[quote=desmond]Here is different approach. I bought two whole life, universal policies when I got married and started having kids (2). At the time 20+ years ago that was what was being pushed. One policy ($500K) was $2000 a year, the other $50 ($100k) a month. They pushed these as investment accounts and had minimum total contributions that you had to make. I contributed for 7 years ($14,000) into the $500k policy, then stopped contributing and paid for over 20 years into the 100k policy and have stopped paying on this one. Now both policies have $0 “surrender charges” and have accumulated enough “cash value” to carry them another 30+ years without any more contributions. If I die the “cash value” is deducted from my death benefit so there is no value in keeping it high before I kick the bucket. I plan to make any needed contributions later to keep them going to get the death benefit for my wife or kids. I would say this is a “rent vs. own” approach. I am not saying this is better approach, but it seems to have worked out for me. If you go this route make sure your policy pays you the “death benefit” plus the “cash value”.[/quote]
Desmond, probably one factor that also affects the outcome here is you’re timing was good because at the time when you purchased your whole life policy, investments probably were pre-bubblish (1990ish)…If on the other hand someone bought whole life or a VAR during the bubble, they would have seen considerable hit. So, I think to some extent with the insurance+investment instruments, part of it depends on timing. It probably also works out better for you because for folks with lots of assets, there are tax savings when it comes to inheritance tax. (I forget now, but this was explained to me from an estate attorney).
