Topic Wiki

Term insurance vs Whole life

Term insurance is the cheapest and simplest.  You pay a premium and  if chv”sh the insured person dies, the beneficiary gets the insurance amount. The higher the risk a person is, the higher the premium.  So people with worse health  will pay more than healthy people for the same amount of insurance, and older people will pay more than younger people.
Level term.  One popular type of term insurance has a level premium for a fixed number of years. Many people prefer this to the traditional type of term insurance where the premium each each year pays for coverage only in that year (and as a result the premiums increase every year, because you are aging). In contrast, a level premium term insurance policy has an unchanging premium amount that is guaranteed for a specific number of years. As a result of the design you are overpaying in the early years of the policy to subsidize your cost in the later years. Popular guarantee periods are 10, 20 or 30 years.  As with any insurance, it pays to get one while you are healthy to lock in the lowest rate possible (in general, health only declines, you rarely hear of people getting healthier with age).
Return of Premium (ROP) Level term. Same as level term, but with a higher premium. At the end of the level period (e.g. 20 years or 30 years) you get back all of your premiums. Your premium is buying you two things: Part pays for the term insurance, and the other part pays for the cash payment you can get if you are alive at the end and didn't miss any premium payments. If you are mathematically inclined you can calculate an IRR and decide if you see a value in doing this.

The policies below combine "investing" with insurance. As they are front-loaded with large fees and commissions, they typically lose money for a few years and then break even. These rarely make sense for lower to middle class families.
Whole life has a level premium that is guaranteed not to increase for as long as you live. Because of insurance laws in the US, this type of insurance policy must always have a "cash value", which is the amount of money you get back if you cancel the policy. That makes Whole Life a much more expensive choice relative to pure insurance coverage (where you'd get nothing back if you cancel) and therefore a bad choice for most people who are not rich (this is complicated to explain in great detail, but it is an effective summary of who is most likely to see good value in buying Whole Life). One fringe benefit of having a cash value in Whole Life is that you have saved money which can be used for your retirement or any other purpose if you are still alive.  For most people though, other savings vehicles will be better.
Universal life is very similar to whole life, in that it is meant to provide insurance coverage for as long as you live (as opposed to Term, which is meant to for a short to medium period of time). The most important difference is that the premium rates for Universal Life are not guaranteed, unlike Whole Life which is completely guaranteed. The concept behind Universal Life is that the insurance company tells you all the charges you are paying for and lets you pay as much or as little as you want for the coverage. Anything extra that you pay goes into an account that can earn interest, and as long as that account doesn't run out of money you stay insured.
Variable Life is an offshoot of Universal Life. The difference is that instead of the extra money going into an account that earns interest, you can choose to invest the extra money in mutual funds. Take my word as an expert in insurance that Variable Universal Life is only for the most investment oriented people (meaning that they barely care at all about the insurance part of the policy). If you are trying to decide on Term or Variable, the answer is always Term.

Choosing a company
Generally, the companies that focus on term insurance will have the best prices (i.e. rates) for term. Those companies are Banner, SBLI, AIG, etc. If you want to buy term, use a quote aggregator to get quotes from several companies at once. Here is one example of an aggregator (a good one!).
[No one here is getting a commission for this link]
http://www.term4sale.com/
https://www.accuquotelife.com/
https://www.matrixdirect.com/term-life-insurance#fv

If you are looking for Whole Life, Universal Life, or any other permanent product, you won't find quotes on aggregators- you will need to go to a company agent or an independent broker. A simple piece of advice for someone in this position is to get quotes from companies that focus on the product you want. For example, Whole Life is done best by mutual companies (e.g. New York Life, Guardian, Northwestern, Mass Mutual, Penn, Mutual of Omaha). Universal Life (and VUL) are the main products of public stock companies (e.g. Metlife, Prudential, etc.). Most big companies sell all the different types of products, but may not be competitive in price for all of them.

One ddf'er feels strongly that when choosing a company to buy Term from, a major factor is the what "conversion" rights the policy comes with. Conversion is a feature that entitles you to buy Whole Life or Universal Life at some point in the future (presumably when you have more money and can afford the higher priced plans) without being underwritten again - meaning you keep your rating no matter how your health may change. Conversion is certainly a valuable benefit if you anticipate needing permanent insurance at some point, and not all companies are created equal. When evaluating conversion features, you need to look at 1) how long does the conversion right last and 2) what product does the company let you convert to. Many companies offer liberal conversion rights but have bad permanent products, and you need to be educated enough to see through this and value it as a poor option.

Valuable tips for when you apply
Underwriting is the insurance company deciding which rating to give each applicant. They check health and driving record, but do not check credit rating. They can approve with their best rating, or pretty much offer whatever they want as each company has many rate classes.

Different companies can and do give different ratings to the exact same people. So if you don't like the rating one company offered, apply to a different company and maybe you'll be happier. Often, they can use the test results from the other company and you won't need to give blood a second time.

Do not eat for at least 12 hours before blood test. You can drink water.

Pregnant women can apply but most companies view blood work and weight as is. Translation: not wise to apply for life insurance while pregnant... do it before.

Shameless plug  :)
After you've done your own research, you could reach out to a broker to make the purchase. Remember to take advise from a broker with a grain of salt, since he is a salesman and your decision affects his income. Best to come prepared.
Henche's Broker, via ddf recommendation
Heshy Sheldon Breier. 
Worldwide Ins.
T:(718)253-9500
F:(718)252-3426
E:Sheldon@ww-ins.com

Author Topic: Whole Life Vs. Term Life Insurance  (Read 141713 times)

Offline yos9694

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Aug 2012
  • Posts: 1912
  • Total likes: 910
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Whole Life Vs. Term Life Insurance
« Reply #360 on: October 06, 2014, 11:56:59 AM »
The question on that would be that term insurance got significantly cheaper from 2000-2008 and I'd wonder if comparing someone in a 30 year ROP then compared to someone that bought term, then replaced and the whole time invested the rest...
BTW do you have a source or article about these ROP plans?

The dramatic drop in term prices were a direct result of the internet quote aggregator, much closer to 2000 than to 2008. All that happened between now and then is that more companies have gotten on the bandwagon rather than pricing themselves out of market, and more people have easy access to the internet.

You can look for sources to corroborate anything I say, but everything I write here in the forums comes from the dusty archives of the attic in my skull. I've been closely affiliated with life insurance regulators going back quite a while, so I'm quite familiar with the industry, its history, and its products. And I've never tried to sell insurance, so I have no bias towards/against products for their income producing value.

Offline skyguy918

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 4081
  • Total likes: 837
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: Queens, NY
Re: Whole Life Vs. Term Life Insurance
« Reply #361 on: October 06, 2014, 12:05:03 PM »
1.2. He also said he was planning to switch, and was just confirming with the ddf'ers that he was doing the right thing. He said that once switching, he was considering ROP.
I give you a +100 on the calculation and cons of ROP. Your take on it should be added to wiki. This way any future ddf'er that considers ROP should know the rate of return, tax implications and cons (the whole thing only works if one is certain they are in for 30 years).
For Smee it's around 5.6% return tax free (which btw Roth IRA's aren't tax free if cashed out when someone is fifty something years old.
Roth IRAs are always tax-free up to the basis (ie you can remove the money you put in dollar for dollar at any time without getting taxed on it because you already paid tax on the money - just as you have on life insurance premiums). The gain becomes tax free after 59.5 (only a few extra years past the 30 year term for a 25yo)
As far as this case of ROP vs. the usual ROP. My understanding is that reg ROP has a return of 4-4.5%, that + the cons of not staying the course for 30 years + the fact that there are better investments when discussing installments of more that $12/month, make it not worthwhile. A 5.6% (guaranteed) tax free rate of return with an installment amount of under $12/month sound good to me.
If 5.6% annually for a 30 year investment horizon sounds good to you (even tax-free and even with only $12/month) then you're at odds with basically all reputable, data-driven retirement strategy and investment theory.

Offline Barryg

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Posts: 1684
  • Total likes: 64
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Whole Life Vs. Term Life Insurance
« Reply #362 on: October 06, 2014, 12:21:36 PM »
Roth IRAs are always tax-free up to the basis (ie you can remove the money you put in dollar for dollar at any time without getting taxed on it because you already paid tax on the money - just as you have on life insurance premiums). The gain becomes tax free after 59.5 (only a few extra years past the 30 year term for a 25yo)If 5.6% annually for a 30 year investment horizon sounds good to you (even tax-free and even with only $12/month) then you're at odds with basically all reputable, data-driven retirement strategy and investment theory.
I know many people that consider a 5.6% guaranteed return a good investment. I don't believe that I am at odds with investment theory. According to my understanding of investment theories most of them would say to diversify. Even risky portfolios would often have some money allocated to bonds. Bonds do not usually have a return close to 5.6%, CMIIW. $12/month may not be all of one's portfolio...
The dramatic drop in term prices were a direct result of the internet quote aggregator, much closer to 2000 than to 2008. All that happened between now and then is that more companies have gotten on the bandwagon rather than pricing themselves out of market, and more people have easy access to the internet.

You can look for sources to corroborate anything I say, but everything I write here in the forums comes from the dusty archives of the attic in my skull. I've been closely affiliated with life insurance regulators going back quite a while, so I'm quite familiar with the industry, its history, and its products. And I've never tried to sell insurance, so I have no bias towards/against products for their income producing value.
I believe you, just I'd think there should be/should have been something like a WSJ article if ppl are currently in guaranteed investments of 10% or more. Was hoping you could point me in the right direction... Would you happen to know the cost of a $1 million ROP term for a young person back in the day?

Offline skyguy918

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 4081
  • Total likes: 837
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: Queens, NY
Re: Whole Life Vs. Term Life Insurance
« Reply #363 on: October 06, 2014, 12:33:51 PM »
I know many people that consider a 5.6% guaranteed return a good investment. I don't believe that I am at odds with investment theory. According to my understanding of investment theories most of them would say to diversify. Even risky portfolios would often have some money allocated to bonds. Bonds do not usually have a return close to 5.6%, CMIIW. $12/month may not be all of one's portfolio...
The longer your horizon the less bond-weighted you're going to be. A typical retirement/target date fund will be at something like a 90/10 stock/bond split for a 30 year investment horizon. 5.6% is fantastic for a guaranteed annual return with a 5 or 10 year horizon, but not for a 30 year holding period.

Offline Barryg

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Posts: 1684
  • Total likes: 64
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Whole Life Vs. Term Life Insurance
« Reply #364 on: October 06, 2014, 12:38:04 PM »
The longer your horizon the less bond-weighted you're going to be. A typical retirement/target date fund will be at something like a 90/10 stock/bond split for a 30 year investment horizon. 5.6% is fantastic for a guaranteed annual return with a 5 or 10 year horizon, but not for a 30 year holding period.
So according to you a 5.6% return should be fine as long as it's 10% of portfolio, or less. Let's say one is putting away $200/month for retirement. So, according to 90/10 split, $180/month would go to stocks and $20 would go to bonds. Why not just put $12 out of the $20 into this ROP, which will have a better return that the bonds?

Offline yos9694

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Aug 2012
  • Posts: 1912
  • Total likes: 910
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Whole Life Vs. Term Life Insurance
« Reply #365 on: October 06, 2014, 12:42:37 PM »
I believe you, just I'd think there should be/should have been something like a WSJ article if ppl are currently in guaranteed investments of 10% or more. Was hoping you could point me in the right direction... Would you happen to know the cost of a $1 million ROP term for a young person back in the day?

There could have been articles about it or not, I wouldn't know. You probably won't be able to find historical term prices too easily by searching Google (no point in recording what prices used to be), either.

Since you asked so nicely though :) I pulled out rates from an old filing back in 2004. Company X was selling $1M of 20 year level term to a 35 year old male for $950 a year, and $1,560 a year for ROP. That gives me 8.3% IRR, but skyguy can check the math. Company X was/is not a great company for term either. If memory serves, rates in 1999 would be high teens (but too hard for me to find those numbers right now).

Offline Barryg

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Posts: 1684
  • Total likes: 64
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Whole Life Vs. Term Life Insurance
« Reply #366 on: October 06, 2014, 12:58:13 PM »
There could have been articles about it or not, I wouldn't know. You probably won't be able to find historical term prices too easily by searching Google (no point in recording what prices used to be), either.

Since you asked so nicely though :) I pulled out rates from an old filing back in 2004. Company X was selling $1M of 20 year level term to a 35 year old male for $950 a year, and $1,560 a year for ROP. That gives me 8.3% IRR, but skyguy can check the math. Company X was/is not a great company for term either. If memory serves, rates in 1999 would be high teens (but too hard for me to find those numbers right now).
A 35 year old can now get 20 year term for $450/year and ROP term for $2000/year. However, 30 year ROP term would be $1800/year... My point was that since term prices dropped (from $950 to $450) the fact that one had a $1560 ROP doesn't necessarily make it a great deal...

Offline skyguy918

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 4081
  • Total likes: 837
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: Queens, NY
Re: Whole Life Vs. Term Life Insurance
« Reply #367 on: October 06, 2014, 01:17:09 PM »
A 35 year old can now get 20 year term for $450/year and ROP term for $2000/year. However, 30 year ROP term would be $1800/year... My point was that since term prices dropped (from $950 to $450) the fact that one had a $1560 ROP doesn't necessarily make it a great deal...
You can't compare the ROP price from then to the term price from now. The point is the additional cost of the ROP over the regular product relative to the full cost of the ROP product. Every company is pricing it separately. Even if it's sold as a separate product, internally they assess the relationship between the 2 products anyway, and price out the ROP feature on it's own. That means that the difference in the Term/ROP ratio is not due to the drop in term prices, because that follows through into base pricing of the ROP. The difference is in how these companies price out the ROP feature itself. And yos
There could have been articles about it or not, I wouldn't know. You probably won't be able to find historical term prices too easily by searching Google (no point in recording what prices used to be), either.

Since you asked so nicely though :) I pulled out rates from an old filing back in 2004. Company X was selling $1M of 20 year level term to a 35 year old male for $950 a year, and $1,560 a year for ROP. That gives me 8.3% IRR, but skyguy can check the math. Company X was/is not a great company for term either. If memory serves, rates in 1999 would be high teens (but too hard for me to find those numbers right now).

And too yos's point, there's lots of competition keeping prices down for regular term. But very relatively few companies sell ROP term.
I came up with 9% before any mortality/lapse assumption [=RATE(20,610,0,-20*1560)]. And that's on a 20 year investment horizon, during which you can probably expect to be comparing to a (slightly) lower CAGR in the market.

Offline Barryg

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Posts: 1684
  • Total likes: 64
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Whole Life Vs. Term Life Insurance
« Reply #368 on: October 06, 2014, 01:25:35 PM »
You can't compare the ROP price from then to the term price from now. The point is the additional cost of the ROP over the regular product relative to the full cost of the ROP product. Every company is pricing it separately. Even if it's sold as a separate product, internally they assess the relationship between the 2 products anyway, and price out the ROP feature on it's own. That means that the difference in the Term/ROP ratio is not due to the drop in term prices, because that follows through into base pricing of the ROP. The difference is in how these companies price out the ROP feature itself. And yosI came up with 9% before any mortality/lapse assumption [=RATE(20,610,0,-20*1560)]. And that's on a 20 year investment horizon, during which you can probably expect to be comparing to a (slightly) lower CAGR in the market.
Maybe now you should argue for ROP and I'll argue against  :P My point was that even if ROP had a return of 9% back in the day, one would have been better off buying the non ROP term in 2004 and then replacing the term ins. in 2008 when prices dropped. In the above example person A with the ROP would still be paying $1560/year while the non ROP person B would be paying $450/year for the term ins without ROP.
This btw is only a con if term prices will drop in the future. Someone young and healthy locking into a (not Allstate, apparently) 30 year term with a competitive company will probably not, IMO, be able to replace the coverage for cheaper coverage in the future.

Offline yos9694

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Aug 2012
  • Posts: 1912
  • Total likes: 910
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Whole Life Vs. Term Life Insurance
« Reply #369 on: October 06, 2014, 01:40:50 PM »
A 35 year old can now get 20 year term for $450/year and ROP term for $2000/year. However, 30 year ROP term would be $1800/year... My point was that since term prices dropped (from $950 to $450) the fact that one had a $1560 ROP doesn't necessarily make it a great deal...

The company that I quoted the $950 does not charge much less than that today. It is most definitely not the same company that charges $450 today. Apples and uncompetitive apples :)

Offline skyguy918

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 4081
  • Total likes: 837
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: Queens, NY
Re: Whole Life Vs. Term Life Insurance
« Reply #370 on: October 06, 2014, 01:42:50 PM »
Maybe now you should argue for ROP and I'll argue against  :P My point was that even if ROP had a return of 9% back in the day, one would have been better off buying the non ROP term in 2004 and then replacing the term ins. in 2008 when prices dropped. In the above example person A with the ROP would still be paying $1560/year while the non ROP person B would be paying $450/year for the term ins without ROP.
This btw is only a con if term prices will drop in the future. Someone young and healthy locking into a (not Allstate, apparently) 30 year term with a competitive company will probably not, IMO, be able to replace the coverage for cheaper coverage in the future.
This is an argument against longer terms in general, nothing to do with this discussion.

Offline Barryg

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Posts: 1684
  • Total likes: 64
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Whole Life Vs. Term Life Insurance
« Reply #371 on: October 06, 2014, 02:02:31 PM »
The company that I quoted the $950 does not charge much less than that today. It is most definitely not the same company that charges $450 today. Apples and uncompetitive apples :)
Funny how on the last two pages of this thread I heard about a company that charges 33.3% too much for ROP and another company that charges 110% more than competition. This is ddf here, not some bizzaro world!

Offline Barryg

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Posts: 1684
  • Total likes: 64
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Whole Life Vs. Term Life Insurance
« Reply #372 on: October 06, 2014, 02:04:18 PM »
This is an argument against longer terms in general, nothing to do with this discussion.
huh? I argue for longer terms, (for half of coverage) not against! 30 year term = good (with competitive company) 40 year term = better (if possible)...

Offline rediplus

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 400
  • Total likes: 3
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
  • Location: nj
Re: Whole Life Vs. Term Life Insurance
« Reply #373 on: October 30, 2014, 01:50:52 PM »
so i've been paying for Metlife term ( no i dont know what type of term) around $1560 for the last two years. $1mm policy . 43 and not in the best of health.  any suggestions on how to lower premium ? from what i'm reading i'm overpaying by alot.

Offline yos9694

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Aug 2012
  • Posts: 1912
  • Total likes: 910
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Whole Life Vs. Term Life Insurance
« Reply #374 on: October 30, 2014, 01:54:32 PM »
so i've been paying for Metlife term ( no i dont know what type of term) around $1560 for the last two years. $1mm policy . 43 and not in the best of health.  any suggestions on how to lower premium ? from what i'm reading i'm overpaying by alot.

Best rates are for best health. The only suggestion I have is shop around because different companies have different views on certain manageable health conditions. You might find that Metlife considers what you have a substandard risk while another company might not blink.

Offline skyguy918

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 4081
  • Total likes: 837
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: Queens, NY
Re: Whole Life Vs. Term Life Insurance
« Reply #375 on: October 30, 2014, 02:17:31 PM »
so i've been paying for Metlife term ( no i dont know what type of term) around $1560 for the last two years. $1mm policy . 43 and not in the best of health.  any suggestions on how to lower premium ? from what i'm reading i'm overpaying by alot.
Are you saying you've been paying $1560/year or that's the total you've paid in premiums thus far?

Offline rediplus

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 400
  • Total likes: 3
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
  • Location: nj
Re: Whole Life Vs. Term Life Insurance
« Reply #376 on: October 30, 2014, 03:30:49 PM »
1560 a year

Offline yos9694

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Aug 2012
  • Posts: 1912
  • Total likes: 910
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Whole Life Vs. Term Life Insurance
« Reply #377 on: October 30, 2014, 04:03:26 PM »
1560 a year

I don't think $1560 is that bad considering your age. A 42 year old of normal health buying 10 year level term would pay around $1000 if no tobacco and almost $3000 if he uses tobacco. Most of the quotes people are throwing around here are for 20 somethings.

Offline skyguy918

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 4081
  • Total likes: 837
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: Queens, NY
Re: Whole Life Vs. Term Life Insurance
« Reply #378 on: October 30, 2014, 04:11:29 PM »
1560 a year

First of all, do you know the length of your level term? Hard to say if that price is good without that info. While we're at it, I assume the policy was sold in NJ (where you list your location)? And do you smoke?

Offline rediplus

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 400
  • Total likes: 3
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
  • Location: nj
Re: Whole Life Vs. Term Life Insurance
« Reply #379 on: October 30, 2014, 05:05:54 PM »
no smoke, in NJ, i think 20 years. i just keep hearing these "selectquote" commercials on the radio that say something like $20 a month for a 40 year old with diabetes or something for $250k policy. so mine sounds like i'm overpaying by alot.