Who offers life insurance for 80 year olds?

Message Author
ampm-bookmark
delicious-small Add to delicious
yahoomyweb-small Add to YahooMyWeb
blinklist-small Add to BlinkList
PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:45 am   Post subject:   

No, because the cash value on a policy for an 80-year-old will be $0 or close to it. The second-to-die policy also maintains minimal cash value.

dgoldenz
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 392

Location: Virginia
5.24 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:06 am   Post subject:   

Okay, the concept of second to die seems right for couples with large volume of estates to leave behind upon which their heirs are needed to pay taxes, am I right? So its sounds more like a tax planner than a life policy.

RupertWBradson
Senior member
Leave a quick message

Rupert W Bradson

Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 692


131.46 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:20 am   Post subject:   

yes rupert !!



its really related to tax planning and its benefits for one's kids.Nice option for those who are high net worth clients. But its agent's work to cover all the basic information about the product while explaining the policy benefit to the client as in most of the cases client is hardly about the allied benefits of the insurance policies.



WinkWink



_________________

www.Parthaconsultancy.info



Its my personal website.
amit
Senior member
Leave a quick message

amit

Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Posts: 365


8.19 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:34 am   Post subject:   

The cash value will be close to zero. However, this has nothing to do with the age of the insured. It has everything to do with the type of policy. This would be a guaranteed universal life policy. These policies are designed strictly for a guaranteed death benefit. If whole life was used, it could build a significant cash surrender value.



The purpose of a second to die policy is to leave money behind at the second death. The ownership structure of the policy is what is used to control the taxation.

InsuranceExpert
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 05 Apr 2009
Posts: 662


142.73 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:39 pm   Post subject:   

The age is relevant to the cash value because of the significantly higher cost-of-insurance component of the UL policy than someone for someone who is 80 years old rather than 30 years old. Either way, there will be minimal cash value on a $250k UL for an 80 year old man.

dgoldenz
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 392

Location: Virginia
5.24 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:10 pm   Post subject:   

The age isn't relevant. The type of policy and the structure of the policy is relevant.



If a 30 year old buys a Guaranteed Universal Life policy, the cash surrender value will always be $0 or close to it. The same is true for an 80 year old or any other age.



On the other hand, if the 80 year old funds his UL with $30,000 instead of $14,000, at age 90, he is probably looking at close to $275,000 of cash value. That's not minimal.



Keep in mind that with a UL, when a 30 year old buys it, he is still paying the rates of an 80 year old when he turns 80.



The UL has minimal cash value because you are designing the policy in that manner. It has nothing to do with the insured's age.

InsuranceExpert
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 05 Apr 2009
Posts: 662


142.73 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:22 pm   Post subject:   

I am assuming with only the premiums paid and no additional money lumped in. If an 80 year old pays the annual premium, the cash value will always be close to $0 because of the high COI. If a 30 year old pays the annual premium, the cash value will increase over time because the COI for his age is much less than the COI at age 80. The higher COI at later ages reduces the cash value.



The 30 year old is still paying the rates of an 80 year old at that age because of the COI, but all of the level premiums paid in the previous 50 years will have likely, not guaranteed, but likely built up a sizeable cash value. If you start the policy at age 80, the COI is so high that it will probably never build a significant cash value. ULs maintain minimal cash value compared to a whole life, but that doesn't mean some companies generate larger cash values than others over time. EX: Sun Life will almost always have close to $0 cash value. John Hancock will fare much better, even though the premiums may be roughly the same.

dgoldenz
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 392

Location: Virginia
5.24 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:48 pm   Post subject:   

With the 80 year old, you are having him pay the smallest possible premium that will GUARANTEE that the policy stays in force.



If you do the same thing with the 30 year, it will also never build cash value.



In neither case is the target premium being paid. The policies are really being structured as liftetime term products. That is why there is no cash build-up. It has absolutely nothing to do with the insured's age.



Run an illustration for a 30 year old at the guaranteed premium level and you'll see that the cash surrender value will ultimately be $0 and will never be much more than this.



By the way, I'm not trying to say that there is a problem with the 80 year old not having cash value. This is the same type of policy that I would use for an 80 year old.



Let's make this simple:





FACT: Universal Life policies purchased at the minimum guaranteed premium level (Guaranteed Universal Life) won't build much/any cash surrender value regardless of the age.



FACT: 80 year olds can purchase life insurance policies that will have substantial cash surrender values.



Therefore, if an 80 year old is purchasing a guaranteed universal life policy, it won't build much/any cash surrender value simply because it is a GUL policy and not because he's 80.

InsuranceExpert
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 05 Apr 2009
Posts: 662


142.73 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:10 pm   Post subject:   

Insurance expert...

If what you are saying is true, then how do you account for the fact that the 30 year would be paying much less in premium at age 80 than the 80 year old who waited to take it out at 80?

At some point, the 30 year old's premium will not be enough to cover the actual cost of the insurance. Where do you think the extra money comes from? Do you think the insurance company is just going to be nice and say, don't worry about it, we'll take the money out of our pocket and just take the loss? It doesn't work that way.



Look at it another way. ALL life inusrance has a basis of yearly renewable term to it. The cost of the actual coverage goes up every year. At some point, any policy with any kind of a side account will have to be dipped into to cover the actual rise in cost of the insurance when the breakover point is reached. That's why you see illustrations showing the cash surrender value going down and eventually to $0, because the cost of insurance has risen. You just can't get around that.



_________________

Do the right thing because it's simply the right thing to do.



Todd R. King

800-590-7207

540-400-6275
TRK3031962
Member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 28 Mar 2009
Posts: 59


19.74 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:33 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
If what you are saying is true




There is no "if" to this. Take a look at any UL policy illustration done at the lowest premium level that is guaranteed. The cash surrender value will be minimal to none at all ages.



Quote:
then how do you account for the fact that the 30 year would be paying much less in premium at age 80 than the 80 year old who waited to take it out at 80?




You need to understand that the guarantees really just make these policies the equivalent of lifetime level term policies. If there was a level term policy that lasted until death, would a 30 year old pay less than an 80 year old? Of course, they would. The reason is 50 extra years of premium payments.



Quote:
ALL life inusrance has a basis of yearly renewable term to it. The cost of the actual coverage goes up every year.




This is true for universal life. It's not true for whole life.



Quote:
At some point, any policy with any kind of a side account will have to be dipped into to cover the actual rise in cost of the insurance when the breakover point is reached.




There is only a side account with UL policies. Term policies and WL policies don't have a side account.



Quote:
That's why you see illustrations showing the cash surrender value going down and eventually to $0, because the cost of insurance has risen. You just can't get around that.




Yes, and when that happens, the insured is going to have pay more and more money every year to keep the policy alive because universal life is nothing more than annually renewable term insurance and a side fund. The exception to this is the fact that many of the policies have a secondary guarantee. This guarantee basically says, "pay a minimum premium every year and we promise to keep the policy in force at the same premium regardless of the cash value." That is what we are talking about. The policies with the lowest guaranteed premiums build almost no cash value. Thus, they are the equivalent to lifetime level term policies.
InsuranceExpert
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 05 Apr 2009
Posts: 662


142.73 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:41 pm   Post subject:   

I don't know what would be considered "almost no cash value" to you, but we always choose the least expensive carrier for the client on our Compulife software when they are looking at a no-lapse UL, and many of them still build a solid cash value on the current side. The guaranteed side with minimum interest and max COI runs out of cash value much more quickly of course, but those are not the current assumptions. Even the guaranteed side with some of the carriers will build a cash value until age ~75 or so for someone in their 30s/40s/50s.

dgoldenz
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 392

Location: Virginia
5.24 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 4:00 pm   Post subject:   

First of all, I think that it's a really bad insurance decision to use a no-lapse UL for someone who isn't old.



How much cash will a 30 year old buying a GUL policy build? I can't believe that it's too much. For $250,000, I bet that the male rates are around $100/month.



However, my point, and I think that you agree, is that the 80 year old isn't going to build much/any cash value if they are minimally funding their policy.



We need to keep in mind that people read these boards without much insurance knowledge. Therefore, when you write that an 80 year old can't build cash value, they may take it at face value and believe that this is true until you later pointed out that you were specifically talking about a policy being minimally funded.

InsuranceExpert
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 05 Apr 2009
Posts: 662


142.73 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:34 am   Post subject:   

as i know in pur country there is no one that offer to old people..no insurance company take risk because they know that person will die in few month ...other countries i do not know.because in our country retirement age is 65.

asianking
New member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Posts: 5


4.81 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:18 pm   Post subject:   

I agree with JacksonFinancial, but i would start saving money in an interest-bearing account to use for your grandmom for funeral arangments. I think this would make sense and cost the least if you are just wanting to have money for final expense costs, simple as that.



_________________

Protect your family and assests with quality term life insurance.
Domcha
New member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 06 Mar 2009
Posts: 17

Location: South U.S.A
8.35 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:44 am   Post subject:   

My brother-in-law gave up a well paid skilled job to go to university. He got his degree and started applying for jobs. He went on benefits and kept applying for jobs that used his degree skills. That was 14 years ago and he hasn't worked since! For ten years he lived off his parents and got paid as their carer. During this time he also got several grants from the Benefits Agency to start his own business - which never got off the ground. For the last 4 years he has lived off his wealthy girlfriend. Should Lofty take the job - damn right he should.

article
New member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 2


1.83 Dollars($)

Quick Reply
Your Name
Subject
Message body
All times are GMT
 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  
Page 5 of 6


Get a Quote
Ask Community Experts

flash plugin

Quick Links

Must See

Community

Hot topics in forums

Latest in blogs

AmPmInsure on Facebook



Page loaded in 0.325 seconds.