Today, life insurance is based around the idea that if you or your spouse dies, that your family will be made whole by replacing your spouse's income. This essential foundation for effective financial planning is often overlooked by many individuals. Most advisers agree that life insurance is necessary.
However, financial professionals often disagree about how much and what type of insurance one should carry. The perception is that term insurance is always the easiest and most cost effective. To this end, many advisers and financial "gurus" like Suze Orman and Dave Ramsey often suggest that their audience forget about cash value insurance and instead focus on good-sounding investments. In short...they hate whole life insurance.
The life insurance industry, and all of it's agents, of course love it. For the most part, the investment industry discounts its importance. So, who wins the debate?
It is shocking that the financial industry is responsible for informing and educating the rest of society about saving and investing. I say shocking because many of the advisors that represent the industry seem to be less concerned with the truth, and more concerned about pitching products.
I say that in light of the fact that on both sides of the debate, neither is doing a very good job of defending their position. Many financial professionals are simply leaving out critical information, or appear to not have a very good grasp of how life insurance really works.
Their reasons for lying can be many. Now, there's nothing wrong with pointing out the shortcomings in a financial product. In the case of life insurance; however, the attacks being made are completely baseless. This is especially disheartening because most, if not all, of these attacks are originating from well known financial "gurus". Here are a few of the lies being spread around:
Lie Number One:
Cash value life insurance is one of the worst financial products available, and it is definitely the worst type of insurance you can buy to insure your life. The BEST kind of insurance is term insurance because it's cheap and I'm not paying all those extra fees to the evil and greedy insurance company. Besides, don't insurance companies have a record of being reckless, cheating their policyholders, and systematically going out of business.
Fact: Term insurance can be the best type of insurance if all you are considering is the cost. But it is generally the worst type of insurance you can buy to insure your life if you want it to pay off, at least statistically speaking. To understand this, we need to understand how life insurance companies position their product line, and how they make money.
You may have heard of the "law of averages". Well, insurance uses something called the Law of Large Numbers. The larger the group of people you are insuring, the more certain you can be about the number of losses.
If I started a life insurance company and I only had one customer, I would be taking on an incredible risk because of the nature of life insurance, if that one person dies, I could be out of business very quickly. If, however, I have thousands or millions of customers, then I can manage the risk. Since no one can predict when a specific individual will die (i.e. no one can predict when I will die), I need a large number of people to study to formulate a statistic. With a large enough number of people, I can make surprisingly accurate predictions about the number of individuals within a particular group that will die in any given year. So...what do the statistics say?
They tell us that term insurance just doesn't pay...well not for policy owners anyway. Most people live until age 65. After that premium costs spike dramatically. This is why I say that, on most accounts, permanent is cheaper, even though there are probably a few critics saying "no Dave, it's cheaper on all accounts". Oh yeah? Watch this:
Let's look at a male, age 25 and in good health with a wife and a child. In fact, let's call him Jim (again *cheesy grin*) finds that he needs life insurance He needs $250,000 in life insurance. A 30-year term policy should cost Jim about $370 per year until he reaches age fifty-five. After that, the premiums become unaffordable (as is the case with all term insurance) at $4,700 per year.
At age 65, he will have spent $58,780 on policy premiums. Keep in mind that this is money that the insurance company collected but never had to pay back. Since there's no cash value in a pure insurance (term) plan, the insurance contract pays off only when Jim dies.
What would have happened if Jim had just purchased the same amount of death benefit but used a universal life insurance policy instead? His premiums would have been higher - about $145 per month or $1739 per year. At age 65, Jim has paid $69,560 ($1739 x 40) in premiums. That's a little more than the term insurance, but he also has $157,000 of cash value inside the policy.
That's $87,000 more than his premium payments for those 40 years. That's also money that can be used on a tax-free basis to help supplement retirement. This is called a living benefit, and a feature that term just doesn't offer. Some of the more competitive permanent policies also offer an option to spend down the death benefit if you become terminally ill. This can be helpful if you haven't accumulated a lot of money and something tragic happens to you and you don't die...or you don't want to spend down your savings.
Lie number two:
Cash value life insurance is overpriced for what you get. You never know how much money you are spending on the death benefit, how much money is actually going into the cash value of the policy, and how much interest you are really earning. Term insurance is so much simpler.
Fact: Whole life insurance is not very transparent. So it is difficult to determine how much the death benefit is costing you. That bothers some people. That's OK. Just don't buy whole life insurance. Universal life insurance, on the other hand, is very transparent. That's because UL policies are a term policy with a separate savings account. You can easily determine the cost per thousand dollars of insurance, how much is going to pay the death benefit, and how much is going into the cash value of the policy. Cash value insurance seems expensive in comparison to term insurance (at least initially) because insurance contracts are front loaded as far as fees are concerned. That's a good thing...because the contract becomes cheaper over time. Unfortunately, the initial cost is really driven home by the anti-cash value life insurance crowd.
Be thankful that you pay some of the fees that you do. It makes saving and investing money a lot easier than having to fire a lawyer to negotiate every individual contract you sign. A life insurance contract can be set up to maximize the death benefit (maximizing the cost of the contract), or it can be set up to focus on cash accumulation (minimizing expense charges to .5% - 1% of the interest earned over the life of the policy). The expenses associated with a permanent life insurance contract can be made just as efficient and in some cases more so than what the antagonists suggest as an alternative - which is usually some type of mutual fund - without sacrificing the practicality of owning the contract. But again, why are the antagonists trying to compare the cost of insurance to an investment?
You will usually get all of your money back that you put into a permanent policy plus interest (depending on how you structured the contract). Additionally, the policy can give you a substantial tax-free income at retirement. The only exception to this is variable life, which typically has no guarantee on cash values
Lie number three:
Be smart with the money you have today and pay off your mortgage, car loans and other debt. Put enough money into retirement plans you don't need insurance 30 years from now to protect your family when you die.
Fact: You might need insurance to protect your children from a big tax burden. Even if you are "smart" with your money, you can't predict the future with absolute certainty. Some people alive today are experiencing a 40% loss in their retirement accounts 5 years before retirement. This is money that was supposed to be there for them and it isn't. If your investments take a hit right before YOU are ready to retire, it doesn't matter how "smart" you were with your money.
Still don't think life insurance is necessary as you get older? Consider that dying isn't free. What does the average funeral cost in your home town? Ask a funeral director how quickly the costs double over any given time period. You will be shocked...shocked I tell you. Also, ask any child whose parents left them a sizable IRA what they paid in taxes and if it was financially disruptive.
Your financial guru told you cash value insurance was evil, but it could have really helped out of a jam when the tax man cometh. You could also bypassing probate, providing an income tax free death benefit and, inside of a life insurance trust, completely avoid the estate tax.
There are an alarming number of financial professionals that try to draw a connection between life insurance and investing. It's a huge mistake (even supporters of CV insurance make this mistake). Comparing cash value insurance to investing is like asking "how many walkmans does it take to equal an Ipod?". Even if you find an investment strategy that "beats" the insurance product...so what? Cash value insurance is supposed to provide a death benefit with a savings component, not an investment component (despite the mistakes of variable life).
Before you make a final decision on whether to buy term or cash value life insurance, consider what you are really looking for. If you are looking for an investment, then be prepared to look for stocks, bonds, no load mutual funds, options, and other various financial derivatives (and learn how to research them). If you're looking for a long-term savings tool, then cash value life insurance can fit that need very well. - 15224
However, financial professionals often disagree about how much and what type of insurance one should carry. The perception is that term insurance is always the easiest and most cost effective. To this end, many advisers and financial "gurus" like Suze Orman and Dave Ramsey often suggest that their audience forget about cash value insurance and instead focus on good-sounding investments. In short...they hate whole life insurance.
The life insurance industry, and all of it's agents, of course love it. For the most part, the investment industry discounts its importance. So, who wins the debate?
It is shocking that the financial industry is responsible for informing and educating the rest of society about saving and investing. I say shocking because many of the advisors that represent the industry seem to be less concerned with the truth, and more concerned about pitching products.
I say that in light of the fact that on both sides of the debate, neither is doing a very good job of defending their position. Many financial professionals are simply leaving out critical information, or appear to not have a very good grasp of how life insurance really works.
Their reasons for lying can be many. Now, there's nothing wrong with pointing out the shortcomings in a financial product. In the case of life insurance; however, the attacks being made are completely baseless. This is especially disheartening because most, if not all, of these attacks are originating from well known financial "gurus". Here are a few of the lies being spread around:
Lie Number One:
Cash value life insurance is one of the worst financial products available, and it is definitely the worst type of insurance you can buy to insure your life. The BEST kind of insurance is term insurance because it's cheap and I'm not paying all those extra fees to the evil and greedy insurance company. Besides, don't insurance companies have a record of being reckless, cheating their policyholders, and systematically going out of business.
Fact: Term insurance can be the best type of insurance if all you are considering is the cost. But it is generally the worst type of insurance you can buy to insure your life if you want it to pay off, at least statistically speaking. To understand this, we need to understand how life insurance companies position their product line, and how they make money.
You may have heard of the "law of averages". Well, insurance uses something called the Law of Large Numbers. The larger the group of people you are insuring, the more certain you can be about the number of losses.
If I started a life insurance company and I only had one customer, I would be taking on an incredible risk because of the nature of life insurance, if that one person dies, I could be out of business very quickly. If, however, I have thousands or millions of customers, then I can manage the risk. Since no one can predict when a specific individual will die (i.e. no one can predict when I will die), I need a large number of people to study to formulate a statistic. With a large enough number of people, I can make surprisingly accurate predictions about the number of individuals within a particular group that will die in any given year. So...what do the statistics say?
They tell us that term insurance just doesn't pay...well not for policy owners anyway. Most people live until age 65. After that premium costs spike dramatically. This is why I say that, on most accounts, permanent is cheaper, even though there are probably a few critics saying "no Dave, it's cheaper on all accounts". Oh yeah? Watch this:
Let's look at a male, age 25 and in good health with a wife and a child. In fact, let's call him Jim (again *cheesy grin*) finds that he needs life insurance He needs $250,000 in life insurance. A 30-year term policy should cost Jim about $370 per year until he reaches age fifty-five. After that, the premiums become unaffordable (as is the case with all term insurance) at $4,700 per year.
At age 65, he will have spent $58,780 on policy premiums. Keep in mind that this is money that the insurance company collected but never had to pay back. Since there's no cash value in a pure insurance (term) plan, the insurance contract pays off only when Jim dies.
What would have happened if Jim had just purchased the same amount of death benefit but used a universal life insurance policy instead? His premiums would have been higher - about $145 per month or $1739 per year. At age 65, Jim has paid $69,560 ($1739 x 40) in premiums. That's a little more than the term insurance, but he also has $157,000 of cash value inside the policy.
That's $87,000 more than his premium payments for those 40 years. That's also money that can be used on a tax-free basis to help supplement retirement. This is called a living benefit, and a feature that term just doesn't offer. Some of the more competitive permanent policies also offer an option to spend down the death benefit if you become terminally ill. This can be helpful if you haven't accumulated a lot of money and something tragic happens to you and you don't die...or you don't want to spend down your savings.
Lie number two:
Cash value life insurance is overpriced for what you get. You never know how much money you are spending on the death benefit, how much money is actually going into the cash value of the policy, and how much interest you are really earning. Term insurance is so much simpler.
Fact: Whole life insurance is not very transparent. So it is difficult to determine how much the death benefit is costing you. That bothers some people. That's OK. Just don't buy whole life insurance. Universal life insurance, on the other hand, is very transparent. That's because UL policies are a term policy with a separate savings account. You can easily determine the cost per thousand dollars of insurance, how much is going to pay the death benefit, and how much is going into the cash value of the policy. Cash value insurance seems expensive in comparison to term insurance (at least initially) because insurance contracts are front loaded as far as fees are concerned. That's a good thing...because the contract becomes cheaper over time. Unfortunately, the initial cost is really driven home by the anti-cash value life insurance crowd.
Be thankful that you pay some of the fees that you do. It makes saving and investing money a lot easier than having to fire a lawyer to negotiate every individual contract you sign. A life insurance contract can be set up to maximize the death benefit (maximizing the cost of the contract), or it can be set up to focus on cash accumulation (minimizing expense charges to .5% - 1% of the interest earned over the life of the policy). The expenses associated with a permanent life insurance contract can be made just as efficient and in some cases more so than what the antagonists suggest as an alternative - which is usually some type of mutual fund - without sacrificing the practicality of owning the contract. But again, why are the antagonists trying to compare the cost of insurance to an investment?
You will usually get all of your money back that you put into a permanent policy plus interest (depending on how you structured the contract). Additionally, the policy can give you a substantial tax-free income at retirement. The only exception to this is variable life, which typically has no guarantee on cash values
Lie number three:
Be smart with the money you have today and pay off your mortgage, car loans and other debt. Put enough money into retirement plans you don't need insurance 30 years from now to protect your family when you die.
Fact: You might need insurance to protect your children from a big tax burden. Even if you are "smart" with your money, you can't predict the future with absolute certainty. Some people alive today are experiencing a 40% loss in their retirement accounts 5 years before retirement. This is money that was supposed to be there for them and it isn't. If your investments take a hit right before YOU are ready to retire, it doesn't matter how "smart" you were with your money.
Still don't think life insurance is necessary as you get older? Consider that dying isn't free. What does the average funeral cost in your home town? Ask a funeral director how quickly the costs double over any given time period. You will be shocked...shocked I tell you. Also, ask any child whose parents left them a sizable IRA what they paid in taxes and if it was financially disruptive.
Your financial guru told you cash value insurance was evil, but it could have really helped out of a jam when the tax man cometh. You could also bypassing probate, providing an income tax free death benefit and, inside of a life insurance trust, completely avoid the estate tax.
There are an alarming number of financial professionals that try to draw a connection between life insurance and investing. It's a huge mistake (even supporters of CV insurance make this mistake). Comparing cash value insurance to investing is like asking "how many walkmans does it take to equal an Ipod?". Even if you find an investment strategy that "beats" the insurance product...so what? Cash value insurance is supposed to provide a death benefit with a savings component, not an investment component (despite the mistakes of variable life).
Before you make a final decision on whether to buy term or cash value life insurance, consider what you are really looking for. If you are looking for an investment, then be prepared to look for stocks, bonds, no load mutual funds, options, and other various financial derivatives (and learn how to research them). If you're looking for a long-term savings tool, then cash value life insurance can fit that need very well. - 15224
About the Author:
About the author: Only so much information can be covered in one article. If you would like more detailed information about any aspect of personal financial planning, please visit David's website.
