whole life insurance numbers

 >

As you can see, from the numbers that you have posted, the Current Interest
is almost equal to the current cost. However, you neglected to show the
Current
Increase In Cash Value. Each year there is an Increase in the Cash Value in
addition to the dividend. Therefore, the TOTAL value INCREASE of the
contract
will EXCEED this years cost.

To have had coverage of 100K for 15 years, and at the same time to show
an INCREASE in the Cash Value of over 100k seems to be too high, but if
correct it is FANTASTIC.......
Cal Lester  CLU


the

Cal wrote:


Value in

OP said current cash value increase is $4767. $138K current value I read
as $100K death benefit, $38,000 cash value. If in fact the cash value
were $138K, the annual return on the $2K/yr would be over 15% per year.
Very unlikely. Do you read this differently?
JOE

from my scribbled notes,
the policy death benefit is $138k
the policy cash value is $46k

$4767 cash increase this year
$1935 2006 div

$2000 yearly prems for 15yrs

So - for your invested $30k, you get $46k (over 15 yrs)
plus purchased death benefit.
Wonder how the classical comparison looks
of invested a portion of the $2000 + buying a Term policy...
I think my Term is $500 per $125k of coverage.

Any general comments I can take back to him
when I see him at swim team...

This is more reasonable. As you can see from your new figures,
there was a RETURN on your $2000 of premium for this year ALONE
of $6702 PLUS having the insurance In-Force. Next years reurned
should in all probability be even higher.
Cal Lester  CLU

so - in general, was this an reasonable purchase for him,
or should he have gone the Term insurance + investing route....

The question is really moot. IF he had gone the Buy term/invest,
and F A I L E D to make the investment E V E R Y month, he would
have been a loser. If the market had turned down (which it did not, but
might at any time now) he MIGHT have been a loser.
Hindsight is easy, foresight a bit more difficult........
Cal Lester  CLU

P.Schuman wrote:

Hindsight is always easier. Had he invested 1900 at the beginning of
each year, 1991-2005, he'd have just over $62,000 now. Even after 3 down
years 2000-2 he'd have bottomed at $37K. (This is using S&P returns).

JOE