Opinions requested on life insurance

[garysears]

Looks like I’m in the minority with my comfort being underinsured. I have tried to stay away from buying a policy that would mean my wife never would have to work again. Not because I dislike her. Maybe I really am too cheap and should consider more.

If I do get more I won’t tell her though since I don’t want to get knocked off. I can laugh about it but really, how well do I know her? Certainly for 2 million she wouldn’t have to worry about my stingy ways ever again. Even for 1 million she would probably be tempted.

[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”.

[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”.

[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”.

[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”.

[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”.

[Raybyrnes]

Desmond

there are some nifty things you can do with respect to whole life policies. The major challenge is that they will typically leave you underinsured due to the high premium amount. I would also suggest that the lapse ratio works in the Insurance companies favor although hedge funds have been buying up policies and keeping them in force. Some whole life policies have offered very attractive returns inside of the policies. Northwestern Mutual Life is one of the better companies to check out for this. When banks are paying 1% on CD’s many whole life policies have ben paying 7 or 8 which you can pay into and get a better rate of return on. I believed Robert Baird Manages there money..

[Raybyrnes]

Desmond

there are some nifty things you can do with respect to whole life policies. The major challenge is that they will typically leave you underinsured due to the high premium amount. I would also suggest that the lapse ratio works in the Insurance companies favor although hedge funds have been buying up policies and keeping them in force. Some whole life policies have offered very attractive returns inside of the policies. Northwestern Mutual Life is one of the better companies to check out for this. When banks are paying 1% on CD’s many whole life policies have ben paying 7 or 8 which you can pay into and get a better rate of return on. I believed Robert Baird Manages there money..

[Raybyrnes]

Desmond

there are some nifty things you can do with respect to whole life policies. The major challenge is that they will typically leave you underinsured due to the high premium amount. I would also suggest that the lapse ratio works in the Insurance companies favor although hedge funds have been buying up policies and keeping them in force. Some whole life policies have offered very attractive returns inside of the policies. Northwestern Mutual Life is one of the better companies to check out for this. When banks are paying 1% on CD’s many whole life policies have ben paying 7 or 8 which you can pay into and get a better rate of return on. I believed Robert Baird Manages there money..

[Raybyrnes]

Desmond

there are some nifty things you can do with respect to whole life policies. The major challenge is that they will typically leave you underinsured due to the high premium amount. I would also suggest that the lapse ratio works in the Insurance companies favor although hedge funds have been buying up policies and keeping them in force. Some whole life policies have offered very attractive returns inside of the policies. Northwestern Mutual Life is one of the better companies to check out for this. When banks are paying 1% on CD’s many whole life policies have ben paying 7 or 8 which you can pay into and get a better rate of return on. I believed Robert Baird Manages there money..

[Raybyrnes]

Desmond

there are some nifty things you can do with respect to whole life policies. The major challenge is that they will typically leave you underinsured due to the high premium amount. I would also suggest that the lapse ratio works in the Insurance companies favor although hedge funds have been buying up policies and keeping them in force. Some whole life policies have offered very attractive returns inside of the policies. Northwestern Mutual Life is one of the better companies to check out for this. When banks are paying 1% on CD’s many whole life policies have ben paying 7 or 8 which you can pay into and get a better rate of return on. I believed Robert Baird Manages there money..

[Coronita]

[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).

[Coronita]

[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).

[Coronita]

[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).

[Coronita]

[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).

[Author]

Posts