|
bam thwok posted:What he said. In addition, the "safe" bonds like well-known munis and treasuries are paying next to nothing right now. The only way to earn a higher rate would be to invest in increasingly risky bonds, which carry a higher likelihood of default.
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
Lowness 72 posted:Well I already have a diversified set of mutual fund investments. I was just looking for something less correlated to the market to keep a chunk of savings in. It just kills mento have a chunk of change sitting there doing nothing. Then have you considered REITs? Not sure what's attractive these days since I haven't heard a thing about them and other alts since 2008 for obvious reasons, but should be pretty stable and have a minimal correlation to equities. Edit: you can even get into REITs via an ETF like VNQ, which is probably your best way to get exposure with minimal fees and high liquidity. bam thwok fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Jul 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 21:14
|
|
|
REITs are not as uncorrelated to general stocks as you think. I have searched for the past 10 minutes but can't seem to find the link, but If I recall, they are something like ~.71 correlated to the S&P 500. That's not great, not bad, but not great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2011 00:58
|
|
|
Chin Strap posted:A) 5000X20 years doesn't account for interest growth
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2011 02:01
|
|
|
Dominoes posted:I rolled over my 401ks into an IRA and am trying to contribute more because I haven't been. I'm 25. I put $5000 in recently, and discovered that I'm not legally allowed to contribute more until next year. This doesn't make much sense since $5,000x~20 years doesn't add up to enough to retire on. What am I missing? Do I need to put money in a standard portfolio? If you retire at 65 and put $5000 in every year until that age, you'll end up with around $825,000 by the time you retire if it grows at an average of 6% a year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2011 13:46
|
|
|
KennyG posted:REITs are not as uncorrelated to general stocks as you think. Yeah, but that's a pretty recent development. Historically the correlation has been around or below .50. http://seekingalpha.com/article/246289-new-reit-etf-stocks-correlation-only-74-now
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2011 14:41
|
|
|
Dominoes posted:Thanks. I'm in the military, and debated using the government account or a private IRA. I chose the IRA so I would have more control of the account, and could manage my portfolio myself, and deal with helpful customer service instead of bureaucracy. I didn't consider the limit on contributions. I'll open a government plan to subsidize it over a non-tax-sheltered account. I'm assuming that the government is not matching the contribution in your private IRA, correct? If that's the case, you definitely want to use the government account. Otherwise you are leaving money on the table. You always want to max out your employers contribution and should consider it part of your salary. I'd also add that if this is the Thrift Savings Plan, it's pretty good. The rates on their funds are ridiculously low compared to most financial houses. And they offer up target date funds (called Lifecycle funds) which is likely all you need for now and by the looks of it, perform just as well as Vanguard and Fidelity. Their system is easy to use and a rollover after you get out is incredibly easy to do. In fact, places like Fidelity will often handle all the crap for you and just get you to sign over a form or two. My guess is that the government farms out their TSP to a financial company that has a good system in place already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 09:37
|
|
|
Does anybody here use any software or even an Excel spreadsheet to track the performance of funds within their portfolio? What I want to be able to do is put in all my buy and sell events, then be able to spit out an annualised return for the individual funds and/or the overall portfolio. The platform I invest through only provides very basic stats on returns, which are not annualised or time-weighted. For example, if I've put a total of £500 into a fund, and that has grown to £550, that appears as a straight 10% return regardless of the amount of time over which that amount has accrued. Obviously this is not very useful information given that I make monthly contributions to a bunch of funds. I've been putting together my own spreadsheet using the XIRR function a lot but it's a laborious process to input everything, and while it shows individual fund returns quite well it won't do my overall portfolio. I've looked into the Google Finance portfolio, but unfortunately it doesn't provide quotes for all of the funds I'm investing in which is annoying - I'm in the UK so presumably Google don't have the agreements to provide that information.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 10:48
|
|
|
I don't use it, but I have been eyeing "My Personal Index" Original spreadsheet version: http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Using_a_Spreadsheet_to_Maintain_a_Portfolio#Performance_tracking It has turned into a standalone app: http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18086
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 15:18
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:I'm assuming that the government is not matching the contribution in your private IRA, correct? If that's the case, you definitely want to use the government account. Otherwise you are leaving money on the table. You always want to max out your employers contribution and should consider it part of your salary. The gov't doesn't match the military member contribution, only FERS Civilians. However, they are eligible for the TSP, and it is a drat good program. .025% ER on average the past few years. It's run through a contract with Blackrock.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 17:38
|
|
|
Quick question (I live in Sweden, but I guess answers should still be relevant). I have some money (about 20000usd) invested in some funds, and I'm planning to buy more, but I'm wondering a bit about fees. The funds I have right now have a 1.4% fee on them. Is this considered high? It's basically some medium-risk fund that my bank recommended a while ago, and I've just been going with it for now. Should I look around for something else? I basically know nothing about investing 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 19:28
|
|
|
taqueso posted:It has turned into a standalone app: Looks interesting, but it completely fails to pick up my funds. It tries to grab the data from Yahoo Finance, which doesn't appear to have anything other than current quotes for the stuff I'm invested in, so it doesn't work. Thanks anyway, but I think my quest continues.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 20:07
|
|
|
Buffis posted:Quick question (I live in Sweden, but I guess answers should still be relevant). I can't specifically comment for Sweden because financial regulations could make it different, but if it's in anyway comparable to the United States, YES. It's high. Very high. Here, anything over 1% is pretty much never worth it unless you are investing in something like an emerging markets micro cap. To compare, Vanguard's S&P 500 index ETF has an expense ratio of .05%. Read up on passive investing. If you are in this thread, asking questions about what fund you should buy, you should be in passive investments. If you were hardcore and had spreadsheets of rich mahogany, maybe you could find some good active investments, but that's another thread. You should have access to many of the same funds if only through other brokers. Never pay a commission or sales load when buying a mutual fund or ETF (unless it's something crazy exotic). Comparison shop expense ratios, it's about the only way in which past performance can predict future results. KennyG fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Jul 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
I've ctrl+f'ed through this entire thread, but it has never been discussed at length. I'm 24, and my parents want to buy me life insurance as a long term investment, and I met with the advisor today to discuss it. The way he sold it sounded like flowers and puppies, and I'm still extremely skeptical. I asked him outright whether I'd be better off investing the money into index funds, but he talked about how life insurance is something everyone should have before they start investing in capital markets, and about how I'd need a lump sum for worthwhile returns, whereas life insurance only requires monthly contributions (which doesn't seem true/make sense). He also set off a bunch of alarm bells, talking about how a kid my age was already so well off because his parents bought him life insurance, and when asked for some documents/reading material I could bring home with me, he didn't provide any. That said, he works for the wealth management division of one of the larger banks in Canada, so he's not exactly sketchy. So what are the cons of life insurance as investment? From googling, apparently there are lots of hidden charges etc, and nothing I've read (and nothing in this thread) suggests that life insurance is good investment unless I have loans to pay or kids to take care of. rawrr fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Jul 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
rawrr posted:I've ctrl+f'ed through this entire thread, but it has never been discussed at length. Just from your post I can tell with 100% certainty that this advisor is a total douchebag. Some of his comments are downright absurd.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 23:57
|
|
|
Thanks for the quick reply, but I need a little more than that. I basically need to talk my parents out of giving me money this way. edit: i.e. why is life insurance bad
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 00:00
|
|
|
what insurable interests do you have? are your parents going to be the beneficiaries of their own money? do you have a wife and kids? life insurance is expensive, lacks liquidity and is not even worth considering until you're at retirement in most cases. you're young, you should be taking risk since you have plenty of time to weather down markets. round these parts trying to sell a 24 year old a life insurance policy gets you a slap on the wrist and put under heightened supervision. Secret Sweater fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Jul 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 00:23
|
|
|
You can probably get it cheaper/for free through work anyway, once you get a job. If they want to give you money, taking out a life insurance policy on you is ridiculous because you won't be alive to see the money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
Lots of free life insurance provided by work is actually Peasant Insurance. The company is most likely the beneficiary of the policy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 00:51
|
|
|
rawrr posted:Thanks for the quick reply, but I need a little more than that. I basically need to talk my parents out of giving me money this way. Life insurance is not bad. If you need it, term life insurance can be bought online. Do this when you have a reason to buy it and don't confuse it with retirement savings or investing. When you have dependents, go to term4sale.com for unbiased quotes. Any self-respecting financial advisor would advise that the need for life insurance depends on your life situation. The idea that EVERYONE should buy life insurance before investing in the capital markets can only come from someone who is making a big commission off of selling life insurance. Or the concept of mixing investing and insurance, as is the case when sold some kind of permanent life insurance (whole life or universal). Fees and hidden costs are of course the reason why they are bad. This guy is trying to sell you a high cost product that you do not need and that will earn him a fat commission. what else do you need to know?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
Secret Sweater posted:what insurable interests do you have? are your parents going to be the beneficiaries of their own money? do you have a wife and kids? life insurance is expensive, lacks liquidity and is not even worth considering until you're at retirement in most cases. On the contrary, I'd think that in many cases, life insurance has served its purpose by the time you retire.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
80k posted:Life insurance is not bad. If you need it, term life insurance can be bought online. Do this when you have a reason to buy it and don't confuse it with retirement savings or investing. When you have dependents, go to term4sale.com for unbiased quotes. That's perfectly articulated, thanks! The more I read, the more I feel that it is almost irresponsible if not unethical for life insurance (whole life, in this case) to be sold to my parents as an investment product for me, especially given that I have no dependents or loans to pay off. He also tried to sell me critical illness insurance, when I live in Canada...
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 01:00
|
|
|
As 80k said, life insurance isn't an investment. It's there as a security blanket for those who depend on you (or will depend on you) financially. If there is no one that fits that bill, you don't need it right now. I do know of some people who take out a small plan for 10-20k so that family doesn't have to pay for the funeral costs. At your age, this would be incredibly cheap. Investment wise, there are a lot of different options if you're looking long-term. The first thing I'd do is get a Roth IRA going. The earlier you can start making contributions, the better off you'll be when you retire. And with a Roth, you don't pay taxes on any of the income you make over the years which can be considerable if you're talking about money that has been growing for 40 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 03:47
|
|
|
How do you know a life insurance agent is lying? His lips are moving.  It is irresponsible, it's almost unethical and it should be illegal to sell someone whole life insurance like that.There is [almost] no legitimate reason to buy whole life insurance. Whole Life usually amounts to getting some ridiculously tiny return. Take for example a plan that Gerber sells as a education/life insurance for minor children. I know I've ranted about this before, but this bears repeating. The $25k policy costs almost $15 a month. For that same amount you could take out a 250k 20 year term policy depending on factors. Unless you have a masters degree in finance and can demonstrate why you need whole life insurance due to tax law implications using third ordinal integrals and differential equations, know this:  WHOLE LIFE INSURANCE IS A SCAMIf you aren't in a relationship, don't have any debts that someone has consigned, and have no kids, don't buy life insurance. If any of those are true, buy TERM life insurance. KennyG fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Jul 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 22:01
|
|
|
Bunch of people been moving over to money market this week 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 02:02
|
|
|
KennyG posted:How do you know a life insurance agent is lying? His lips are moving. gently caress, I'm seriously wondering if I should raise the issue with his manager or something. The entire thing doesn't sit right with me. The guy is an "associate advisor" at the wealth management division of a big Canadian bank that supposedly only deals with high net worth clients. Looked into the job description and apparently an associate advisor is a "sales-oriented", entry level position that requires minimal qualifications. I feel as if selling expensive financial products as investment advice to middle class families is their strategy, bolstered by their supposed reputation of dealing with high net worth clients only ("so he must give sound advice, and he's doing me a favor by bending down and talking to me"). The guy literally showed me a chart that showed 9% annual returns, told me 90% of it was based on long term government bonds, so it's "safe". He refused to provide me with further reading, and it's not until I did some digging and found a sample contract that the plan actually guarantees the higher of: - 2.25% - 90% earnings from bonds -1.5% fee
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 10:15
|
|
|
rawrr posted:gently caress, I'm seriously wondering if I should raise the issue with his manager or something. The entire thing doesn't sit right with me. The guy is an "associate advisor" at the wealth management division of a big Canadian bank that supposedly only deals with high net worth clients. Looked into the job description and apparently an associate advisor is a "sales-oriented", entry level position that requires minimal qualifications. I feel as if selling expensive financial products as investment advice to middle class families is their strategy, bolstered by their supposed reputation of dealing with high net worth clients only ("so he must give sound advice, and he's doing me a favor by bending down and talking to me").
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 15:42
|
|
|
yea don't even bother reporting him. All it will do is help make them "better" salesmen. Unfortunately, the qualifications needed to sell financial products is very low and the suitability requirements are very lax. I keep hearing people say it is "almost unethical"... no need to mince words. It is highly unethical. There are very few good guys in the financial industry and this is why this thread is so big on DIY and using lowest cost products like ETF's and index funds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 16:11
|
|
|
Huh. This discussion of life insurance now has me wondering if I'm doing the best thing for my own situation. I'm married, no kids. My wife is an artist and she makes comparatively small income: 80% of our income comes from my salary. A year and a half ago we bought a house, which we both signed on the title. I pay our mortgage and most of our living costs. We have debts; most of it is her student loans, which she pays from her own earnings, but she's really only able to do that because I cover most of our living expenses (groceries, utilities, mortgage, insurance, etc.) My job provides our health insurance as well. Right now I have a life insurance policy offered by my employer. I have set it at the highest amount available, which is (if I remember correctly) six times my gross annual salary. It "looks back" at the previous calendar year to determine what that is, so when I get a raise, it takes a while to fully affect the payout value. Right now I am paying $10.76 per paycheck (24 checks per year), so that's $258.24 a year. This policy is obviously only available to me as long as I am employed by this employer, so I guess that means it's a term life, but the alternative (buying my own permanant life policy and dropping this one) seems likely to me to be much more expensive? Of course I also have a 401(k), cash savings, and some other assets. My intention with the life insurance policy is to be sure that, if I die, my wife can pay off all of her debts, all of my debts, buy out our house outright, and have money left over to carry her for a year or two while she undertakes the effort and expense of changing careers into something that would support her at a similar quality of life. At six times my salary, I think that just about covers it, so I'm comfortable with that amount of coverage. Am I doing this stupidly? My assumption is that if I lose my job or change employers and I can't get a similar deal through my next employer, I'd buy a permanant life policy with a similar payout from elsewhere. But now I'm thinking maybe I'm doing this wrong... although again, $22 a month really doesn't seem like much money to me. e. Oh I guess this is important: I'm 36, non-smoker, in reasonable but not excellent health, but for various reasons, very little of my genetic medical history is available. I consider myself to be at a modest risk of suddenly dying, but not as low as an average healthy 36-year-old. More edit: Ok doing some research: My employer requires a minimum level of coverage for both life and AD&D, but provides credits for the cost of both up to the 2x salary level. Everything is through Metlife. So the number I quoted above is subsidized, sort of; I have flex credits applicable to several things including dental, health, vision, life & AD&D, etc., but I'm already well above that level just for the health insurance, so in practical terms, the full cost of the insurance is out of my pocket. The minimum flat coverage is $10k/$50k for AD&D/Life, which would presumably be very cheap (like what, $4 a paycheck or something?). AD&D is pre-tax, and only applies to me. Life has pre-tax or after-tax, but I went with after-tax because if you do pre-tax, then the payout is taxable. I also have a small after-tax supplemental life policy on my wife. It's tiny, just enough to pay for funeral expenses and the like, but it's also really cheap: less than $3 a month. That's all from the summary. I'm gonna read the full plan documents now and see if there's more relevant details. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Jul 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 20:24
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Insurance Question You're sorta right - it would be a good idea for you to get a policy of your own that isn't tied to work, and the policy that you've got right now is a term policy (with the term being for as long as you continue working for your employer). However, just because you're not getting it through your employer doesn't mean that you can't get a term policy from a different insurance provider. Also, since you're in decent health, it wouldn't surprise me if you could get equal coverage for less money, or more coverage for the same amount. The rates that are charged for the company are based on the totally average employee, and you are likely younger and better off than average. You can go to zanderinsurance.com and put in your info to get a rough idea of how much a policy would run you. Accuquote.com is also available, but they require you give them a lot more info to get the numbers. These providers are nice because they survey a lot of different insurance providers and basically do your shopping for you. One advantage of life insurance is that all the terms for payout are pretty much identical, so other than needing to meet different hurdles for different rates, you can shop on price almost exclusively. Term insurance is really cheap, and you can tailor the amount and the term quite a bit, so with a little effort you can get pretty much exactly the policy you want. Feel free to pm me if you have any more questions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 21:05
|
|
|
OK yeah I'm looking at my plan documents and it's way more complicated than I thought. There's actually two plans, one for life and one for AD&D, and I'm not sure if I have the 6xsalary for both or just the life; and there's dependent option for my wife, which I think I have, but I'm not sure if that's at the minimum or if it's also at my salary level: and there's a whole accellerated benefit thing that I don't really get. This is obviously beyond the scope of this thread so I'll follow up with T0MSERV0 off-thread. Thanks man!
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
I'm not really sure how this works... My current employer has a 401k that I've been contributing 10% of my income to for the past 4 years, so I have a sizable chunk of change in it right now. I just received an offer at another company that I'm planning on accepting, however they don't offer a 401k. What do I do with my current 401k? I can't keep contributing to it, can I? Can I transfer the money out into some other investment structure that I can continue pumping money into?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Huh. This discussion of life insurance now has me wondering if I'm doing the best thing for my own situation. The reason I dislike group insurance policies like this is that if for some reason you need to leave your company (new/better job, you or your wife is sick and needs to move closer to specialized facility, etc) you will need to be insurable to get a comparable policy. If you develop cancer or something else terrible, you are now chained to your company, assuming your job is secure, and are unable to do what you need to do for your family. I dislike that notion, and for a small premium, I prefer to insure myself on other terms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
80k posted:Life insurance is not bad. If you need it, term life insurance can be bought online. Do this when you have a reason to buy it and don't confuse it with retirement savings or investing. When you have dependents, go to term4sale.com for unbiased quotes. Buy term and invest the rest. Best advice you can have in regards to life insurance. Insurance is NOT an investment, it's I-N-S-U-R-A-N-C-E against catastrophic events. (not replying to you to tell YOU this 80k, but to reiterate) My example: I have a policy on me, 30 year term, that in the event of my death (i'm currently 30 years old, 1 child, twins on the way) all of our debt, mortgages and all, will be paid for and enough money will be provided for my wife to live comfortably for a few years until she finds a new sugar daddy. Now that I have twins on the way, I am seeking a policy to put on my wife so that in the event of her death, I can afford to pay someone to take care of my many children at least half as well as she does now. I'm thinking 10 year term, as after that time period the value of her ONLY IN REGARDS TO RAISING OUR SMALL CHILDREN will have dropped to virtually zero. That is what insurance is for, not investing... low-cost index funds in an appropriate asset allocation, regularly rebalanced will get you to the finish line financially, provided you live beneath your means. rawrr posted:gently caress, I'm seriously wondering if I should raise the issue with his manager or something. The entire thing doesn't sit right with me. The guy is an "associate advisor" at the wealth management division of a big Canadian bank that supposedly only deals with high net worth clients. Looked into the job description and apparently an associate advisor is a "sales-oriented", entry level position that requires minimal qualifications. I feel as if selling expensive financial products as investment advice to middle class families is their strategy, bolstered by their supposed reputation of dealing with high net worth clients only ("so he must give sound advice, and he's doing me a favor by bending down and talking to me"). You have now been introduced and indoctrinated into the mystique that is financial sales. The best dressed used car salesmen around. Consider yourself lucky you found out at 24, instead of paying ridiculously high fees for UNDERPERFORMANCE for twenty years! Fun fact, 85% of advisors fail to meet their respective benchmarks on a 5-year horizon, that number jumps into the 90s the further out you go. (my numbers could be slightly off, but they're in the neighborhood)
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 22:50
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:I'm not really sure how this works... Assuming you are 100% vested, you will take it with you and likely roll it over into an IRA at another custodian. Otherwise, you'll take your vested portion. It's your money. There is little benefit to keep the 401k after your company stops contributing to it. You will have limited fund choices and potentially other fees and restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 22:51
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:What do I do with my current 401k? I can't keep contributing to it, can I? Can I transfer the money out into some other investment structure that I can continue pumping money into? The 'other investment structure' is called a rollover IRA. When you leave your job, your options are to either leave it there, cash it out, or roll it over into an IRA. Definitely roll it over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 23:09
|
|
|
TraderStav posted:Assuming you are 100% vested, you will take it with you and likely roll it over into an IRA at another custodian. Otherwise, you'll take your vested portion. It's your money. There is little benefit to keep the 401k after your company stops contributing to it. You will have limited fund choices and potentially other fees and restrictions. I am 100% vested at this point. How would I roll it into an IRA and how do I pick an IRA custodian? Is there a thread with resources on that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 23:10
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:I am 100% vested at this point. It will be very clear to you once you leave. The 401k administrator will send you information. It's very stress free and you should be focusing your energy on your new job at this point. You're good to go holmes. I prefer Schwab, or some other low-cost brokerages. I'll let some of the others pitch in their recommendations. edit: Just caught the part about the new job not having a 401k. If you plan on contributing a significant amount over the IRA contribution limit ($5,000), you may want to keep the 401k. I BELIEVE you can continue to contribute to it with the maximums there (which is significantly higher, like 20% or 15k of income). TraderStav fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Jul 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 23:13
|
|
|
TraderStav posted:It will be very clear to you once you leave. The 401k administrator will send you information. It's very stress free and you should be focusing your energy on your new job at this point. You're good to go holmes. I heard that you have to pay service fees when contributing to a 401k not through your employer. I'm not sure if that's true though. I guess I'll find out. I just wanted to know if I'll still be able to keep saving money in a wise way and it looks like I will. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
TraderStav posted:The reason I dislike group insurance policies like this is that if for some reason you need to leave your company (new/better job, you or your wife is sick and needs to move closer to specialized facility, etc) you will need to be insurable to get a comparable policy. If you develop cancer or something else terrible, you are now chained to your company, assuming your job is secure, and are unable to do what you need to do for your family. I dislike that notion, and for a small premium, I prefer to insure myself on other terms. I'm still reviewing the paperwork, but, this policy includes a "right to buy" which guarantees that I get to buy an identical policy if I leave employment, am fired, the company drops the plan, etc. In the case of my leaving employment, I have a right to buy the same amount of insurance, but the rate is dependent on a new evaluation of my health, age, and smoking status, etc. So it might well be that they overcharge me to continue, but at least it's better than nothing; if I got cancer or whatever, I might have to pay through the nose, but I'd be guaranteed to have my full payout for my wife once I kicked the bucket. e. Also in the Accidental Death and Dismemberment part, if I am dismembered while on board a craft designed to leave Earth's atmosphere, there's no payout. Seriously, they wrote this into the plan, along with various other exclusions: they won't cover me for having my arm hacked off in a spaceship accident.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2011 23:41
|
|