|
Jastiger posted:I always recommend that you get whole policies on kids if you can swing it. It builds equity, it protects the family, and its giftable to the child once they come of age. This is really bad advice. Adding a term rider on the parent's insurance for funereal costs (for which the premium costs would be microscopically small) and investing the difference in even a middle of the road mutual fund and you'd end up with way more "equity" than a Whole Life policy. Plus it guarantees insurability at the end of the term. But hey, it doesn't pay nearly the commission of placing a new whole life policy so there is that. grack fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Aug 24, 2013 |
#
¿
Aug 24, 2013 08:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Jastiger posted:Its not bad advice. You are one of the folks who says "buy term, invest the rest". No problem, it works for some people. But adding a term rider to the parents' insurance only provides for funereal costs as you say. If its something you want to GIVE to the children for their own use and beyond then you get a Whole Life policy. If you want to cover only funeral costs and be done with it, then do what you recommend. No, I'm not just "one of those folks". I'm a financial advisor by trade (including life insurance) and have been so for close to a decade, so don't try and snow me with Whole Life "building equity" bullshit. If you want to "give" something to your children you invest money in middle of the road mutual funds, not a Whole Life policy that they have to collapse to get the cash value. Hey, just for shits and giggles, why don't you tell the nice people what happens when someone dies with a Whole Life policy in place? Specifically the part about the insurance company keeping the cash surrender value and only paying out the death benefit? Or that to actually access the value of a whole life policy, you have to take a loan and pay interest (on your own money!)? Or that unpaid policy loans decrease the death benefit? S'funny that agents that sell permanent policies never really go over that stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
"Buy a whole life policy because the investments are guaranteed. I mean the insurance company will take every penny of your investments when you die and your beneficiaries won't get any, but guaranteed!" Or "Buy a whole life policy because your investments are guaranteed. Of course, if you try and actually use the money you decrease the value of the insurance you've paid for for 50 years, but guaranteed!" Great choice, there. You'll find better investment rates on 30 year municipal bonds. If you're going to hold yourself out as an expert and give advice, you better damned well be ready to defend yourself when someone calls you our on giving actively harmful advice. grack fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Aug 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
So why not Universal life, only funding the insurance portion? Or Term-30 so you can build an investment base and then roll over in to Term-to-100 at guaranteed rates for estate planning purposes? If you say the investments in Life Insurance contracts aren't that important, either of those options would be much cheaper than Whole Life, so why not? I mean, first you say guaranteed investments are really important, and then in your very next post you say that they're a bonus and not that important. Which one is it? Also, stop pretending compound interest doesn't exist. It just makes you look incredibly, incredibly stupid. grack fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Aug 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
Magic Underwear posted:This is really stupid. If the insurance is the important part, then what you really want is term insurance. If investment is the important part, you get more flexibility, lower fees, and more exposure to market appreciation by simply investing it yourself. You are right that you are paying for a guaranteed death benefit, but how many people actually need that? If I die at 90, my grown children don't need a death benefit. And if you desperately need a permanent policy there are better ways to do it than Whole Life. Universal life with no investments or Term-to-100 both provide the same type of death benefit at cheaper rates.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2013 03:02
|
|
|
So, let's recap the conversation thus far; 1. You say investment guarantees are important and a reason why people should by Whole Life. 2. Then, when responding to my point that in Whole Life policies the insurance company generally keeps the investments, that the investments aren't actually that important. 3. Then, when responding to the idea of buying Universal or Term policies instead, you suddenly say that guaranteed investment returns are important again. 4. Finally, you say that if people want to invest money, they shouldn't be buying insurance, despite the fact that you spent like 10 posts on this page saying that people should "build equity" through Whole Life policies. Which one is it? Your answer seems to change from post to post, hell, even within a single post. I mean, hey, if you want to keep evading questions and changing the answers go nuts. It's your reputation, not mine. grack fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Aug 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
You still haven't directly answered the vast majority of the questions that I've raised in this thread, and it seems you're not going to do so. Instead you just keep parroting GUARANTEE over and over again, and actively changing your answers. So... okay, you win. I mean, there's no reason to continue to try if you're going to constantly sidestep questions.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2013 07:09
|
|