Skip to main content
Advertising

Originally published Saturday, May 11, 2013 at 8:04 PM

  • Share:
           
  • Comments (0)
  • Print

Scott Burns: Is life-insurance policy really necessary?

Syndicated columnist

Most Popular Comments
Hide / Show comments
No comments have been posted to this article.
Start the conversation >

advertising

Investing

Q: I am a 74-year-old man with a $40,000 life-insurance policy. I have been paying on it for 21 years and it has been building surrender value as well.

My current annual report reveals “guaranteed assumptions” of a death benefit of $40,000 for nine more years and a current surrender value of $13,000 — declining to zero at the end of the nine years.

In addition to the “guaranteed assumptions,” there is another column labeled “current non-guaranteed assumptions” (these may be changed by the insurance company).

It shows the death benefit of $40,000 running through age 84 and a current surrender value of $14,100 that will increase to $22,000 at the age of 84 and $44,000 at age 94.

I can’t get a good feeling from the insurance company regarding the guaranteed assumptions vs. the non-guaranteed assumptions. I am wondering if I should seriously consider redeeming the policy for its surrender value in the near future.

A: The real question isn’t what your cash value is earning. It is whether you still need to protect someone else by providing $40,000 in the event of your death. If not, continuing the policy is reduced to a speculation about dying young vs. dying old.

Unless you can name someone who will truly need that $40,000 death benefit upon your demise, the cash value of the policy is really a savings account set up to assure the insurance company that it will receive its annual premium plus the equivalent of a daily lottery ticket purchased for your beneficiary.

You might have a better use for the money.

Q: My wife and I live comfortably on a military retirement, Social Security, and income from stocks, CDs and two rental houses. We can add significantly to our savings each year. We have no debts, live on a cash basis and pay off two credit cards monthly.

Next year, we must plan to start withdrawing from IRAs, a SEP and the 403(b). Since we don’t expect to need the withdrawn mandatory funds for our day-to-day living expenses, can we roll those funds into our Roth IRAs?

A: Quite a few people would like to do that, but the regulations don’t allow it. To move money from an IRA or other qualified plan to a Roth after age 70½, you must first take your required minimum distribution (RMD) and pay taxes on it.

The best alternative is to reinvest your after-tax RMD cash in a tax-efficient or tax-deferred investment. Broad equity funds such as the Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (ticker: VTI), Schwab Multi-Cap Core ETF (ticker: SCHB), Fidelity Spartan Total Market Index Fund (ticker: FSTMX) or iShares Core S & P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF (ticker: ITOT) are good low-cost candidates.

You’ll have a modest taxable dividend income, but otherwise little or no taxes to pay until you sell part or all of the investment.

Questions: scott@scottburns.com

Copyright 2013,

Universal Press Syndicate

News where, when and how you want it

Email Icon

Subscribe today!

Subscribe today!

Get four weeks of digital access for 99 cents

Advertising

Advertising


Advertising
The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. Subscribe now for unlimited access!

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited seattletimes.com content access is included with most subscriptions.

Subscriber login ►