Why term life insurance really is the right choice!!

March 1, 2007

Ask a life insurance agent that has built his career convincing people that whole life insurance is everything you will ever need, about term insurance, and then cover your ears. You will still be able to hear them just fine. Their voice will have raised enough to overcome your hands and probably a few pillows. I’ll explain their disdain for term insurance and their love of whole life shortly.

 Term insurance is simply the right choice for most of us average folks. The truth is that if I want to make sure my family is taken care while my children are still dependent on me, a 20 year term is the perfect choice. If I am thinking there might be more children in the near future, maybe a 30 year term is the best idea. Why term and not whole life for family protection??

Let’s say we determine that $500,000 is the right amount of coverage during those family years. Just for the sake of this model we’ll say the parents are 35 and very healthy. They make about $40,000 a year. The mom would pay about $235 a year for a 20 year term insurance policy and $370 a year for a 30 year guaranteed level premium term insurance policy. The dad would pay $255 and $475 respectively. I should note that getting these prices will require going through an independent life insurance agent who has access to the lowest life insurance quotes. Also keep in mind that those rates are guaranteed to remain level for the full 20 or 30 years.

Now, in walks Mr Whole Life agent.  He knows they only make $40,000, so today he is going to cut them some slack and suggest that they go with a universal life policy with a no lapse guarantee. With his insurance quotes the dad would be looking at a level rate until age 100 of $2225 a year and the mom at $1765 a year. Round figures they are looking at $4000 a year. That is one tenth of their pretax income for life insurance. A 30 year term would have been about 1/50th of their pretax income.

 Oh, I almost forgot to tell you why Mr Whole Life sells whole life and universal life. A conservative guess is that he will make a 75% commission on the first year and about a 5% renewal every year after that. So if he doesn’t sell you term insurance, which really is the more appropriate product, he will make $3000 the first year and $200 a year each year you renew.

Term insurance is a little different.  In round figures, a 30 year term on Mom and Dad would run about $850 a year. The life insurance agent would make about 75% of the first year premium, or $612.50. He doesn’t get any renewals after that. Do you suppose Mr Whole Life’s opinion on the appropriate product is influenced by his bottom line??

Entry Filed under: Independent agent, insurance, insurance quotes, life insurance, term insurance, universal life, whole life. .

12 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Term Life Online  |  March 2, 2007 at 1:43 am

    I couldn’t agree more with you about term life insurance.

    Term life insurance provides the maximum amount of life insurance protection for your loved ones at the lowest cost. That’s the bottom line.

    If you are on a budget, or need to get the most affordable protection for your family, then term insurance is the right choice.

    In fact, some insurance companies now offer you up to $250,000 of term life insurance with no medical exam required. You can get quotes and apply online in minutes.

    Comparing quotes for term life insurance has never been easier. You just answer a few simple questions and get instant quotes from multiple insurers for savings up to 50% or more.

  • 2. TIM  |  March 9, 2007 at 8:07 pm

    I agree! Term insurance for a young family on a budget is the only way to go.

  • 3. ben  |  March 19, 2007 at 7:03 am

    yes you are right…term insurance is the right approach to budget.I recommend your blog to debtcc blog hunt contest.

  • 4. Sean  |  June 29, 2007 at 11:45 pm

    This is a really good and informative post. I wrestled between the choice of whole life and term insurance and I ended up going with globe term insurance. The rates are pretty decent and the coverage seems good. Hopefully I won’t need to use it anytime soon.

  • 5. Ed Hinerman  |  June 30, 2007 at 5:22 pm

    Sean, If you bought from Globe you are paying too much. That’s the bad news. The good news is that you’ve got coverage so while you look for better rates the need is covered.

  • 6. Arizona Insurance Life, R&hellip  |  July 3, 2007 at 10:51 pm

    I think those renewal numbers are a bit high but I would like to see someone buy lots of term and have their family protected than buy a small permanent product that would benefit them later on. Hopefully at some point a client can supplement their term with some permanent. In retirement, they are going to wish they had locked up at least some permanent life insurance.

  • 7. Mikey  |  July 27, 2007 at 7:25 pm

    Sean – Globe is known to be a scam.

    It prays on those who are easily confused by larger insurance companies sites/contracts.

    I would encourage you to look at a real life insurance company, not a “burial insurance” company. For the price you are paying, you could easily get x10 the coverage. My 2 cents

  • 8. Kevin  |  October 6, 2007 at 9:52 am

    Funny thing how Only term and Universal life comes into play. Why don’t you input what whole life can do too…? It will really help people out if you also describe what whole life is and does. Trying to wing for term and can’t even fully disclose all the infos. Using info that will be to the advantage of term is great but pls…not at the cost of other’s savings.

  • 9. Chris the life insurance &hellip  |  December 10, 2007 at 2:50 pm

    Another question to think about is whether a joint life or two single life policies is best value? Many people choose a joint life policy because it is cheaper but rarely think about the consequences if a claim was made.

  • 10. Ed Hinerman  |  December 10, 2007 at 3:08 pm

    Chris,
    I don’t know about the UK, but virtually all incentive to purchase joint life has been removed here. Generally the price savings in finding the best company fit as individuals trumps any savings a couple might find in applying together.

    While there are some sticking points when a claim is made, I think the more relevant issue is what happens when there is a divorce and the husband is still the owner and beneficiary of a policy on his ex-wife.

  • 11. adrienne bagwell  |  April 8, 2008 at 2:57 am

    I completely agree with you on the young family with children case and low income. Term is definitly best for their situation. However, you have to access each situation, because I have found that for my empty nest clients that UL works best b/c they dont have to worry about the policy ending when there health is changing or renewing for a shorter term when they need it for longer. So like I say no policy, whether it be term, WL, or UL is a one size fit all.

  • 12. Ocearcepync  |  October 21, 2008 at 3:32 am

    Hello,
    My Name is, Christopher
    great posts on here
    this is my site:

    http://2NLzTtB5.spaces.live.com/

Leave a Comment

Required

Required, hidden

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Calendar

March 2007
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Most Recent Posts