|
|
03-29-2023, 12:09 PM
|
#41
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Chicago West Burbs
Posts: 3,014
|
My original philosophy for figuring out my life insurance amount was to never be worth more dead than alive. IOW, keep the face amount at the minimum necessary for the task. In my case, it was about 1 years' worth of my salary. That would have been enough time for DW to get over her grief and then gotten a good paying job. Fortunately, it never was tested.
|
|
|
|
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!
Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!
|
03-29-2023, 02:00 PM
|
#42
|
Dryer sheet aficionado
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Cary
Posts: 41
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLJim
Life insurance is sold based on emotion. If it was sold on pure mathematics, there would be far fewer policies in force.
|
This!
I've found that many people do not understand FI. They are so used to needing a paycheck they have tunnel vision for anything else.
We have a friend that sells insurance. I had been retired for 4 years or so, I retired at 53. She was talking about insurance. not selling, just discussing. When I said we do not have any life insurance. She was visibly taken back. She said what will DW do if you die. I said, I'm retired, no pension and we live off of our savings. No concept of this. Next question was, what will you do for final expenses? My reply was ... what 10 grand?
Most people do not understand money let alone FI.
|
|
|
03-29-2023, 05:31 PM
|
#43
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Leeward Oahu
Posts: 17,889
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryInCO
I got a variable universal life policy when I was about 23, for a then-unimaginably huge sum. Since it's a VUL the payment has stayed the same for 40+ years. I always figured it was a good deal, since I got the insurance coverage AND my surrender value kept increasing faster than the payments. Well now I'm not as good a risk, the insurance costs are going up, and the policy is designed to extinguish (eat all the surrender value) at age 77, which is 11 years. The surrender value is still growing very slowly, but it'll soon start to lose ground.
I've always counted the insurance payout as a nontrivial part (almost 20%) of my net worth, more $$ for my sons. Especially since I got cancer several years ago, I figured the chances of outliving the insurance were fairly low, so it made sense to keep the policy even when the surrender value starts to decline.
Is that dumb? Should I hold the policy for eventual benefit to my sons, or cancel the policy and pull the surrender value (about 10% of the face value) at its peak?
|
I suppose the first question is to decide if you need the money (well, your survivors, anyway.) If so, you might need to sharpen the pencil to see if it still makes sense.
My Variable was taken out when I was a good risk. I doubt anyone would insure me now. SO, I look at my policy as a good "bet", so to speak. DW is more likely to collect now that I have several "issues" that I didn't when I took it out. My policy doesn't run out of money until about 82 IIRC. I can keep it in force by sending extra premiums (now and/or in the future.)
DW had the same kind of policy and she invested the cash value in the insurance company's aggressive fund. Her cash grew to more than the value of the policy at one point. SO, she cashed in the policy (well, 1031 converted it) to a MYGA and took all the "free" cash to pay for some elective surgery (heh, heh, anticipating that she might get MY insurance pay out, I guess. )
I think there is a huge difference in required thinking if you already have a policy vs taking out a policy. Lots of folks here hate insurance - especially anything that is non-term based. BUT, if you've been paying on a policy for many years, you probably should think long and hard about what to do with it. There are many options to most policies and you need to really dig into them. After all, you've long since paid off the sales person. Likely your less insurable, theoretically making your policy more likely to pay off. I don't have a suggestion (other than "it's complicated" so research, research, research.) YMMV
__________________
Ko'olau's Law -
Anything which can be used can be misused. Anything which can be misused will be.
|
|
|
03-29-2023, 07:53 PM
|
#44
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,968
|
Yeah, life insurance.
Easy answer. If you are young and married and have little children you need life insurance.
At least a million of cheap term life insurance. If you die (what you are protecting) your wife and children won't have a harder time. This will be cheap while you are young.
As you (and your children and your wife) age, you should be building wealth, which is your own insurance. Not to mention the term insurance is growing more and more expensive.
So, when you are FI....You don need no stinkin' life insurance -
|
|
|
03-30-2023, 06:28 AM
|
#45
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 7,372
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaveEnough
We have a friend that sells insurance. I had been retired for 4 years or so, I retired at 53. She was talking about insurance. not selling, just discussing. When I said we do not have any life insurance. She was visibly taken aback. She said what will DW do if you die. I said, I'm retired, no pension and we live off of our savings. No concept of this. Next question was, what will you do for final expenses? My reply was ... what 10 grand?
|
DH's final expenses were closer to $2,000- cremation and a nice church funeral.
I can see needing more life insurance if a couple is mostly dependent on SS. Sometimes it's a very unhappy surprise for the widow to discover after her DH's death that the Survivor benefit is what her late husband was getting and her spousal benefit goes away. (It applies to either partner, of course, but women are more likely to outlive their husbands). An adequate life insurance policy could help with that.
For a couple of years after DH died, AAA was still sending offers for "guaranteed issue life insurance" in small face amounts for final expenses. "You cannot be turned down!" The fine print noted that if you died within 2 years of issue, they just refunded your premiums. Not a bad deal if you have no insurance and want to provide coverage for final expenses. Eventually I sent the offer back and told them to stop, which they did.
|
|
|
03-30-2023, 10:10 AM
|
#46
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: City
Posts: 10,351
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koolau
... if you've been paying on a policy for many years, you probably should think long and hard about what to do with it. ...
|
WADR, this tempts the "sunk cost fallacy." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost) The history of costs is completely irrelevant to a decision today. Today's decision is based on the current financial and emotional facts that pertain. Cash value of the policy, for example, vanishes when the insurance company pays out on the policy, So the payout is not the face value, it is face value less cash value. Also, how does the cost of insurance compare to simply buying term insurance? To spend the cash value on the insurance premiums plus pay whatever other costs and fees are involved with the policy may be more expensive that an alternative -- if insurance is really needed at all.
Lots of facts to consider in the decision, but sunk cost is never one of them.
Behavioral Economist Daniel Kahneman: “The sunk-cost fallacy keeps people for too long in poor jobs, unhappy marriages, and unpromising research projects,”
__________________
Ignoramus et ignorabimus
|
|
|
03-30-2023, 09:43 PM
|
#47
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 8,765
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRLLS
My original philosophy for figuring out my life insurance amount was to never be worth more dead than alive. IOW, keep the face amount at the minimum necessary for the task. In my case, it was about 1 years' worth of my salary. That would have been enough time for DW to get over her grief and then gotten a good paying job. Fortunately, it never was tested.
|
I think/hope that you are underestimating your spouse's affection for you. I don't know anyone who has lost someone dear to them and gotten over their grief in a year. If finances require it, yes, they would try to find a job. But IMHO at least two years of insurance money would be a better choice. Especially since two years worth really isn't that much more than one.
__________________
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." - Anonymous (not Will Rogers or Sam Clemens)
DW and I - FIREd at 50 (7/06), living off assets
|
|
|
03-31-2023, 06:56 AM
|
#48
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Chicago West Burbs
Posts: 3,014
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by harley
I think/hope that you are underestimating your spouse's affection for you. I don't know anyone who has lost someone dear to them and gotten over their grief in a year. If finances require it, yes, they would try to find a job. But IMHO at least two years of insurance money would be a better choice. Especially since two years worth really isn't that much more than one.
|
My statement was a bit tongue in cheek, but not far from reality. TBH, that was about 50 years ago. It was a different time back then. We both were working at the time. The norm was that the husband was expected to return to work if their wife had passed first. In fact, we had no LI policy on her. We both expected each other to continue to work if one of us met our demise first. The amount we chose was a joint decision.
Later, in our early 50's we did take out a much larger 10-year term life policy on me, but nothing on her. The value was about 3 year's of my then income. That expired and we have no LI today.
Many manage to get thru life with the loss of a spouse and having no life insurance at all. My observation of those I know who have lost a spouse, they never really get over it. They just learn how to deal with it. We haven't had to deal with it so far. It is likely that we won't go together, leaving one of us to deal with the loss eventually. Fortunately, we won't have financial issues to deal with.
|
|
|
03-31-2023, 01:51 PM
|
#49
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Leeward Oahu
Posts: 17,889
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobbieB
Yeah, life insurance.
Easy answer. If you are young and married and have little children you need life insurance.
At least a million of cheap term life insurance. If you die (what you are protecting) your wife and children won't have a harder time. This will be cheap while you are young.
As you (and your children and your wife) age, you should be building wealth, which is your own insurance. Not to mention the term insurance is growing more and more expensive.
So, when you are FI....You don need no stinkin' life insurance -
|
I completely agree with your philosophy. But with the special case here (insurance already in force for quite some time) there may be an angle or two to consider. As mentioned, it's a crap shoot whether your beneficiary might reap a nice pay out - especially if your health has changed significantly from the time you took it out as a low risk purchaser.
Take the limiting case: You receive a terminal diagnosis. Would you cancel your insurance policies (for any reason) at that time? Yes, you'd save some premiums, but your beneficiary would not receive a payout that is right around the corner. Stretching the thought a bit further (heh, heh, we're all terminal, after all): What if you have a number of potentially life threatening conditions? Would you give up insurance that is now more likely to pay off? It's not a clear cut decision, but, playing the odds might mean paying the premiums with a better chance of a payoff. That's where I'm at. I can't get my doctors to play the game with me. When I ask a direct question about my own longevity, I get a definitive shoulder shrug. (Thanks a lot doc! ) So far, at least, I'm betting against myself reaching 99 (though that's still my financial plan.) YMMV
__________________
Ko'olau's Law -
Anything which can be used can be misused. Anything which can be misused will be.
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Recent Threads
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
» Quick Links
|
|
|