Personal and family uses[edit] Individuals may find whole life attractive because it offers coverage for an indeterminate length of time. It is the dominant choice for insuring so-called "permanent" insurance needs, including: Funeral expenses, Estate planning, Surviving spouse income, and Supplemental retirement income. Individuals may find whole life less attractive, due to the relatively high premiums, for insuring: Large debts, Temporary needs, such as children''s dependency years, Young families with large needs and limited income. In the second category, term life is generally considered more suitable and has played an increasingly larger role in recent years.
Personal and family uses[edit] Individuals may find whole life attractive because it offers coverage for an indeterminate length of time. It is the dominant choice for insuring so-called "permanent" insurance needs, including: Funeral expenses, Estate planning, Surviving spouse income, and Supplemental retirement income. Individuals may find whole life less attractive, due to the relatively high premiums, for insuring: Large debts, Temporary needs, such as children''s dependency years, Young families with large needs and limited income. In the second category, term life is generally considered more suitable and has played an increasingly larger role in recent years. gabegabe 发表于 2020-10-29 16:47
我觉得人寿保险就像车险一样，term 就是为了防止我在孩子未成年和父母还健在时意外身亡，让孩子和老人的生活质量大大下降而买的。因为是个发生概率小，但是一旦发生损失很大，保费便宜，所以要买。不是为了投资赚钱而买的。permanant life 是保一个发生概率100%的事件，保险公司不可能亏本，所以贵，手续费和条款复杂。如果是投资，一般人就定投股市也能最后有几百万退休金用。你也说了是一般投资手段都用完了的补充。我的个人经验就是一般投资手段都比这个复杂的高费用的产品合适。没必要把保险和投资混在一起。我也不想孩子因为我的死亡发一笔大财。
还有0.1%的人 是觉得term白交出去了划不来 就想尽办法拿回来嘛 You need to pay so much more for the same coverage upon death when buying perm life. In comparison, the premium for term life is so low, it is almost negligible.
还有0.1%的人 是觉得term白交出去了划不来 就想尽办法拿回来嘛 You need to pay so much more for the same coverage upon death when buying perm life. In comparison, the premium for term life is so low, it is almost negligible. doorsopen 发表于 2020-10-29 23:04
That’s true. That’s why the underwriting on term is 10 times harder than Perm.
That’s true. That’s why the underwriting on term is 10 times harder than Perm. MiniCorset 发表于 2020-10-29 23:17
I hear you. All that I am saying is: for people who care about the premium of term, it is unlikely that they can afford the premium for perm if they want the same coverage upon death especially when are relatively young and have dependents.
I hear you. All that I am saying is: for people who care about the premium of term, it is unlikely that they can afford the premium for perm if they want the same coverage upon death especially when are relatively young and have dependents. doorsopen 发表于 2020-10-29 23:21
From what I have seen, people, specifically those multi-millionaires or even billionaires, are more “prudent” than people assumed, especially in terms of investments. btw, they may not even get approved with the coverage that they wanted. As I mentioned, the insurance companies have very strict underwriting guidelines on terms.
From what I have seen, people, specifically those multi-millionaires or even billionaires, are more “prudent” than people assumed, especially in terms of investments. btw, they may not even get approved with the coverage that they wanted. As I mentioned, the insurance companies have very strict underwriting guidelines on terms. MiniCorset 发表于 2020-10-29 23:29
I do believe perm is more appropriate for rich people. And yes, not everyone can qualify for low premium term.
因为理财师是获利方，基于interest conflict，他们画的饼不能全信。 版上有没有人了解，如何避免可能的坑？
我最担心的就是policy的执行是否有保障。 因为现在只是交钱， 交出去了，保险公司兑现承诺的时候如何防范可能的幺蛾子。
Personal and family uses[edit] Individuals may find whole life attractive because it offers coverage for an indeterminate length of time. It is the dominant choice for insuring so-called "permanent" insurance needs, including: Funeral expenses, Estate planning, Surviving spouse income, and Supplemental retirement income. Individuals may find whole life less attractive, due to the relatively high premiums, for insuring: Large debts, Temporary needs, such as children''s dependency years, Young families with large needs and limited income. In the second category, term life is generally considered more suitable and has played an increasingly larger role in recent years.
这是考虑之一。
这类保险会如实兑现吗？ 如何保证。
现在设立不可逆trust又太早。 可逆的trust又没有什么好处。
如果你有很多资产，建议找个付费的financial advisor. 找付费的，一小时300以上的，不要找给你推荐产品拿回扣的那种。
zan
付费的financial advisor也不一定可靠， 过去几年被一个熟悉的financial advisor杀熟了。
哎，有利益参合的时候，能理性中立的不多。人性都如此。
那你只好自己学习了。论坛上的人不可能了解你的具体经济情况，给你的建议更加一鳞半爪的。
去年有一个熟悉的按小时收费的financial advisor故意给你坑爹的financial advice整你吗？ 它的动机是什么？ 就是看你不顺眼吗？好奇。
动机就是financial advisor虽然是付费的， 其实背后还是有利益分割，只是我当初不知道而已。 他离开了原公司（知名的大投行），我才得以从他的同事那里得知了不一样的信息， 否则我都不知道他对我撒谎了。
这不是为了少交学费嘛， 难~
没什么难的，学一些基本的理财原理，总比你挣出一千万资产容易的多。
系统提示：若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://www.youtube.com/embed/jKUoaJlNjR0
一般来说 大家默认的规则 是人走了 都不会make any comments 我现在都怕在这上面讨论保险 这上面的很可怕 只要你说 都是托 完全不看州啊 coverage之类的 对有身家 确认这部分钱很大可能用不上的 其实是很合适的 只要有non-collapse clause 如果那个advisor跟你说什么以后可以拿出来 你就最好想想了 拿出来 以后就有税和断保的危险 不是一定 但是就有那个机会了 所以看你自己
那你下回找那种保证背后没有利益分割的吧。都是有文件要签的。什么fiduciary duty还保证不从其他渠道获取收益的文件。很多这种FA为了避嫌根本就不卖任何产品，也不帮你操作任何交易。就跟你纯谈话做方案。
那种叫financial planner，他们就是介绍一堆passive etf portfolio，然后要人定期回去review 因为按时间收费 所以一定要人不停回去review才有income 算下来，比大的银行或者投行收的费其实贵多了，而且大都是independent, 没有监管，更没有责任。多好啊
zan again!
Do you have any recommendations on learning resources. I really like your inputs so far. Thanks.
你资产不够当然给你推荐passive etf。 你资产够了花样多着呢。你找没有证的当然没监管。找有证的。
finra rule你估计是不清楚，什么是RIA, 什么是BD,什么是dual。 anyway，我对外面这些自己做的接触不多，看到100来万的都是那么几个bond etf就完了的，还见了几次，收了上万块咨询费，not bad
Mondey management skills by Micheal Finke
Thank you very much!
typo, should be Money management skills, not mondey
NP. google auto correct it. :-)
这两者要分开，绝对不要找ADVISOR推荐的人买。让他给建议就行，而且明白的跟他讲NIIT自己会去找人买，并且不会找他推荐的人
有建议我建trust，70岁左右再建。
多谢！
赞不焦虑的好心态！
100来万还有什么好说的。楼主这里是上千万的能跟100来万一样吗。
是呀！楼主要是只有几百万，她的问题我就能回答了。根本不用买什么permanant life insurance, term life 就解决问题了。这不是没研究过一千万以上的问题，才推荐她去找专业人士的。
多读读人家的本意 按照计划 是在未来可以build up到estate exemption的limit 要是现在已经到了 根本在planning里面不会提要从里面拿钱之类的 直接现在先做一个ILIT了 而且revocable living trust 到上千万资产是不可能还没有的 我都不知道我啰嗦这些干什么 anyway
话说回来 为什么几百万的人就不需要perm life？ term life能保什么？对已经有几百万的人来说 又不是保终身 如果你活的久 买来有什么用？本来就足够self insured perm 最重要是IRR 对已经有投资账户 有房地产 然后有一些闲钱 不太能用不上 但是想有guaranteed return，才需要的。完全是自己的preference 如果中间想拿出来做income 就没有那个guaranteed return了
虽然不喜欢你说话的口气， 不过看得出来你是专业人士。
受教了。多谢。
没办法 这上面不分青红皂白喜欢踩人的太多了 对有ego的人来说 难忍 如果真的还没有living trust 建议楼主先不要想保险之类的 先找个estate lawyer做个trust 保险是可以放在你个人名下 等老了想清楚了 再放进ILIT 应该都可以 不可撤销 会需要谨慎一点
同意你，100万的话没什么好问的。
今天来发帖最大的收获，就是确定了让estate lawyer参与进来，review insurance policy。就解决了我对policy坑的担忧问题。
我觉得人寿保险就像车险一样，term 就是为了防止我在孩子未成年和父母还健在时意外身亡，让孩子和老人的生活质量大大下降而买的。因为是个发生概率小，但是一旦发生损失很大，保费便宜，所以要买。不是为了投资赚钱而买的。permanant life 是保一个发生概率100%的事件，保险公司不可能亏本，所以贵，手续费和条款复杂。如果是投资，一般人就定投股市也能最后有几百万退休金用。你也说了是一般投资手段都用完了的补充。我的个人经验就是一般投资手段都比这个复杂的高费用的产品合适。没必要把保险和投资混在一起。我也不想孩子因为我的死亡发一笔大财。
除非你不给你娃留钱。 要不然你孩子都会因为你的死亡发财的。
这不是我不买permanant life 的唯一原因。而且我的资产完全可以在活着的时候给孩子。只有寿险是必须我死他们才能拿到钱😂 主要是这类产品设计复杂，推销时为了吸引中产阶级又说什么时候用可以取出来，但事实上取出来有可能就没有guaranted return 啦。事实上真的钱多买一份就算diversify 啦。主要我们家如果退休金存满就没这个闲钱了。还是钱不够啊。楼主这样的当然可以考虑了
对于99%的人 你说的都是对的 还有1%的人里面 0.5%的人是因为需要最终用ILIT去交遗产税 少少交钱 能最终帮忙交大笔遗产税 不算差对吧 0.4%的人是自雇或者开公司 需要在破产或者被告的时候 有些财产是不会被creditor追到的 还有0.1%的人 是觉得term白交出去了划不来 就想尽办法拿回来嘛
很多非常复杂的保险都是专门让estate planner和lawyer去deal with的 我对保险方面 坦白讲 也就是普通认识而已 不是我的专业 但是看其他人讲的一看就错的离谱 也要来拍 就真是郁闷了
还有0.1%的人 是觉得term白交出去了划不来 就想尽办法拿回来嘛
You need to pay so much more for the same coverage upon death when buying perm life. In comparison, the premium for term life is so low, it is almost negligible.
你总结的真好😄那些资产少还觉得term白交出去了划不来 就想尽办法拿回来的也是个人选择😂
谢谢。正解！
That’s true. That’s why the underwriting on term is 10 times harder than Perm.
I hear you. All that I am saying is: for people who care about the premium of term, it is unlikely that they can afford the premium for perm if they want the same coverage upon death especially when are relatively young and have dependents.
From what I have seen, people, specifically those multi-millionaires or even billionaires, are more “prudent” than people assumed, especially in terms of investments.
btw, they may not even get approved with the coverage that they wanted. As I mentioned, the insurance companies have very strict underwriting guidelines on terms.
I do believe perm is more appropriate for rich people. And yes, not everyone can qualify for low premium term.
你确定你找的有证么？😓。finance advisor 很多是long time relationship. 我的advisor第一次就催立遗嘱建trust. Wl是要根据实际情况来。有更好solution 时候，并不需要这个。至于保险公司，那当然必须是A以上的有传统的老公司啊，保险公司也有信用评级的，这和term是一样的，term 不也是很多买30年