- 717
I think the evidence points to keeping the existing policy for 2 more years.
The savings of a new 20 year term now vs 2 years from now is not that compelling from a price standpoint, considering it will take almost 10 years of the policy to make up that initial additional outlay.
It's not a stretch for a 50 year old in good health to believe that they will still be in good health at age 52.
You have to also think about the back end of the policy...as given the choice, I think more insureds would want a policy that ran to 72 vs age 70, when health issues are more likely.
The savings of a new 20 year term now vs 2 years from now is not that compelling from a price standpoint, considering it will take almost 10 years of the policy to make up that initial additional outlay.
It's not a stretch for a 50 year old in good health to believe that they will still be in good health at age 52.
You have to also think about the back end of the policy...as given the choice, I think more insureds would want a policy that ran to 72 vs age 70, when health issues are more likely.