Aviva's underwriting is generally not that aggressive. Without knowing why you received preferred rates instead of preferred plus, I would go out on a limb and say you could probably qualify for preferred plus with another company and get a bit lower premium.
Should I Use My Pension or Buy Insurance?
- Thread starter csalter
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #12
My agent did not apply for that. He said that preferred plus is more for younger extremely healthy folks. Plus my weight may be an issue at 6 ft 3in at 240.
Your situation is quite typical of every to-be retiree I know and my answer has always being that they should take up the Joint Survival option.
It much more cheaper than risking your hard won pension.
Just factor in your long term plan and make your choice, no sweat.
Cheers.
It much more cheaper than risking your hard won pension.
Just factor in your long term plan and make your choice, no sweat.
Cheers.
- 1,926
It depends on the ages and the health status of the one being insured. It can make sense in some scenarios.
- Thread starter
- #15
jwb0007
New Member
csalter,
The numbers (actual and implied) in your scenario are large. I understand your anxiety in contemplating any sort of movement--you are afraid of making a mistake. Of course, the truth is, we only know with certainty the absolute best decision after the fact, in hindsight.
That said, ANY decision regarding which option to take really is a life insurance decision. Whether you take a Life Only, or some other Option, they all are based upon actuarial computations, and they all are supposed to be "actuarially equivalent" (though, actuarial tables are used, rather than mortality tables).
A foundational question for you is whether you choose to value the implied (and technically funded for in your plan) very large present value of the sum it takes to guarantee the various income streams that are possible. Your life and your wife's are two obvious instances.
Do you have any children--or church or charity--whom you would want to receive any unpaid portion of that implied value, should you and/or Mrs. fail to live to/through life expectancy (longer than individual LE because you are married, above average income, and on and on). Any unused portion of the sum "earmarked" for your use will revert to the plan, unless you take some kind of corrective action. Of course, living beyond LE is a wonderful way of ensuring that there is no unused portion!
A thought I have is that you might be able to combine your Roth IRA intentions into the solution you seek, in a very imaginative and productive manner, to the significant benefit of any of/all of the people you may care about. Further, you may appreciate the possibility of accomplishing more than one purpose with a dollar of input.
Happy to talk or communicate via PM if you choose.
Jim Boyd
The numbers (actual and implied) in your scenario are large. I understand your anxiety in contemplating any sort of movement--you are afraid of making a mistake. Of course, the truth is, we only know with certainty the absolute best decision after the fact, in hindsight.
That said, ANY decision regarding which option to take really is a life insurance decision. Whether you take a Life Only, or some other Option, they all are based upon actuarial computations, and they all are supposed to be "actuarially equivalent" (though, actuarial tables are used, rather than mortality tables).
A foundational question for you is whether you choose to value the implied (and technically funded for in your plan) very large present value of the sum it takes to guarantee the various income streams that are possible. Your life and your wife's are two obvious instances.
Do you have any children--or church or charity--whom you would want to receive any unpaid portion of that implied value, should you and/or Mrs. fail to live to/through life expectancy (longer than individual LE because you are married, above average income, and on and on). Any unused portion of the sum "earmarked" for your use will revert to the plan, unless you take some kind of corrective action. Of course, living beyond LE is a wonderful way of ensuring that there is no unused portion!
A thought I have is that you might be able to combine your Roth IRA intentions into the solution you seek, in a very imaginative and productive manner, to the significant benefit of any of/all of the people you may care about. Further, you may appreciate the possibility of accomplishing more than one purpose with a dollar of input.
Happy to talk or communicate via PM if you choose.
Jim Boyd
- Thread starter
- #17
I looked for your article but could not find it.
- 586
- Thread starter
- #19
This is funny!!!!!!!!!!!
Darn I sort of missed this one. I'm a little late to the game, but I want to jump in for kicks.
No shocker the boggle heads didn't know what to do with this, if they can't explain it away with "buy a well diversified index fund" it's pretty much outside of their realm.
Why GUL and why Aviva at that? GUL is based off interest rates, and all of those interest assumptions are based on current interest rates. Meaning that GUL is going to look mighty expensive in hind sight a few years down the road if interest rates rise like everyone tells me they are going to. Still, if you insist on GUL, you could at least comp shop this a bit. If you're going to insist on paying for 10 years, this is something you need to compare across the board because one GUL leading on monthly premium for a full pay GUL, might not be the winner for 10 pay endowment.
You could also pick up WL or IUL (with increasing death benefit option, not level) and dump extra money into them. You'll have a nice buddy to accompany your other retirement savings, and a constantly increasing death benefit. So, life insurance stays with you or even gets stronger (out-paces inflation) rather than get weaker like level death benefit GUL. Whole life is probably going to work out better based on your age; you'll need to pay attention to the Paid-up Additions rider. The strategy that would make the most sense is one where you dumps some extra PUA's in even after you retire, when done correctly this will simply be a situation where you move money from one pocket to the other, since after 10 years the whole policy will be growing more in cash than you put in, and if it's all PUA's that you contribute, it's all cash anyway.
So yes, you could make things better on yourself with a Pension Max, but take some time and look at it a little more thoroughly. A lot of agents are trained simply to show you a net present value (NPV) of an income stream, which may or may not be correct.
No shocker the boggle heads didn't know what to do with this, if they can't explain it away with "buy a well diversified index fund" it's pretty much outside of their realm.
Why GUL and why Aviva at that? GUL is based off interest rates, and all of those interest assumptions are based on current interest rates. Meaning that GUL is going to look mighty expensive in hind sight a few years down the road if interest rates rise like everyone tells me they are going to. Still, if you insist on GUL, you could at least comp shop this a bit. If you're going to insist on paying for 10 years, this is something you need to compare across the board because one GUL leading on monthly premium for a full pay GUL, might not be the winner for 10 pay endowment.
You could also pick up WL or IUL (with increasing death benefit option, not level) and dump extra money into them. You'll have a nice buddy to accompany your other retirement savings, and a constantly increasing death benefit. So, life insurance stays with you or even gets stronger (out-paces inflation) rather than get weaker like level death benefit GUL. Whole life is probably going to work out better based on your age; you'll need to pay attention to the Paid-up Additions rider. The strategy that would make the most sense is one where you dumps some extra PUA's in even after you retire, when done correctly this will simply be a situation where you move money from one pocket to the other, since after 10 years the whole policy will be growing more in cash than you put in, and if it's all PUA's that you contribute, it's all cash anyway.
So yes, you could make things better on yourself with a Pension Max, but take some time and look at it a little more thoroughly. A lot of agents are trained simply to show you a net present value (NPV) of an income stream, which may or may not be correct.
Similar threads
