What you did was pick a situation where the person is going to die during the term. That is cherry picking. If possible why not pick term on a 90 year old. Given the age you chose and 20 year term, that person will be 82 but average life expectancy for a male is 78 and you made the person a smoker with less than great health. Even still the numbers dont add up since as i mentioned there is term for cheaper with other companies.In the example you gave, that person would have spent over 72k to get a 100k return over 20 years. That is a horrible return and that assumes they dont surrender the policy like almost 75% of people who purchase whole life. If they are the type of person who needs to pay monthly then its doubly likely they will be forced to surrender early bc of insufficient funds. In these situations, you are pretending that insurance can solve a financial/savings problem. At age 82, if you need 100k of insurance you have done something wrong and will not be able to pay the premiums.What you are trying to do is put whole life in a good light. It is a horrible decision unless you need permanent life insurance. If you need it then you need to pay the extra. As an investment it is on average always a loser for the client. It has to be since the insurance compnay has to make money or they go out of business. They buy bonds/us treasuries and take a cut off the interest and pay the rest to you at your death. You could always invest in those things directly and do better.So yes you are misleading people if you are pretending its a good investment.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra