Originally posted by @Angelique F.:
What do you make of this statement?:
Not every life insurance agent carries or wants to carry a securities license. Which means the only solutions in their arsenal they can present to someone who wants to put a lot of money aside for the future involves overfunding whole life, universal life, variable universal life or equity-index universal life policies. When all they have is a hammer, the danger is that everything might start looking like a nail.
This is an interesting statement. I did choose to not carry my securities license. It's something I considered. These were business decisions I made. I would never suggest that life insurance can replace well rounded financial planning and investments. Life insurance is much like the healthy balance to investments (I don't consider life insurance an investment. I consider it insurance - can you build a policy that can grow some interest, of course, but it doesn't replace other forms of investment).
With that said, many people haven't been properly taught how to fit life insurance into their financial world. One of the reasons I got into this line of business is because I got questionable life insurance advice from a financial planner. I wanted to specialize in something that is not well understood in the financial world.
No one would think that investing in an IRA is some kind of scam thought up by financial planners to stick it to the common man, but sometimes life insurance can get that rap.
I would take you back to your original post where you encourage young people to really consider their future. I talk with many people every day. Quite often when I get to the topic of whole life, they reiterate what they've heard from a talking head on TV. "Buy term and invest the difference." They'll usually preface it with, "What do you think, I'm stupid?" The answer is no. We've been told that term coverage is the answer when the truth is term coverage, just like all financial products is a tool. No one product is bad all of the time, you just have to know how to use them.
When you're young term is great! Right now $500k for 20 years for a 20 year old female with the best health class is $16/ month (the commercials always quote for women because they're cheaper). Maybe she chooses to buy a GUL (guaranteed universal life policy - offers long term coverage and most often does not build cash value) for $500k until age 121 and pays $110/ month. Maybe she buys a dividend earning whole life policy for a whopping $400/ month for 20 years (nothing fancy, just a 20 pay whole life) and will have guaranteed $500k for life in death benefit. If she does that she'll pay $96k total. after 20 years the estimated death benefit rises to $700k and she has an estimated $150k in cash value after dividends that you can borrow from. Can you make more money faster? Yes. Is it sweet that you have more coverage than the average person ever will? I think so.
Even better, let's say my friend's parents buy her a $500k policy at age 2. Pay it off in 20 years (less than $300/ month or $70k total). At age 20 nothing else is owed into the policy. By age 40 she has an estimated $1 million policy with a $200k cash value. At age 60 an estimated $1.4 million death benefit and $600k in cash. Paying this same policy over the course of 100 years (instead of 20) means a $200 monthly premium. For an extra $24k (over the course of 20 years - $1,200/ year) you give your child a gift instead of a monthly payment. That's not even true over-funding. That's just paying a policy off in 20 years. Still, it's a huge savings. Same is more so true of truly over-funding your account.
Now, let's say our friend buys a 30 year term policy at age 20 for $25/ month (that's $9k lost). Let's say she hasn't saved and is age 50 looking for more coverage. Maybe she's gained some weight has a thyroid problem, or anxiety because she never saved money. Now her new 30 year term policy carrying her to age 80 (good enough the average person passes around age 82). At standard rates her coverage is $190/ month (this round will cost $68,400 total). She spends $77,400 with nothing to show for it. Of course, she retains the ability to invest the difference, but she spent it on quarter pounders and a Mazda lease. She dies at age 79 (conveniently enough) leaving $500k to her family tax free. Our whole life friend dies at the same age leaving $1.8 million tax free to family spending an extra $20k.
This is going to surprise you, but my average client is aged 60. The mode is around 65. Do you know how much a 30 year $500k term policy for a 65 year old in standard health is? You can't buy one (well, by traditional means). A 20 year policy? around $500/ month. Strangely enough, I still get people in their 60's calling me to buy coverage who still say to me that whole life is for suckers. It may be.
I don't care how you make your money for the future, just consider it. If you need help, there are worse things than participating whole life. I get people calling me in their 70's and 80's every single day who have not saved $10k to take care of their final expenses. Just know what your options are and do something. I know this was a long response. I hope it spoke to the heart of your question. Life insurance is about so much more than making money. It is one of the most basic forms of protection.
Not all of these examples are practical, but life insurance is scalable no matter where you enter.
* rates / accumulations in this example are realistic, but are not actual penny-for penny rates.