re: Life insurance questions\advice

quote:

---

But 15 years of financial planning from 44-59 should be more than adequate to prepare for not NEEDING life insurance.

---

No argument about ideally shouldn't "need" life insurance past your planned retirement age. I don't have term past my planned retirement age for example

You weren't talking about need, you specifically saidthere are no legitimate "reasons" which indicates a lack of understanding of the point of insurance

quote:

---

All of these are very rare. But more importantly, all of them fall under my same criteria. People that suck at saving money.

---

First, keep in mind that not all life insurance is bought to protect against loss of income (See business example response)

You also are missing some utility theory + probability theory which impacts how you view the role of insurance. The value of insurance is an expected utility argument and not expected financial value. You don't buy insurance to make money but to reduce risk. Generally speaking, you will have an expected loss in insurance from an economic opportunity perspective, that is the cost of risk reduction.

Key Point based on Above: Not everyone has the same level of risk appetite. As in, some people value reduced risk (more stable outcome) more than others. That isn't in any way a reflection of their financial IQ

Other note, you are arguing using a deterministic scenario with static assumptions (investment returns, lack of financial life events etc) for things you can't possibly know. You have to have assumptions though, so the key is how much you focus on avoiding "bad results" which relates to how risk averse you are.

The more risk averse someone is, the more they'd pay to reduce the negative downside risk of incorrect assumptions

quote:

---

I would never recommend someone rely solely on a pension or social security, again they suck at saving money.

---

It isn't about "relying" on SS or Pension benefits but stabilizing income streams by protecting against the loss of income from that source.

Just because I know my wife can survive w/ reduced retirement income doesn't mean I want her to. The question is how much would Ibe willing to pay to protect from reduced income?

quote:

---

Finishing residency at age 38, that gives your BIL 21 years as a doctor to have enough cash and investments by the age of 59. If he can't do that, again he sucks at saving money.

---

Again, he may save enough to get by, but the question is if he is willing to trade some expected results to reduce the floor of what they end up with

The question is "what is it worth?" to lock in a retirement lifestyle, potential inheritance for kids etc independent of if he dies during working year >60

quote:

---

Business without enough liquid cash by the age of 59, again, sucks at saving money.

---

If you have 3 children with child 1 taking over Child 2/3 "cashing out" their ownership stake, buying life insurance can avoid problems with Child 1 not having funds to pay fair value for those shares

Also, the "buyout" payment and/or sale of business/real estate to fund buyout may have tax implications that qualified life insurance doesn't have

Alternatively, sub in Wife for Child 2/3 or real estate for business.

quote:

---

Long term care is a different story.

---

There are a lot of intricacies to it for sure, but current tax law makes it very attractive to some people. I don't want to talk about LTC, that is a mess and anyone investing in insurance companies better look at their books