Whole Life... Why Not to Love It?

I and many others here have forgotten more about personal investing and the equities and bond markets than most of you will ever know. And I and many others here have probably written more in trade tickets than you and your office ever will.

Plus, you know how to capitalize, use punctuation, form complete sentences and use paragraph breaks.. :laugh:
 
Plus, you know how to capitalize, use punctuation, form complete sentences and use paragraph breaks.. :laugh:

You nail it Louis. BNTRS knows his stuff. Not like some arrogant punk poster who comes on here blasting away when he knows very little
 
Last edited:
never-argue-with-stupid-people-mark-twain.jpg
 
Maybe if dividends are paid as projected, who knows, and I wonder what the chances are a 25 year old will stick to the plan, very few. How many folks do you run into that are still funding a whole life policy after 40 years, few.
 
Maybe if dividends are paid as projected, who knows, and I wonder what the chances are a 25 year old will stick to the plan, very few. How many folks do you run into that are still funding a whole life policy after 40 years, few.

About the same number will stick with the WL plan as will stick with the 'Invest the Difference plan".. The difference usually ends up invested in new cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, etc.
 
About the same number will stick with the WL plan as will stick with the 'Invest the Difference plan".. The difference usually ends up invested in new cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, etc.

Likely less with the BTID crowd...the insurance will look like a bill which gets paid. The investment account, no obligation.

I'm not saying that BTID is bad, just that it is rarely followed.

One thing that needs to be remembered, most people pay for their insurance with their bank account, not their investment account.

Does WL beat the bank? You bet...
 
Maybe if dividends are paid as projected, who knows, and I wonder what the chances are a 25 year old will stick to the plan, very few. How many folks do you run into that are still funding a whole life policy after 40 years, few.

It's also related to how many agents stay in the business and keep in active contact with their clients & policyholders. While whole life policies are (typically) not heavy in maintenance (unlike UL or IUL), they should still be reviewed along with everything else.

If agents can't stay in the business, they can't take care of the existing policies and help remind clients why they bought them in the first place.
 
Most agents don't stay in the business, that's the reason the lapse rates are so high on all permanent policies. The original plans might work, but there is no one to keep reminding the client. Instead, new agents come on the scene and replace the policies. My dad, a 65 year veteran of NYL, still has clients he sold WL to long ago because he stayed in touch.
 
Hello Folks,

I have read this thread and I must say that I find it funny when I read posts amongst insurance agents that you guys are very blunt and sometimes mean to one another in a humorous way. I just wanted some thoughts.

I haver for about 10 or so yours considered buying a permanent policy. I was shown illustrations if I invested $2,000 a month or so and how I would be able to withdraw loan free etc., etc., etc.. I read a few books about investment grade life insurance particularly Be Your Own Banker and the book where the gentleman suggests taking equity out of your home and investing it in insurance. I forget the name of it.

I have found these concepts interesting and considered doing some of them, but I wanted to secure my pension first. I bought 5 additional years called airtime which for me was a good thing. I did that and then started placing money in a 403B again. My wife recently had a baby so I bought some term life insurance, but I also bought long term care insurance for us as well.

Now at 54, I am considering if I should buy permanent insurance not for me, but for my wife. I will retire in 7 years. She will receive a survivors benefit from my pension, plus anything in my 403B, plus she has her own 401K. She will be 40 this year. I was thinking that perhaps I should have her save money through permanent insurance instead of her 401K because of the tax implications. She would be taxed on my pension benefit, my 403B and her 401K. I was thinking that a permanent policy might help her be shielded from Uncle Sam's taxes. I am thinking that she will work at least to age 55 if not until 60. That would give her at least 15 years to contribute to the policy. She would not have to take out a distribution right away. We are not eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA because of income restrictions. My concern about the policy is what if something happened and she could not make the contributions, such as she gets laid off later on or physical ailments. Also, is 15 to 20 years really enough time. I had my son take out a whole life policy when he was 26. He is single, has a little girl and is very,very disciplined. He just contributes to his regularly and does not pay too much to it. The premiums come out of his check and he does not know the difference. He works for the government in a civilian job and he also has Roth account with his TSP which he has been contributing to since he was 19 and had joined the military. He has a long horizon for his policy to really benefit him.

I just wanted to know folks' thoughts on me having my wife discontinue the 401K and start a overfunded whole life policy for retirement. We have a 6 month old right now so the need for insurance is there, but our incomes are really good so we could get along fine if something happened to the other ok. She has a policy through her job and I have one with my job and with Prudential so we would be fine. I am solely looking at this through the retirement window and taxes.
 
Hello Folks,

I have read this thread and I must say that I find it funny when I read posts amongst insurance agents that you guys are very blunt and sometimes mean to one another in a humorous way. I just wanted some thoughts.

I haver for about 10 or so yours considered buying a permanent policy. I was shown illustrations if I invested $2,000 a month or so and how I would be able to withdraw loan free etc., etc., etc.. I read a few books about investment grade life insurance particularly Be Your Own Banker and the book where the gentleman suggests taking equity out of your home and investing it in insurance. I forget the name of it.

I have found these concepts interesting and considered doing some of them, but I wanted to secure my pension first. I bought 5 additional years called airtime which for me was a good thing. I did that and then started placing money in a 403B again. My wife recently had a baby so I bought some term life insurance, but I also bought long term care insurance for us as well.

Now at 54, I am considering if I should buy permanent insurance not for me, but for my wife. I will retire in 7 years. She will receive a survivors benefit from my pension, plus anything in my 403B, plus she has her own 401K. She will be 40 this year. I was thinking that perhaps I should have her save money through permanent insurance instead of her 401K because of the tax implications. She would be taxed on my pension benefit, my 403B and her 401K. I was thinking that a permanent policy might help her be shielded from Uncle Sam's taxes. I am thinking that she will work at least to age 55 if not until 60. That would give her at least 15 years to contribute to the policy. She would not have to take out a distribution right away. We are not eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA because of income restrictions. My concern about the policy is what if something happened and she could not make the contributions, such as she gets laid off later on or physical ailments. Also, is 15 to 20 years really enough time. I had my son take out a whole life policy when he was 26. He is single, has a little girl and is very,very disciplined. He just contributes to his regularly and does not pay too much to it. The premiums come out of his check and he does not know the difference. He works for the government in a civilian job and he also has Roth account with his TSP which he has been contributing to since he was 19 and had joined the military. He has a long horizon for his policy to really benefit him.

I just wanted to know folks' thoughts on me having my wife discontinue the 401K and start a overfunded whole life policy for retirement. We have a 6 month old right now so the need for insurance is there, but our incomes are really good so we could get along fine if something happened to the other ok. She has a policy through her job and I have one with my job and with Prudential so we would be fine. I am solely looking at this through the retirement window and taxes.

You obviously need to sit down and talk with someone but let me offer a couple of thoughts...

You mention that you're fine and yet your life policies (except for your term) are mainly through your jobs. What would happen if one of you passed while unemployed?

Policies can have a waiver of premium for disability, but are you both covered for income loss due to disability?

If her 401k has a match, it will be very difficult for a life policy to outperform her retirement plan. That being said, she could contribute the max to match and use the remainder to fund a policy.

You should really sit down with someone and discuss these issues. There are several agents on this forum who could help.

Good luck!
 
Back
Top