<< <i> > While you'll
- quote -


I might disagree here--usually <b> I hear it referenced in contrast to a
term policy, with the implication that you get the death benefit in
a permanent policy, but you don't in a term policy.</b> Or, to put it
better, it's how the client has heard it when they come to me and
describe their understanding of the issue.</i> >
OK, I agree that this TOO is indeed a common reference. However, the way
you've or they've worded it . . ."you get the death benefit in a permanent
policy, but you don't in a term policy" is not how I've experienced it being
presented. If one is interpreting what is being said to this implication, I
might argue that this is not necessarily the fault of the one trying to state a
point. A permanent policy is designed to pay a death benefit for certain no
matter when the insuring event occurs where a term contract is essentially
designed for use to pay within a relatively short period of time <b> if</b> the
insured event occurs (much like any other type of insurance).


<< <i> I think a real problem is that too often this analysis boils down to
"one liners" on both sides--and these contracts and the situations
you have to deal with are simply too complex for one liners to
provide anything but a noise level. </i> >
Agreed! But I must say . . . "one liners" are just easier to throw out and a
fast way to introduce multiple thoughts/ideas/concepts within a short period of
time. :-)

TTRoberts wrote:

- quote -

I might disagree here--usually I hear it referenced in contrast to a
term policy, with the implication that you get the death benefit in
a permanent policy, but you don't in a term policy. Or, to put it
better, it's how the client has heard it when they come to me and
describe their understanding of the issue.

In reality, buy term and invest the difference gives you a similar
"cash value" equivalent again, presuming you invest the
difference--but, then again, with a number of permanent variants, it
also presumes the policy is funded enough and is designed to develop
a material cash value.

I think a real problem is that too often this analysis boils down to
"one liners" on both sides--and these contracts and the situations
you have to deal with are simply too complex for one liners to
provide anything but a noise level.

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

"Ed Zollars, CPA" ezollar[at]mindspring.com, you wrote:

<< <I> What you have is, effectively, a combination of a decreasing term life
insurance policy (each year the mortality charge is covering a lesser "out of
pocket" payout) with a savings vehicle--in essence, whole whole is an enforced
combination insurance/savings vehicle.</I> >
In "essence" and "effectively" . . . yes. That's as good an analogical way of
understanding it as any. The "savings vehicle" (more correctly known as the
reserves) tends to be more efficient and safe for paying those future costs of
insurance . . .whatever the amount might be.

<< <I> The theory you most often hear raised in opposition to buying traditional
whole life style life insurance is that you should buy term and invest the
difference. And there is a reason for that--because what it represents is an
unbundling of the savings and insurance components that are combined in a
permanent policy. <b> On paper it shouldn't be surprising that this could be
shown to be expected to outperform the bundled product</b> --there is a level of
overhead being taken away.</I> >
To date, over the past 30 years I have not seen this done on a risk adjusted
basis.

<<The hitch, of course, is that there are a lot of people (a majority?) that
will lack the discipline to do "their half" of the unbundled option and will
fail to invest the difference (creating the buy term and blow the difference
theory <grin> ). </I> >
It seems a LARGE majority of people fall into this pit. Note, I am not saying
ALL. ;-)

<< <I> But insurance carriers now have products where the buyer can buy
permanent and either blow the investment inside the policy or effectively never
fund the investment <grin> . I'm not saying those products don't make sense (in
the right circumstance, they do)--but if someone is looking at them as an
"inexpensive" option to duplicate what the whole life policy would do, I get
very concerned unless they are being used as a "term stand-in" of sorts. </I>
This is a very good point and certainly a problem many owners of such policies
have gotten themselves into.

<< <I> As well, the other potential problem with permanent policies is that they
are only permanent if you pay the premiums as required or necessary to keep the
policy in force. A predictable number of individuals will simply fail to make
the payments as scheduled and/or will cash in the policies. <b> While you'll
hear it said in marketing that a permanent policy's advantage is that it will
pay off, that's only true if its in force.</b> </I> >
Usually such a statement is not referring to just the Death Benefit. The "pay
off" also has to do with the Surrender Value.

<< <I> So my view is that it works best for someone that needs the discipline of
an enforced savings vehicle (they won't save on their own), but who is also of
a type that would never consider failing to live up to a contract *and* has the
discipline not to cash in or heavily borrow from the policy. In reality,
<b> there are more of that type out there than you might expect.</b> </I> >
I've found this to be so also.

However, with all the misinformation of all kinds floating around these days,
it's all very confusing to a great many people.

"TTRoberts" <ttroberts[at]aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040514200348.01198.00001336[at]mb-m14.aol.com...
- quote -


I agree.

Brent D. Gardner, ChFC
Chartered Financial Consultant
http://members.cox.net/brentdgardner1378/

"Be ever questioning. Ignorance is not bliss. It is oblivion. You don't go
to heaven if you die dumb. Become better informed. Learn from other's
mistakes. You could not live long enough to make them all yourself." - Hyman
George Rickover (1900-86), Admiral, US Navy, advocated development of
nuclear subs & ships

The Chartered Life Underwriter (CLU) and Chartered Financial Consultant
(ChFC), designations owned and exclusively offered by The American College,
signify the highest standards of academic study and professional excellence
in the financial services industry.

"EClaudius" <guns4liberty[at]excite.com> wrote in message
news:u8Woc.65339$Nn4.16002657[at]twister.nyc.rr.com...
- quote -

That is a theory, not generally accepted by the profession, nor by the
industry at large. In fact, only one company promulgates that myth, and they
were wrong when they started, and they remain wrong to this day.

As a practitioner, I can say with 100% confidence that the theory of
deminishing responsibilities is faulty. It is a myth, plain and simple.
People need MORE insurance as they age, in general, often a LOT more. The
average age of new purchases in my practice is well into the mid-50s now,
and they are generally empty nesters. Last year, I wrote coverage on people
in their 70s and 80s, to both provide for liquidity for transfer costs AND
to cover NEW debt (business and personal).

Income replacement is merely ONE reason to buy insurance. At this point in
time, and througout history, it has never been the #1 reason, despite what
the lay media and armchair amateur authors say.

Brent D. Gardner, ChFC
Chartered Financial Consultant
http://members.cox.net/brentdgardner1378/

"Be ever questioning. Ignorance is not bliss. It is oblivion. You don't go
to heaven if you die dumb. Become better informed. Learn from other's
mistakes. You could not live long enough to make them all yourself." - Hyman
George Rickover (1900-86), Admiral, US Navy, advocated development of
nuclear subs & ships

The Chartered Life Underwriter (CLU) and Chartered Financial Consultant
(ChFC), designations owned and exclusively offered by The American College,
signify the highest standards of academic study and professional excellence
in the financial services industry.

cal-lester wrote:

- quote -

Well, part of the deal when you buy term insurance is that the
insurance is time limited. Obviously, if the insurance "expires"
before the financial obligation it is meant to solve does, that's a
problem--and suggests the wrong tool was used to address the problem.

The strong *probability* is that you will outlive the term coverage,
since otherwise the insurer most likely wouldn't write the policy
<grin> .

Now, I'm not a fan of buying some policy on the *possibility* that I
*might* need it and be unable to get it in the future--because it's
also possible that, as events unfold, it may turn that I've insured
the wrong problem (maybe that disability is looking very
probable--but I diverted funds from that to purchase permanent life
insurance that I may now not be able to continue to make the
payments on, and I don't have a rider that covers disability <grin> ).

- quote -


What you have is, effectively, a combination of a decreasing term
life insurance policy (each year the mortality charge is covering a
lesser "out of pocket" payout) with a savings vehicle--in essence,
whole whole is an enforced combination insurance/savings vehicle.

The theory you most often hear raised in opposition to buying
traditional whole life style life insurance is that you should buy
term and invest the difference. And there is a reason for
that--because what it represents is an unbundling of the savings and
insurance components that are combined in a permanent policy. On
paper it shouldn't be surprising that this could be shown to be
expected to outperform the bundled product--there is a level of
overhead being taken away.

The hitch, of course, is that there are a lot of people (a
majority?) that will lack the discipline to do "their half" of the
unbundled option and will fail to invest the difference (creating
the buy term and blow the difference theory <grin> ).

But insurance carriers now have products where the buyer can buy
permanent and either blow the investment inside the policy or
effectively never fund the investment <grin> . I'm not saying those
products don't make sense (in the right circumstance, they do)--but
if someone is looking at them as an "inexpensive" option to
duplicate what the whole life policy would do, I get very concerned
unless they are being used as a "term stand-in" of sorts.

As well, the other potential problem with permanent policies is that
they are only permanent if you pay the premiums as required or
necessary to keep the policy in force. A predictable number of
individuals will simply fail to make the payments as scheduled
and/or will cash in the policies. While you'll hear it said in
marketing that a permanent policy's advantage is that it will pay
off, that's only true if its in force.

So my view is that it works best for someone that needs the
discipline of an enforced savings vehicle (they won't save on their
own), but who is also of a type that would never consider failing to
live up to a contract *and* has the discipline not to cash in or
heavily borrow from the policy. In reality, there are more of that
type out there than you might expect.

- quote -

But in both cases, you do have a true proportionate lapse of the
risk to the insurer--there's a portion of the face value death
benefit the insurer collected for that they either will never have
to pay (the fully paid up option) *OR* is converted to a term policy
that, as you've noted, is highly unlikely to have to be paid <grin> .

Steve Leimberg's estate planning mailing list had an interesting
article recently on the "death pools" being marketed to charities
where the concern was expressed that such pools, if they were to
work, could put insurers at risk as part of the way they would
"work" is by eliminating the lapse factor on the pool, so that they
insurer "loses" the bet--in essence, insuring that an important
actuarial assumption was wrong, and broke against the insurer. The
author was arguing hard for the importance of expanding the
insurable interest concept to cover this issue.

- quote -

Well, as I note, the when only applies if I've kept the policy fully
in force <grin> .

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

"EClaudius" guns4liberty[at]excite.com writes:

<< <I> <b> Life insurance is for income replacement in the event of your
death.</b> You can
estimate how much you would earn between now and retirement then cover yourself
with decreasing term. </I> >
The statement that "life insurance is for income replacement" is incorrect
unless that's want it is specifically designated for. Life insurance is for
providing immediate cash at the time of an insured's death. It's really that
simple. What can be complicated is determining how much cash, if any, is going
to be needed at any point in time at one's death and for what particular
purposes. For the great majority of time, cash is needed to replace income
loss or help supplement income at the time of someone death. There are many
other reasons why someone might need/want immediate cash at death other than
just income replacement.

I might argue that anyone who only sees life insurance as being for income
replacement really doesn't understand life insurance and what it can really do.

<< <i> Each year that you are alive you will need less insurance because you
will have earned some of that life income.</i> >
In theory this is true. But in reality, this is seldom the case. It ignores
things like inflation, changes in life styles or living standards and/or any
number of other life situation changes that come along. If life were simply
static, then I suppose one could easily plan within such a theory.

First . . . good points on both sides . . .

. . . but let me clarify something,


"cal-lester" cal-lester[at]comcast.net writes:

<< <I> It does this by DECREASING the amount of "RISK" that the Carrier has.</I>
.. . . this is most commonly referred to as the Amount At Risk.


<< <I> The "risk", is the "difference" between the Face Amount, and the
"current Cash Value", </I> >
. . . it's the "amount at risk" that's the difference between Face Amount and
Current Cash Value. The "risk" (the risk of dying is not affected).

<< <I> which is also known as the Guaranteed Reserve of the policy. As that
reserve increases, the <b> RISK decreases</b> , and the current LEVEL premium is
commensurate with that current risk.</I> >
The "amount at risk" decreases and that reserve increases.

And to add . . . where the Death Benefit = Face Amount + Cash Value, you have
an "amount at risk" that stays level. This is why this option tends to cost
more as the amount at risk stays level rather than decreasing as COI insurance
is the same and rises with age.

- quote -


Absolutely no disagreement here. What makes it WORSE,
is the FACT that since your ARE disabled, then in all
probability, your income will cease or at least be dimished.
Whereas, your "cost of living" because of the disability will
in all probability INCREASE.

- quote -

However, the above does NOT take into consideration the
possibility that you will outlive the "term", and still have a real
NEED for Life Insurance. It may not be available at that point
in time, or if it is, the cost would probably be prohibitive.


- quote -


It does this by DECREASING the amount of "RISK" that the
Carrier has. The "risk", is the "difference" between the Face
Amount, and the "current Cash Value", which is also known
as the Guaranteed Reserve of the policy. As that reserve
increases, the RISK decreases, and the current LEVEL
premium is commensurate with that current risk.

If the insured doesn't die early in the cycle
- quote -



A very small percentage of Permanent policies are
permitted to LAPSE (no benefit). Instead, there is a
GUAREANTEE that the EXCESS premiums paid in
(the current cash value) can be applied to purchase
EITHER a FULLY PAID UP policy with a lower Face
Value, or EXTENDED Term Insurance with the SAME
Face Value, for a limited time.


- quote -


Hear Hear ! ! ! ! !
(let's also change "should" to "when"..........)


And, as well, they do have to stay in force
- quote -

cal-lester wrote:

- quote -

Of course, the issue isn't that disability insurance is supposed to
pay off or you were stupid to buy it. The problem, though, is that
if you *do* become totally disabled, the financial consequences are
generally worse for those who depend on you than if you had died.
Again, it's a risk shift issue--the insurer takes on the risk of
providing funds in that situation in exchange for your premiums.

Similarly, term insurance shouldn't normally pay off--one reason why
it's relatively inexpensive is because of that. The trade-off,
again, is that it provides a financial solution for an unlikely, but
financially catastrophic if uninsured, event. What you are buying
is not an investment, but a risk transfer.

Permanent insurance, in its traditional form (death benefit is paid
on face amount, not in additional to cash value), combines what is
effectively a term insurance type of vehicle (found essentially in
the mortality charge) with a savings vehicle (the cash value). Over
time, the savings vehicle absorbs more of the "cost" of providing
the death benefit. If the insured doesn't die early in the cycle
(and, as your term statistics note, that's not likely), then the
savings component serves to pay for a significant proportion of the
eventual death benefit. As well, statistically the insurance
company knows a predictable percentage of those with permanent
policies will cash them in or allow coverage to lapse before they
die--so there's a chunk of those policies where the insurer will
never to have fund any benefit out of their pocket, much like the
term policies you are discussing.

I will note you can buy permanent products that pay a death benefit
*in addition* to the cash value or are designed to have little cash
build-up but a long term guaranteed death benefit if certain minimum
premiums are paid. Of course, you pay for such structures as
there's no such thing as a free lunch (nor should there be--I would
really like my insurer to be solvent and able to pay off should a
claim arise <grin> ). And, as well, they do have to stay in force
until you die for the insurance portion (as opposed to the cash
value) to "pay off" for your heirs.

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

Life insurance is for income replacement in the event of your death. You can
estimate how much you would earn between now and retirement then cover
yourself with decreasing term. Each year that you are alive you will need
less insurance because you will have earned some of that life income.

Disabailty is another matter altogether.

-Joe

"Michael Sullivan" <michael[at]bcect.com> wrote in message
news:1gdqhn9.lpu5sg13hjswaN%michael[at]bcect.com...
- quote -

"Michael Sullivan" <michael[at]bcect.com> wrote in message news:1gdqhn9.lpu5sg13hjswaN%michael[at]bcect.com...
- quote -



This may sound like heresy, but I do not agree with the above. I have been in the Life Insurance industry for over 40 years, attained my CLU designation in 1973. Sold a modest amount of Life Insurance over that time, and a sprinkling of D.I.

I found that "most" people did NOT have a sufficient amount of Life Insurance (term or permanent), and therefore I concentrated on providing for the potential (not possibility) of DEATH. In MY 40 years in the business, in the number of Agencies that I was associated with, there were EXTREMELY few REAL Disability claims. However, MANY people DID Die.

Statistically (at least as far as I can determine) D.I. is the second largest profit item for an overall company. Very few people who do buy D.I. in it's many forms, actually present serious claims. In those serious cases, quite often there is a cash settlement.

btw, the largest profit maker is TERM Insurance. Less than 3% of ALL DEATH CLAIMS are paid on In-Force Term Insurance...................
Cal Lester CLU

Ron Peterson <ron[at]shell.core.com> wrote:

- quote -

Life insurance doesn't help you. You need disability insurance.

And seriously, you *do*. While a large percentage of middle-class folks
own a reasonable amount of life-insurance, even when they have no
dependents, almost nobody has enough disability.

If you are not independently wealthy, you need disability insurance.
Yet relatively few people buy it.


Michael

Ed Zollars, CPA <ezollar[at]mindspring.com> wrote:
- quote -

That's true.

- quote -

Right again.

- quote -

Using expected value is a way to see how much 'overhead' is in the
policy.

- quote -

So how does one estimate how much the heirs will need in the event of
your death?

What happens if you don't die, but become so disabled that you can't
work?

- quote -

Yes, there is going to be overhead in administrating a policy. But a
good insurance provider should find ways to minimize that.

- quote -

I think insurance companies try to find ways of discovering who not to
insure (e.g. smokers).

I realize that insurance companies need to make a profit to survive, but
they shouldn't do it by charging exhorbitant rates, failing to cover
other contingencies, or finding ways to avoid paying off a claim.

--
Ron

Ron Peterson wrote:

- quote -

Except you'd still need to adjust for the population that actually
buys (those that are too good of risks won't buy at this rate) or
are allowed to buy (so the poor risks are excluded to protect the
insurer) the policy. It's also impacted by those that let their
policy lapse prior to its expiration (I don't pay the premium for
whatever reason), another population that may not mirror the
"standard" population risk.

So I'd say your method provides only a very rough estimate of
mortality cost--and then only if you are truly an "average" risk.

- quote -

Well, you'd better come up with some theory since it's the rational
reason to buy the insurance <grin> . You may be insuring a
particular need--for instance, quite often term is used to cover an
outstanding debt, such as the purchase of a home. You have
purchased a residence based on two salaries, but buy life insurance
on both parties to cover the term of the mortgage so if one dies the
debt (which the survivor might not be able to service) goes away.

You might also be insuring to help cover expenses until your
children are out of school and/or to cover the cost of educating
them if your income goes away.

You need to study *your* situation to determine the economic impact
of your death and what would be needed in that case to head off
financial disaster.

As well, this is part of what a *good* agent should provide you
with. You should be paying for *something* if you have an agent in
the mix. I would expect my agent to provide some guidance here to
help me evaluate my needs. Now, that said, it's still my decision
in the end, and you may decide you need less insurance than the
agent thinks you do, but you do need to consider the items he/she
raises.

- quote -

You just insured the wrong thing <grin> . Seriously, that's a
separate risk that has to be dealt with and is more difficult to
deal with. See, if you die there's no cost to you after we deal
with death expenses. But if you are disabled, not only does your
income go away but you continue to need to be fed, clothed, and
likely require medical care.

- quote -

Well, yes and no. Those administrative costs do go somewhere and
pay for certain things, including making sure that your account is
properly serviced and accounted for, that the claims process works
smoothly, and that you can obtain service and answers to inquiries
you might make.

- quote -

Of course, the original poster might *be* a smoker, or for some
other reason be a bad risk. Or, as noted, he may be an excellent
risk and be able to find coverage for significantly less than the
"average" person of his age.

- quote -

All of which are other issues you have to consider when pricing a
policy--and something you can do by simply using the "average"
mortality.

Only the "exorbitant rate" part of your last paragraph is covered by
your method--while the other two issues are ones that a company that
decided to play the "we'll beat anyone's price" game might consider
working with (that is, having more contingencies written in the
policy and/or looking for any reason to be able to avoid paying a
claim on the back end).

Regulation should prevent it, but there would be an argument that
the company would be well ahead of the game generally to price low,
accept virtually any application and then only investigate whether
the claims on the application were true when someone actually dies
and a claim is filed.

That would certainly reduce administrative expense (one of your key
issues <grin> ), since in over 99% of the cases no expense would need
to be incurred investigating an application--the company would end
up collecting a lot of money on policies they never would have paid
off on had the person died (with no one the wiser), unlike a company
that did a more thorough job of investigating up front. The second
company would have both significantly higher administrative costs
*AND* lower revenues.

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

Ron Peterson wrote:

- quote -

Brent wasn't exactly tactful in the way he pointed it out, but I
would note that you are making a few assumptions that would bankrupt
any insurance company that decided to price based on your
methodology, assuming that they were actually allowed to write the
policy <grin> .

First, you are considering the expected value of the policy in
purely quantitative terms based on payout to an "average" person.
Well, that's fine--but we know the *EXPECTED* value will not be the
ACTUAL value of the policy once the period expires. Either he dies
during that period, in which case the policy was actually worth
$100,000 *OR* he doesn't die in which case it was worth $0. So
either his heirs are $99,893 better off because the paid $107 *OR*
he is $107 worse off because he paid the premium--it's tough to come
up with another result (difficult to be a "little bit" dead <grinto get a $107 payoff). And the odds of the "worthless" result are
much greater than the odds of the payoff situation.

Of course, looking at that way it's basically like a gambling
transaction--most likely you end up with nothing, but it's just
possible you get a big payoff (OK, you have to die for that, but hey
some people will do anything to win a bet <grin> ). And, frankly, in
a context where there are only two results, there's a real question
whether an "expected value" analysis is the best way to look at a
transaction. I like expected value as an analytic tools when
looking at a continuous range of potential results, and even then
it's important to know the amount of variance to be expected from
the "expected value" result (the old bell curve issue <grin> ).

In reality, though, that's not why you are buying insurance.
Rather, you are paying money you fully *expect* to lose because you
aren't buying a bet--rather, you are buying a transfer of risk.
Normally that's because, should you die within the period in
question, there is going to be a major financial disaster for your
heirs that the insurance proceeds will serve to solve. *THAT* is
what you are paying the insurer for and the rational reason to buy
that term policy.

Second, your analysis allowed for no costs to administer the policy,
nor any profit for the insurer. It's going to cost *something* to
handle the issues related to the insurance, including compliance
with regulations that help make certain an entity selling an
insurance policy will actually be able to pay off the claim. And,
since there is a risk transfer being taken on by the insurer, that
is going to need to be paid for.

Third, you are assuming the population that will buy the policy is
going to be representative of the population as a whole. But simple
economic reality is that, all things being equal, those who are most
likely to purchase any insurance product are those that believe they
are most likely to have a claim. Similarly, all things being equal,
those who believe they aren't likely to see a claim pay off are less
likely to buy.

So if you priced the policy "right at" the level for the average and
then offered the policy to all comers, you'd expect to find that you
had a population that was a worse than average risk that made up
your population of policy buyers. Those that are truly lower risk
would find another insurer willing to gage that risk and charge a
lower premium.

--
Ed Zollars, CPA
Phoenix, Arizona

Brent D. Gardner, ChFC <bgardner20[at]cox.net> wrote:

- quote -

I don't think so. I merely pointed out where information was located and
did a shirt sleeve calculation.

--
Ron

"Ron Peterson" <ron[at]shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:109j8gtdn4or0b1[at]corp.supernews.com...
- quote -

Ron is wrong, wrong, WRONG, WRONG!!!

This is why actuaries are the ONLY people who are qualified to properly
price risk management product solutions. NOBODY else is qualified. NOT EVEN
CLOSE!

There are MANY factors and variables that go into the pricing of life
insurance -- incidence of mortality (global) is merely ONE. There are
others...MANY OTHERS!

Such as....

Renewability of contract
Renewal policies (re-entry)
Guaranteed premiums in years 2+
Current premiums in years 2+
Costs of administration
Costs of underwriting
Costs of distribution
Expected interest on reserves, in excess of statutory minimums required by
law for future claims on current guaranteed premiums
Expected mortality
Expected lapse rates / persistency
Expected average premium timing (aka float)
Expected modal premiums
Imputed interest for non-annual premiums
Average face amount per policy issued
Average premium per thousand per policy issued
Underwriting standards employed at the point of sale
Underwriting techniques -- book vs. clinical
Age of insured
Gender of insured
Avocation of insured
Occupation of insured
Moral hazards of insured
Health history of insured
Family health history of insured
Region where insured currently lives
Birthplace of insured
Lifestyle of insured
Financial habits of insured
Nationality of insured
Ethnicity of insured
Income of insured
Net worth of insured
Reputation and field underwriting habits/experience of distributor (agent)
Primary distribution channel
Target market of policy
Conversion options
Conversion credits
and, of course, PROFIT for the insurance company

There are others, I'm just listing what I can think of off the top of my
head between sips of my Coca-Cola.

Brent D. Gardner, ChFC
Chartered Financial Consultant
http://members.cox.net/brentdgardner1378/

"Be ever questioning. Ignorance is not bliss. It is oblivion. You don't go
to heaven if you die dumb. Become better informed. Learn from other's
mistakes. You could not live long enough to make them all yourself." - Hyman
George Rickover (1900-86), Admiral, US Navy, advocated development of
nuclear subs & ships

The Chartered Life Underwriter (CLU) and Chartered Financial Consultant
(ChFC), designations owned and exclusively offered by The American College,
signify the highest standards of academic study and professional excellence
in the financial services industry.

_JP <jung_h_park[at]y.a.h.o.o.com> wrote:

- quote -

According to a life table at
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_14.pdf
You have less than 0.17% chance of dying in any given year between the
ages of 30 and 35. So a fair policy will charge you $170 a year for
$100,000 of coverage.

--
Ron

As usual, Brent has done an excellent job on answering most of the questions.

I would add that statistically LESS than 3% of ALL Death Claims are PAID on
"IN FORCE TERM POLICIES". Conversely, 97% of ALL Death Claims are therefore
PAID on some form of In Force Permanent Policies..........

As to "the best policy", Brent has shown that it is the policy that is IN-FORCE
at the time of Death.

There are a number of standard phrases that we offer:

People who own Term do NOT Die- People who Die do not OWN Term Insurance

Term is CHEAP to Buy, EXPENSIVE to OWN

Term is EXCELLENT for a Known Obligation (mortgage, schooling, any NOTE)
Term is TERRIBLE for LIFE Needs (since you do not KNOW when you will Die)

Cal Lester CLU


"Brent D. Gardner, ChFC" <bgardner20[at]cox.net> wrote in message news:Y3Slc.11535$iy5.6005[at]okepread05...
- quote -


======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Please trim the post to which you respond.