|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
In Reply to: Re: Re: term vs. c.v. posted by ray on September 30, 2001 at 09:07:45:
: well Steve i asked on another post for anyone to post what the cost of term is for a Large company and i got NONE. not really interested in the companys that have it but don't sell it. i'm referring to the companys that don't have as much insurance in force as what primerica issues in a year. so let's se what pru, met, N.Y. companys like that . see what the cost per 1000 is from companys like that. and to compare apples to apples theirs has to be guaranteed renewable.
Ray, I must have missed that post. I am not an agent, but I do
have a NYLIC quote. It is for a 5-year level-term, renewable,
and convertible policy on a non-smoking, 43-year old male.
The premium is $226 annually (Florida).
I now know this to be a bit expensive, and would not again purchase
a short term policy from NYLIC. Still, it was significantly
cheaper than the group insurance offered at work. Being willing
and able to have a health examination helps price a lot.
I am perfectly happy with my $100k whole life policy from NYIC, however.
Also, their prices might be competitive on longer term policies, where
there would be a reasonable chance to get a dividend due to policy
lapses on other policies of the same class (say 20 or 30 year level-term).
I disagree with your insistence that premium to death benefit ratio
is the only valid comparison between life insurance policies.
It is not even the only valid comparison between term policies.
As you admit, renewability is a significant discriminator.
Others are company health, pricing policies (I deeply distrust
lapse-supported pricing, for example), and knowledge and support
from your agent.
When you start comparing term policies to CV policies,
you HAVE TO include the cash value as part of the comparison.
Otherwise, you are not comparing, but being intellectually dishonest.
-- Rich
--- My Home Page