Reply to Life Insurance for mid-50s

Forum Index » Money and Finances

Reply to "Life Insurance for mid-50s"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]We have an advisor and he suggested getting term life back when we were mid 30s, and had young kids and a mortgage. However, he just suggested we do it, and didn't point us to any vendors. I chose a vendor on my own, so he didn't get any kickback from it, that's for sure.

20year term life if you're in mid-50s is going to be super high. The avg life expectancy in the US is 76 years, so there's a high chance the insurer may have to pay out before the term expires.

If you really need it, get 10 year term instead.[/quote]

Counterpoint:  there are some advantages to getting a longer term than you think you'll need.  Things don't always work out the way you think they will.  [b]My in-laws just purchased a term life insurance policy in their mid-60s.  They planned on being retired by now but FIL was laid off at 55, couldn't get rehired at anything close to the same pay, and is now self-employed earning around $40K - he'll need to work until his early-mid 70s.  MIL could survive if he passed prematurely but at a significantly lower standard of living, so they got a term policy.[/b]

Also, you can't just plan on getting the shortest term and then buying a new policy if needed.  Because coverage and pricing are based on your health, developing any serious medical conditions could make life insurance unavailable later on (or prohibitively expensive).  I got a 30-year term at 38 despite the fact that I don't think I'll need it more than 20 years.  If that's the case, I'll just drop it early. But I still have memories of seeing news stories following the 2008 crash of people who thought retirement was imminent yet ended up having to work a lot longer.[/quote]

They were scammed.[/quote]

Uh, no, they weren't scammed - they actually went to one of the online broker places where you speak to an advisor for all of 20 minutes for them to gather your health information and give you a quote.  After that, it was all admin staff.  They had already decided beforehand how much coverage they needed and for how long.

Apparently, no one here believes it but people need and buy life insurance well into their 60s.[/quote]

Any reputable insurance company is going to charge incredibly high premiums for insuring someone in their 60s. It’s sounds like your parents are both in their 60s, so no young children in the picture. This is just to ensure “quality of life” for your MIL. They will be paying probably $6k a year for that policy at least, for a $500k policy.   If they were willing to write him a policy, they have a decent idea of the likelihood of him dying in the next 20 years.

I agree the term life insurance just wrote him the appropriate policy; the scam part in someone making them think it was a good idea. [/quote]

Wrong on all counts.

First, it was a 10-year term, not a 20-year term.  As I mentioned, this is just to cover them for another 8 years or so since FIL has to work longer than original anticipated.  That means the insurance company is only insuring him to age 75, which is still below average life expectancy, and therefore the premiums are not outrageous.  Second, they got a $250K policy, not $500K - they just needed something small to bridge the gap.  They ended up paying around $105/month, nowhere near the prices you suggested.

It's insane that DCUM thinks that getting laid off earlier than anticipated and therefore being unable to save as much as anticipated (and having to work longer) is some outlandishly improbable scenario.  And spending $100/month to ensure that, if FIL were to die prematurely, MIL could still afford to take some trips with her grandkids instead of simply subsisting is frivolous or the result of having been mentally "scammed?"  I feel sorry for your families.[/quote]

That is a phenomenal premium, who is your insurer as I want a new term life insurance in my 50s (new wife , new baby). [/quote]

Not sure of the actual insurance company but they went through SelectQuote, I believe.  They did say the process was a little disorganized, and SelectQuote seemed to take forever to get in touch with their doctor to obtain medical records.

Also, FIL is healthy so that rate is probably not available to everyone.[/quote]

Healthy is fine and all, but age is age.  Please track down the company.[/quote]

Again -- age not as big a concern for insurance company depending on health.[/quote]

Are you trolling us rather than naming the insurance company?[/quote]

That wasn't me.  There's apparently at least one other sane person who understands the basics of life insurance and why it's not unreasonable to purchase it in one's 60s (if still healthy).

Anyway, since you all were making such a hubbub, I texted MIL and the insurance company is Pacific Life - they've been around 150+ years and have an A+ rating.  Coverage: 
 male, age 64 (I believe I initially stated FIL was 65), $250K coverage, 10-year term, preferred rates, $106/month.  There you go.[/quote]

This is insane. A 64 yo man has about a 25 percent chance of dying within 10 years. I can’t believe that this would be profitable for the insurance company…[/quote]

A 64 year old man with no health issues would live to 84.  Not a 25% chance of dying.[/quote]

Well we found the person who didn't take stats 101- although admittedly I don't know the actuarial tables to confirm the 25% number.[/quote]

Here it is for those wondering.  And yes if you add up the death probabilities for a 64 year old male up through 74, yup they add up to 25%.  So that PP was correct.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html[/quote]

Oh, you foolish, foolish people.

The chance of death for a 64-year-old male is not 25% *FOR THE GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD RECEIVE THE RATES QUOTED UPTHREAD (PREFERRED OR PREFERRED BEST).*  Life insurance broker here.  You have no idea how sophisticated life insurance companies have become at gathering and analyzing data.  Anyone who has purchased life insurance in the last couple of years knows that there is at least the possibility of getting MILLIONS of dollars of insurance at very competitive rates with no medical exam (typically up to $3M and up to age 60)—surely insurance companies lose money doing that too, right?

First of all, insurance companies only assign customers a rate class after assessing medical history (with or without a medical exam); prescription medication history from databases; income, net worth, and adverse financial history such as bankruptcy or tax liens; criminal history; family medical history; electronic driving records; nicotine/drug/alcohol use and history; adverse underwriting decisions made by other insurance companies (yet another database); foreign travel; and hazardous activities (scuba diving, flying as a pilot, etc.).  If you think that a 64-year-old male who scores favorably on all of the above measures has a 25% chance of dying in the next 10 years, every insurance company under the sun will want to do business with you because you are totally incapable of correctly assessing risk—and they will win.

Second, beyond the measures described above, insurance companies have become incredibly adept at assessing customers via obscure data points.  For example, all customers are assessed an intangible "risk classifier" score which takes into account even things like the number of prior addresses a customer has had (with fewer addresses being associated with more stability and resulting in a higher score).  They are not allowed to use credit scores in evaluating life insurance applications, but the mountains of data they gather essentially predict credit scores—and credit scores are in turn extremely effective in predicting the risk, even mortality risk, associated with an individual.

So please stop with the nonsense about a 25% chance of death in one's 60s—it's totally meaningless as it relates to life insurance company risk.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics