Speaking ill of Life Insurance

WL is great as part of a financial plan. I don't think any of the agents in this forum selling WL would recommend it as the entirety of a financial plan. It is the safe part of that plan and in that sense it outperforms many other safe investments.

You don't know all of the agents on this forum. Several do present WL as the swiss army knife of financial plans.

It has its place.

Dan
 
You don't know all of the agents on this forum. Several do present WL as the swiss army knife of financial plans.

It has its place.

Dan

ROFL... "The Swiss Army Knife of financial plans"

That is a good one, and no doubt, there are those that DO THINK that the ole WL policy can slice and dice and cook the eggs over easy... which would be known as the Ron Popeil approach to financial planning.
 
WL is great as part of a financial plan. I don't think any of the agents in this forum selling WL would recommend it as the entirety of a financial plan. It is the safe part of that plan and in that sense it outperforms many other safe investments.

Look, I grew up and was weaned in this biz starting in life insurance. I was personally trained by Jack and Garry Kinder.... but I'll dare you to find me a single known-name financial planner that would echo your comment about WHOLE LIFE being a "great part" of a financial plan? C'mon.... do you REALLY believe that nonsense when you've got all the credible mouthpieces in the FP industry saying the EXACT opposite?

(CAVEAT: I am a huge believer in PERMANENT insurance... AFTER your net worth exceeds $1M and you've maxed out all the tax advantaged plans you can... and even then it's iffy).

I certainly will defend your right to "sell" anything you'd like... but we all know that WL is a tough, tough sell... unless you've gone off the deep end and are selling Castiglione's LEAP program....(never mind, we won't go there).
 
Why would you want to get life insurance after your net worth exceeds a certain amount? Life insurance is for when you do not have a certain net worth yet. If you do not believe in having a "safe" part of one's portfolio that is fine many people are of that belief and it works out fine. Permanent life insurance is for the people who want a safe part of their portfolio that outperforms corporate bonds and CDs on a tax equivalent basis.

Yes it is usually best for the higher net worth individuals who pay higher taxes and have less access to tax qualified plans.
 
Why would you want to get life insurance after your net worth exceeds a certain amount

Estate tax liquidity
Estate equalization
Pay off debt
Charitable bequests
Buy sell agreements
 
Why would you want to get life insurance after your net worth exceeds a certain amount? Life insurance is for when you do not have a certain net worth yet. If you do not believe in having a "safe" part of one's portfolio that is fine many people are of that belief and it works out fine. Permanent life insurance is for the people who want a safe part of their portfolio that outperforms corporate bonds and CDs on a tax equivalent basis.

Yes it is usually best for the higher net worth individuals who pay higher taxes and have less access to tax qualified plans.

If there are two things that wealthy individuals understand better than anything is "Value" and "Discounts". What a properly executed life insurance plan for a wealthy individual offers is the ability to mitigate the estate tax via discounted dollars, hence creating an excellent VALUE.

Why would one want to pay 100 cents on the dollar of taxes if you could pay 20 cents on the dollar...? Life insurance offers this benefit for the right scenario. Usually done in large single premium or short pay plans... which net a higher DB than the premium, and immediate liquidity to the estate for taxes. Properly executed means it will keep the insurance proceeds from being included into the estate of the insured via Trusts, etc. Hence it doesn't add to the tax problem.

Any estate planner will have 100 out of 100 wealthy clients purchasing life insurance: (insurability aside).
 
Usually done in large single premium or short pay plans... which net a higher DB than the premium

Where did you get this information? Most cases I have worked want to pay as little as possible annually for several reasons.
 
Usually done in large single premium or short pay plans... which net a higher DB than the premium

Where did you get this information? Most cases I have worked want to pay as little as possible annually for several reasons.


Most cases don't want to "buy insurance" or pay premiums at all, but will gladly reposition assets to save greatly on estate taxes. I have seen far more cases done with single prem than any other way... Just a method of pre-paying estate taxes with discounted dollars.
 
Why would you want to get life insurance after your net worth exceeds a certain amount? Life insurance is for when you do not have a certain net worth yet. If you do not believe in having a "safe" part of one's portfolio that is fine many people are of that belief and it works out fine. Permanent life insurance is for the people who want a safe part of their portfolio that outperforms corporate bonds and CDs on a tax equivalent basis.

Yes it is usually best for the higher net worth individuals who pay higher taxes and have less access to tax qualified plans.

Did you really just ask that question?

Life insurance CAN be (in many cases) one of the most miraculous inventions of the modern world and the resulting posts to your question are just some of the reasons why......!!!
 
A 35 year old with substantial income (300K+) will very likely have estate planning concerns. If his job is new he is not yet worth $1 million but he will be worth that and more. Should he wait for that benchmark or purchase some customized pay period insurance (paid up by 65 and whatnot) when he is younger and easier to insure?

The comment about insuring existing assets was not don,t do it but why wait. Barring liquidity concerns shouldn't one get the insurance earlier?
 
Back
Top