Why does America hate whole life so much?

versus term, and you quit in the first 10 years, was the whole life a better deal?

quit living or quit paying?

if you quit paying a bit later, the WL might have been a way better deal if it has APL or PUAR because it may carry the coverage while the client cant pay the premiums. Term lapses basically immediately when not paid.

Keep in mind, I believe in covering total protection need with proper durations of term. Add WL, UL or IUL after all protection needs covered, emergency funds in place & baseline retirement savings already in place.

So, for me, it is rarely ever an either/or like you make it out to be because the term is in place 1st in my mind with proper durations to match various debt & income protection life stage needs
 
Last edited:
But one cannot underestimate the damage done by Art Williams's campaign in the 70's and 80's. "

and by Art Van Furniture. everyone bashes that a WL might only have an IRR on CV of 3-4% over the years, but tons of low income & middle income families have tens of thousands of dollars of rooms full of furniture bought on credit to keep up with the jones.

But lets always focus in on the WL for $50 or $100 a month being the poor choice they made that will keep them from financial independence, not the oversized house, too new of cars, shiny new technology & rooms full of furniture (NOTE--If this post was in the FE forum, I would amend this point regarding nice furniture & a stationary house with no wheels)
 
My 401K just took a nosedive.

My max funded mutual WL policy is still doing nicely.

EIA & IUL might be earning their place in a week like this.

The last 3 months I was regretting going to all cash in my brokerage IRA & all 4% fixed Annuity inside my 401k. After reading articles in the summer about the Buffet Indicator Index, I got pretty nervous about the risk with little to no upside reward from the article:. 'Buffett Indicator' Spells Bad News for Stock Investors

But, wow I am now happy I did & missed the 15-20% drop this week. Thinking I may sit next few months out & dollar cost average back in after.
 
Why do you think most publicly held carriers gravitated away from WL and started pushing the hell out of Term?? Public corporations do what makes them the most profit. Mutually held companies do whats in the best interest of the owners of the company... the policy holders...
Publicly traded term providers also promote their "opportunities" as a way to become millionaires (who typically are best suited for WL policies), which is a whacky contradiction really.
 
quit living or quit paying?

if you quit paying a bit later, the WL might have been a way better deal if it has APL or PUAR because it may carry the coverage while the client cant pay the premiums. Term lapses basically immediately when not paid.

Quit paying. Show me ANY whole life policy that leaves you with a better cost base versus term if both are cancelled withing 10 years. Love to see an example with numbers.

The devil is in the details.
 
It certainly could be. How much CV does it have? What is the RPU value of the DB at that point?

Feel free to produce numbers for any example you think leaves a consumer better off if they bought and cancelled a term versus whole life in the first 10 years.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top