and his 5-year old child...Hikes_With_Dogs wrote:The Wizard wrote: Life insurance isn't necessary for everybody and especially not to retirement age...
He has a 5 year old!
If he dies, there's no change... if they have enough money saved for all 3 of them, certainly they have enough money for 2 of them
Life insurance is usually bought to replace income that the dead spouse was bringing in... If you're retired, you already have enough money.
Re: Whole life or term life?
My assumption is that he is not retired and is in a 'work till dead' situation.
-
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:50 pm
Re: Whole life or term life?
I'm making wild assumptions based on the much younger wife that he is working and lost half his life savings/retirement 6-7 years ago in the divorce... apologies if I've incorrectly guessed.HomerJ wrote:If he's retired, then they must have enough money right now to pay for him, his wife, and his 5-year old child...Hikes_With_Dogs wrote:The Wizard wrote: Life insurance isn't necessary for everybody and especially not to retirement age...
He has a 5 year old!
If he dies, there's no change... if they have enough money saved for all 3 of them, certainly they have enough money for 2 of them
Life insurance is usually bought to replace income that the dead spouse was bringing in... If you're retired, you already have enough money.