- 29,483
I certainly cannot argue with a person making a decision of something not to sell and calling that an ethical basis of their "product to sell" decisions. However, your "statements of fact" in this and the previous post run contrary to posts in this thread, my personal experience and broader site content.
Comments about using life insurance as a savings vehicle were not made to construe life insurance as the "be all" "end all" of savings vehicles. The op asked whether life insurance or savings was/is "better". The responses indicated that there are a variety of vehicles to be used in accumulating wealth and that life insurance has a significant place in the product array. A client would be poorly served by any advisor that recommended a single product to the exclusion of all others, whether that product is life insurance, a stock account or a roth ira.
Saying that a single person does not need life insurance is an arbitrary and incorrect prospect pre qualification. A parallel would be my driving down a dusty country road in the south eastern US and saying "The residents of that house do not need a bible dictionary because they have a rusty pickup." or The residents of this house do not need a bible dictionary because it has green shutters." IMO a person's marital status, single or married is not a qualifier of whether or not they need life insurance. From the limited perspective I have at this time I would say that the sale of a life insurance policy is dependent upon the abilities of the life insurance agent and the probable purchaser to merge the probable purchaser's perceived need for life insurance, the probable purchaser's real need for life insurance and the probable purchaser's ability to pay for life insurance with an appropriate product the life insurance agent can provide.
(Please understand in the following remarks I am using rounded numbers for both time and dollars-the concept is the issue.)
If you look at the "popular forums" list, you will see that the "final expense" forum has roughly twice the amount of posts as the "life insurance" forum. Yet in my current state of knowledge, I would consider final expense insurance to be a subset of life insurance. One for which there is a broad desire and need and one which is based precisely on the principle of saving for future needs. This is sold to, and meets the needs of, folks "originally single" or "resingled" or "firstly married" or "remarried".
I made inquiry in the final expense forum. A seller of final expense products told me that a $10K policy is one of his most commonly asked for products. At age 72 in the state of Kansas I can buy a $10K whole life policy for $740 a year. If I was 32 I could buy the $10K policy for $160 a year.
As it happens, 40 years ago I had gotten out of the service and was attending school on the GI Bill. For the first time in my life I had a small bit of extra money. I decided that one of the things I should do was to purchase a life insurance policy so, in the event something happened to me-such as a car accident, my death related expenses would not be a burden to my parents. I think the arguments at that time were "don't use life insurance as savings-whole life is not a wise purchase" "buy term if you need insurance and just pay for the insurance". I had had a great deal of trouble finding jobs, keeping jobs and saving any money-so I disregarded that advice because I considered that whole life would be a "forced" savings plan. I purchased a $10K whole life policy for---- $160 per year!
In the ensuing 40 years I was fired 4 times. I was unemployed 6-8 years of that 40. Savings accounts, IRA's, a Merrill Lynch Sharebuilder account and a 401k account and a $100K life insurance policy came and went. At one point when I had been unemployed for around 2 years, was diagnosed with cancer and we were making payment on 2 houses because I am a hoarder, I almost lost everything including the $10K life insurance and became homeless with a family of 4. My retirement is arthritis and social security with a travel horizon of the backyard and the grocery store. If my final medical costs, whenever they choose to appear, have much substance or significant duration, any financial resources I have will disappear like straw in a hurricane. Through all that I have managed to keep that $10k policy Only because of accumulated cash value and the policy loan provisions for premium payment-including I think 6% interest.
Now let's assume I can beat the mortality tables and go to at least 92, ie another 20 years. (And let's ignore a discussion of paying more in premiums than the face of the coverage because I don't know how to deal with that.)
$740-$160 = $580 per year. $580 / yr for 20 years = $11,600. $160 per year for 60 years = $9,600. Buying a $10K policy while in my 30's, single, with no kids and "not needing insurance" and holding it for 60 years is cheaper than buying the same coverage at age 72, when "everybody" is buying it and just holding it for 20 years.
(the following does not agree with what customer service told me, I'll have to get some clarification because they said I'd paid $8k+.)
At $160 per year for 40 years I'd have paid $6,400. I have a cash value in the policy of $6k+.
In short, arguments that a (young) single person with no children does not need life insurance, or that life insurance is not a savings vehicle, have no standing in this corner of the world.
LD, though I think you could do well with Med Supps, I think your true calling is Life and Annuities.
