Term Life Insurance Plan vs. Universal Life Plan

I am something of a newbie when it comes to Life Insurance and my wife is insisting that she have it before she turns 40, which is Friday (sidenote: she says the rates are lower if we apply before she turns 40 – is that so?).

I read in a Motley Fool book that it is much wiser to buy term, but the insurance salesman is pushing a Universal plan, and my wife is leaning that way. I’m sure different circumstances may play some role in each person’s best choice, but can anyone provide some insight here?

Our situation: My wife is a dental hygeinist, earns just enough to pay the bills while I am, for now, the stay-at-home dad doing video projects here and there, but it has not been a huge source of income. Our son is 2.

The plans we are looking at are thus:
Term: 75 per mo., $100K return on death;
Uni Life: 53 per mo., $250K return on death.

Any points of wisdom are sincerely appreciated.

Any unbiased insurance guide will tell you, that for virtually everyone:

  1. Whole: good for insurance company, bad for you.
  2. Term: good for you, bad for insurance company.

So guess which one the salesman is of course going to push?

Get thee to a library and read some Consumer Reports. Whatever you do, don’t listen to the salesman.

It all depends on the individual. A term policy can be a very good deal for someone that is fiscally responsible and will invest the premium savings in something more useful than a plasma TV or something.

That said, are you sure those numbers are correct? If they are then it’s a no brainer to grab the universal life. You’re getting a lower premium with a much higher death benefit, plus you get the benefits of a universal life policy (flexible premium payments, cash value, etc.) that don’t come with a term policy. I think you may have the two mixed up, though.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourlife/P35415.asp
http://www.metlife.com/Applications/Corporate/WPS/CDA/PageGenerator/0,1674,P486,00.html

http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/24/pf/expert/ask_expert/

http://www.octfcu.org/articles/universallifevstermlife.asp

The universal life payout is higher because it’s projected, not guaranteed. Universal/Whole life policies invest the premiums and acquire cash value as they age – provided that the investment environment stays rosy. I’m not that confident in the investment environment for the next 10-20 years, so my life insurance is term.

Your best investments are a house and a 401(k) with employer matching. Everything other than that is debatable.

First of all, your numbers in the example are reversed, there is no way you’re going to find 150K more in universal coverage for $23 a month less than term. It’s not possible.

That being said, even at the higher rate, ftg has it backwards-universal life is a much better deal for you than term, with one caveat.* Lets look at how a term policy works, shall we? (I’m making all of these numbers up for illustration purposes) Most term policies are what is know as “10 year guaranteed renewable” policies. What this means is that your premium will stay the same for the next ten years(Some companies are going to issuing the policies in 10 year increments, but only guaranteeing the premium for 5, but we’ll stick with the traditional), and at the end of that time you have the absolute right to renew the policy regardless of any health conditions that might have come up in the meantime. What is not guaranteed, however, is your premium, and if you’ve come down with cancer, they’re gonna stick it to you. For the purpose of illustration, however, lets assume that you remain healthy. You’re 40 years old. You buy a term policy for $50/month. Ten years from now, you want to renew, and have no trouble doing so, except now you’re 50 years old so your premium is no longer $50/month, it’s $90/ month. Ten years further, same deal except you’re now paying $180/month. Ten years from that, you decide to renew the policy again…except you can’t. Term policies expire at age 70 weather you do or not. So lets look at what you’ve spent:

10 years of $50/month premiums- $6000
10 years of $90/month premiums- $10,800
10 years of $180/month premiums- $21,600

You’ve spent almost $40,000, and you have bupkis to show for it. Your family was protected in the case of your death, true, but you’ve got jack at age 70. Term policies are a fantastic deal-for the insurance company. Less than 3% of them ever pay dime one to their beneficiaries.

Now contrast that with a universal policy. Universal policies are going to be more expensive, true. However, most of them are set up such that your premium stays the same for the life of the policy, which is usually good until age 95. That means that while you are paying $75 instead of $50, you’ll always be paying $75, ten, twenty or thirty years from now. What’s more, your chances of outliving the policy are vanishingly small. Even better is the fact that you’re not throwing your money away if you don’t die. See, universal policies build equity. That means that even if you don’t die, you can cash them in at some future point for all or some of the premium money you’ve paid. What’s more, you have an item of value. You can borrow against it, cash it in or cash out a portion of the money at any time. (Doing any of these may affect your monthly premium) With the policies that my company offers, approximately 20 years is the break even point at the current rate of return (4.75%-3.25% is guaranteed). That means that you could insure yourself at age 40, and at age 65, if you decide that you no longer need that much life insurance (your house is paid off, kids are grown, you have no large debt load, etc…), you could get back every penny you spent in premiums over the last 25 years (tax free!), while still having protected your family in the event that you had died. Tell me that wouldn’t get your retirement off with a bang!

So, now you know the differences between the two types of policies. If you have any further questions, just ask, I’d be glad to answer them.
*Caveat: As any financial planner will tell you, if you buy a term policy instead of a universal one, and faithfully invest the difference in premiums every month, you will likely have more money down the road than with a universal policy alone. It’s almost guaranteed.(I’m hedging my bet in case the economy completely tanks with the 'almost") HOWEVER, this means that each and every month, for the next 10, 15, 20 or more years, you will faithfully, without fail, invest that $23 premium difference. You will never forget, or miss a payment, or spend the money on groceries because things are tight or anything else. Frankly, this is only realistic for a very small number of extraordinarily disciplined people. Most people (and I include myself in this) are not that disciplined, and a universal life policy kind of forces you to invest that money. I would not have remembered to pay an amount to investments every month for the past few years, but I have made my (universal) life insurance payments each month without fail, without even thinking about it.

You know, a really neat trick with Universal Life. A few years down the road, let’s say your available cash is $5,000 (could happen, some people use them as savings accounts). To use that dough you can do one of two things. You can withdraw it, in which case you pay taxes on any earned amounts that exceed what you put in (interest, investment growth, whatever) OR you can “borrow” all of it. There is no tax because it’s a loan, and you don’t have to repay the loan because it’s your money.

I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Don’t mix up whole and universal insurance - there are differences. Motley Fool has some info at this URL: http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2005/mft05110905.htm?ref=foolwatch

There are other links out there but for some reason I can’t pull them up.

Whole life insurance is considerably more expensive than term. When my company’s consulting division was sold, a few years back, I could continue the old company’s life insurance, but only as a whole-life policy. The same coverage that was costing me perhaps 60-70 dollars a month (admittedly at group rates) would have cost me close to ten thousand dollars a year. We wound up sharply reducing my coverage (to far less than I needed) while I worked on getting coverage under the new company’s policy (was initially excluded due to health history).

Term insurance is good at being the cheapest way to get coverage to protect your family, at such a time as you’re most likely to need it - to help in raising the kids, for example. Sucks that it goes away at age 70 (or whatever), but hopefully you have a little less need of it then. And if you wind up dropping the coverage after a couple of years, you’re out a whole lot less money than if you’d bought whole life. A small whole-life policy might be nice to get now if you really want to make sure you have something.

My current company’s policy is considered a universal plan. I don’t know that any of my regular premium goes toward any sort of savings account, but I can put a few extra dollars away each pay period. I consider it a sort of compromise between whole and term insurance.

I can’t comment on the details of how universal works, or whether it’s a good financial deal.

Moonchild, your wife is right - we’ve seen our premiums change on some individual term policies when one of us hits a 5-year birthday. For example when my husband hit 45, his premium went up about 40%. However - getting the policy now (before wife’s 40th) will just affect the initial premium - depending on when it adjusts (10-year level premium for example vs. annual adjustments) it may not make a huge difference. If she can lock in for 10 years, it’s a good idea. Don’t forget insurance on you - you may not be bringing in any money right now, but how much would it cost to pay a nanny to do your child-rearing for the next 20 years?

Forgot to mention - “universal” seems to be a sort of hybrid of whole and term, with the cash-value feature combined with lower premiums. I think premiums can adjust according to age, as with term.

It also depends on why you need the insurance. My husband and I decided that, pre-parenthood, we needed no life insurance at all, since either one of us was capable of self-support. However, when we decided to have children, we decided that we needed a lot of LI for the time period when the kids would be dependent, especially for when I’d be hoping to stay at home, and insured appropriately. We got term, with a “balloon” of extra coverage during the critical years. We were also fortunate in that we had an insurance advisor who was also a personal friend and who was very honest about the relative benefits for our situation.

The other thing about the what one might do with the savings obtained by buying term is that one might avoid debt. If paying more per month on LI caused you to have to buy more stuff on credit, that’s also a net loss, credit card interest rates being what they are. IMHO (and I’m not a financial planner of any kind) ANYTHING you do to avoid the 10, 15, 18 or more percent interest charged by a credit card is worth while.

I’m aware of the differences. The life payout is actually guaranteed on a universal policy, but the premiums are variable, depending on the current money market. The only way the DB would increase like that is if the agent is taking the cash value in the UL policy and automatically applying it to increase the death benefit (which is only one option and not necessarily something people would want to do). I don’t think that’s the case, though.

The term is fairly straightforward. You pay x amount per month in return for x amount of coverage for x number of years. There’s really not much else to it.

The UL is more complicated. The premiums are flexible depending on the investment climate at the time. In 5 years you could be paying more in premium than you are right now, or you could be paying less, depending largely on how interest rates are going to go. Or you could be paying the same, but accumulating more cash value which could be used to offset higher premiums later on or to increase the death benefit in a couple of different ways. An additional benefit is that once the kid is out of the house and the need for life insurance may not be as great, your wife can reduce the death benefit, thus reducing the premium amount.

(1) Are any of these numbers based on reality? Or did you just pull them out of thin air, cites please
(2) 10 years? I bought mine for 30 years, and the premiums are guaranteed to stay the same the entire time. Have any example that touch on that?

Not always. Many companies use what is called “age nearest birthday” which means she would be 40 already for the purposes of the illustration.

About the difference in Term vs. UL. UL was invented about twenty years ago to counter the “buy term and invest the difference” argument. The cash value of a UL is based on a monthly calculation of adding in the premium, subtracting monthly fees, subtracting charges for insurance (which is usually about the cost of equivalent term) and then crediting interest on the balance. Which is basically the same as “buy term and invest” except you don’t pay taxes on the investment. If you surrender the policy in the early years you get hit with a surrender charge which means you don’t get much back, but if you keep the policy for 10 to 20 years, it’s often not a terrible return, though never great. As weirddave pointed out, with term, it’s pure insurance, you never get anything back.

The main thing is, get an illustration. Get a bunch. Try and find out what you get if you pay the same amount into different policies. The illustrations are full of boring numbers, but the guaranteed values are clearly marked. Especially look at the summary page. You have to sign that if you want to buy the policy. It gives you a sense of the range of values that you can expect to get back from the policy.

For your numbers, it looks like you meant that 53/250K is for term and 75/100K is for UL? That might be an average sort of result if your wife is a smoker.

The numbers you have are probably wrong.

Good advice from all, but I’d like to add one thing. I know that nowadays, some companies will offer Premium Rebate Term Life. This is a product where they keep track of all premiums paid, and refund the entire amount at the end of the term.

We could argue back and forth about why that’s good or not good, but I happen to like the idea. The premium will be higher, but it shoudn’t approach UL or WL premiums.

I’d be interedted to hear from the obviously well-educated Weirdave on this one*.

*: I, too was well-educated once (broker), but I’ve fallen into the clutches of all-Medical ASO!

-Cem

Well, since I said right in my post “(I’m making all of these numbers up for illustration purposes)”, I would say that I pulled them right out of my ass. However, I just checked rates for a 40YO female smoker, $250K ten year renewable term life, and I got $64, $118 and $233 for the monthly premiums, so I’d say that the numbers I used were fairly accurate, if low. (Non-smoker rates were much lower, $34, $60 and $130, but the ratio is about the same between the three)

What is your point? There are dozens of different variations on term life out there, I chose the most common, because I was simply giving one example to help the OP understand the differences.
Cemetery Savior, I do mainly health, but I am licensed for life, and I do sell some, did you have any specific questions?

The numbers in the OP are correct:
Age 39 female, non-tobacco user, TERM $33.07 per mo., $250K return on death;
UNIVERSAL LIFE $75.42 per mo., $100K return on death.

Guess I should have mentioned in the OP that the Universal Life plan returns all paid capital (and a little more, actually: $27,545) when plan matures at age of 65, but said $100K return on death, even after 65. It’s a long-term 5.25% interest return.

Term Life plan returns zero.

I assumed this was a given with a Universal Life plan; remember, this is all new to me. The insurance agent didn’t really mention other plans, etc. I apologize for any confusion.

Dispatch the salesman with a swift boot up the keester…then call an insurance broker to get term insurance quotes from at least 10 companies. Pick the cheapest one that has at least an A (A+ or AA) rating or better.

Invest the rest…max out your IRAs. UL is just a hybrid of good insurance (term) and bad insurance (whole), which makes it…uh…mediocre at best.

Since your wife is the money maker, her policy should have higher coverage than yours (if you want to continue current lifestyle habits, but reconsider if yours pays better and you adopt a higher lifestyle), but do consider the insurance dollar amount that would earn enough interest (at 6%-10%), to pay on a monthly basis, all major debts such as:

Your mortgage (and 2nds if any):
Any current student loans
Your kids projected college costs
Your retirement nest egg
Any sizeable past outstanding debt
Any ongoing bills such as utilities, medical ins, etc.

A broker can help with this…I wouldn’t trust the salesman. Like I said before…give him the boot.

Just another $0.02. Will you still need life insurance after the term expires and will you be able to get it at an affordable price? My husband is 58, and is uninsurable due to Ankylosing Spondelitis and other health problems. He had term insurance in the past, and now we only have the max that is provided through his employer without a physical. Won’t cover the mortgage if something happens.

I told him he just better plan on living :smiley: !

Actually this raises a question in my mind: can term life insurance typically be terminated (or rather, not-renewed) if you develop a health condition while it’s in effect? What about with universal? It seems pretty scummy that the companies can terminate coverage that was already in effect when a health condition develops! I’d better check into this before Papa Zappa’s next renewals! pesky melanoma, grumble grumble

No. that’s what “Guaranteed renewable” means. However, if you get to the end of your term, the premium at which the policy will be renewed is not guaranteed, and an insurance company could charge you a fortune to renew your policy if it was known that you had a major illness. This will not happen with a universal life policy. This is one of the reasons I think Yeticus Rex’s post is wrong as well as insulting. “Term life good, whole life bad” is a stupid simplification of a complex issue. I know a guy who works in our central PA office who is, bluntly, dying. He had probably 6 months to go, tops. He is also 69 3/4 years old. He also has term life insurance. In three months, his policy lapses, and his house is not paid off and he has a whole mess of bills that have accumulated since he got ill. If he dies in the next 3 months, than his wife will have money to cover all of that and a nest egg for herself. If he makes it past that, then she’ll be ruined when he dies and be forced to declare bankruptcy. Rex, you should spout your “term life good, whole life bad” nonsense at him, he’d be happy to punch you in the nose. Following that advice has him in the awful position of praying to die. An insurance professional will work with you to determine what your specific needs are and recommend the appropriate policy to meet those needs. This will not be the same policy for everyone. “Buying the cheapest policy you can find on the internet” is good advice only if you consider the person who told you to buy a Yugo in 1984 a sage individual.