Decreasing Term?

Anyone who does not fit that description is a candidate for life insurance, especially a product that is designed to be in place when they die rather than running out at a pre-determined point in time.

So is this a ringing endorsement for WL? If so I agree, if one needs coverage to cover their life value for life then nothing beats WL. Yet I seriously doubt too many would suggest WL to cover a temporary debt issues.
 
Who needs facts when we have mud that can be slung! Such as: Are there DT plans that are fully underwritten or are you going to put 1,000,000 on some type of mortgage or non-med plan which would be about Table D. Personally I would suggest a 5 year term in my above example. I don't know where the Non-Med taboo came from? Yet I'm at a lost on how I'm suppose to handle a equity loan that may come in future years, so tell me how would you handle it, that is a decision of refinancing a home in future years that may or may not happen? Maybe you got a crystal ball, if so how much did you pay for it?


Scary.
 
James, you & I both know that there is a place for term, and a place for perm. Using one form does not preclude using the second.
 
Give me an example of someone who could be considered self insured. Describe their circumstances.

In all the years I have been in this business, I have never met anyone who either could or should be self insured. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what I have overlooked.

My wife and I are an example. Term insurance is needed if you need to replace a wage earners income if the other dies.

My wife and I both work and have high incomes. We are completely debt-free. Our kids are raised. We are building our retirement accounts pretty rapidly. Our funerals and cemetery expenses are prepaid in full.

If I or my wife died today. The other would be sad. But they would not be broke. We could easily live on either one of our incomes.

It would be nice to get a financial windfall if one of us died but it is not necessary. We are self-insured. Neither of us has ever inherited anything from anyone. Neither of us ever had parents who paid for our educations. Everything we accumulated came from working every day and not spending any money that you don't have to. And buying term life insurance that isn't really necessary is a waste of money. I would rather buy stocks or annuities with that money and have a sure thing. Or I can invest it in my marketing and get a much bigger return on it.

If you have ever read the book The Millionaire Next Door then you know how I live. Always have.
 
Last edited:
No debts. No need for income replacement.

No desire to make charitable bequests.

No income tax issues (after death).

No concern about estate shrinkage.

My guess is a good planner could eventually find a need for life insurance. Doesn't mean you will agree.

Some folks really don't care what happens after they are gone. You may be one of them.
 
No debts. No need for income replacement.

No desire to make charitable bequests.

No income tax issues (after death).

No concern about estate shrinkage.

My guess is a good planner could eventually find a need for life insurance. Doesn't mean you will agree.

Some folks really don't care what happens after they are gone. You may be one of them.

You would be correct. We have always told out kids that our job is to give them a good stable home and teach them responsibility and a work ethic.

As far as a good planner finding a need for life insurance for me, I would not expect that to be term life insurance. Some single-pay whole life and annuities would make sense depending on my goals for it.

I give to charities of our choice while we are living. We have a will to divide our estate upon our deaths. No one should plan their life around what we leave them as we plan to spend it while we are living (hopefully.)
 

So why do you feel that way? Is it that you can't defend your position? Whatever that may be, you confuse me with that whole non med thing.

James, you & I both know that there is a place for term, and a place for perm. Using one form does not preclude using the second.

Of course. Hell, there is even good cause for some to have multiple term contracts if the need arises. Which is basically the cornerstone of my comments.
 
So why do you feel that way? Is it that you can't defend your position? Whatever that may be, you confuse me with that whole non med thing.
.


Try to stay focused. You gave the example of someone getting a loan for $1,000,000 and then went on to say that this is a "prime example" of where decreasing term would be ideal or is needed or whatever. I replied that there were no facts in the discussion. What are the rates for this coverage? Lots of shlock companies like Old Mutual offer decreasing term but it is a non-med mortgage type policy so the rates are already at Table D. I would not want to put those rates on a $1000,000 policy particularly if the person is older. Hence, my question about whether there are decreasing term plans that are fully underwritten. I don't know I am asking. If someone recommends DT then they should know the answer and you should not be confused by my asking the question.

When you recommended DT in the example of the $1000,000 loan did you have rates in mind and can you give an example of what those rates would be. Otherwise, the point is meaningless because rates do matter.

Forget about some meaningless retort back to me about my being unable to defend my position or whatever. If you want to advance the discussion put some information with your assertions. Can you give an example of how DT rates fare compared to level term on $1000,000 policy. Choose whatever carriers you want and then we will go from there and see how it looks.

Winter
 
I guess when you have been around the industry as long as I have, you come to realize that no matter how much planning one does, they cannot anticipate everything, and that is why insurance is used.

I certainly am not attempting to change your mind, just hoping to make you realize that for some people, insurance, perm and/or term, needs to be in place as long as they can fog a mirror.

If you don't care about leaving behind a legacy for your children, grandchildren or charity that is fine. Some folks really have no desire to do that. But how about some real life situations just involving you & your wife.

Two incomes, neither dependent on the other. No debt. No bequests.

Fine. Now suppose . . .

Both are in an auto accident. You are killed, your wife is seriously disabled and unable to work. She can live off accumulated assets, but for how long? Will she have enough to take care of routine daily needs as well as her ongoing care & treament?

People tend to think of insurance in terms of what is now or what has happened to them personally in the past. They will deny that anything really bad will ever happen to them.

Fortunes accumulated do go away. There are business reversals and other financial losses that no one plans on.

Someone mentioned Dave Ramsey in another thread. He is an example of someone who had done very well at a very young age and lost it all. Took him years to dig out and make a come back.

Not everyone has the time, health or ability to make a comeback.

You operate in a niche market and apparently do well. I operate in a much broader market but do so in a niche way. No one does what I do with my clients. I can draw in my experience and help those who are willing to listen to understand there are things out there that can disrupt the best laid plans.

Looks like this has gone as far as it needs. Seems the original DT question/argument went way off track a long time ago.

It happens.
 
I guess when you have been around the industry as long as I have, you come to realize that no matter how much planning one does, they cannot anticipate everything, and that is why insurance is used.

I certainly am not attempting to change your mind, just hoping to make you realize that for some people, insurance, perm and/or term, needs to be in place as long as they can fog a mirror.

If you don't care about leaving behind a legacy for your children, grandchildren or charity that is fine. Some folks really have no desire to do that. But how about some real life situations just involving you & your wife.

Two incomes, neither dependent on the other. No debt. No bequests.

Fine. Now suppose . . .

Both are in an auto accident. You are killed, your wife is seriously disabled and unable to work. She can live off accumulated assets, but for how long? Will she have enough to take care of routine daily needs as well as her ongoing care & treament?

People tend to think of insurance in terms of what is now or what has happened to them personally in the past. They will deny that anything really bad will ever happen to them.

Fortunes accumulated do go away. There are business reversals and other financial losses that no one plans on.

Someone mentioned Dave Ramsey in another thread. He is an example of someone who had done very well at a very young age and lost it all. Took him years to dig out and make a come back.

Not everyone has the time, health or ability to make a comeback.

You operate in a niche market and apparently do well. I operate in a much broader market but do so in a niche way. No one does what I do with my clients. I can draw in my experience and help those who are willing to listen to understand there are things out there that can disrupt the best laid plans.

Looks like this has gone as far as it needs. Seems the original DT question/argument went way off track a long time ago.

It happens.

I understand your points but the auto accident example shows the need for DISABILITY insurance not life insurance. The problem would come from one or both of us living but unable to work...not from death.

I do agree we need disability and long-term care insurance.

Back on topic, we all agree that what is needed for one client is unnecessary for another. I think that a decreasing term product would be the best product IF there is a decreasing need for the coverage (such as a specific loan) AND if the decreasing benefit policy had a true cost savings over the level benefit coverage that was available. Admittedly this is just theory with me. I don't know that such policies (decreasing policies that are fully underwritten) even exist.
 
Back
Top