A wise physician will have a solid insurance plan and a solid investing plan. But she shouldn’t mix the two. Remember the combination TV/VCRs? Seemed like a great idea initially. But then you ended up with the worst of both worlds, and when one of them broke, the other became useless. It’s the same with investing. Instead of providing some kind of synergy by mixing the two, you end up with the worst of both worlds.
These “products” go by different names- cash value life insurance, whole life insurance, universal life insurance, variable life insurance, variable universal life insurance, variable annuities, equity-indexed annuities, deferred fixed annuities…the list goes on and on. A large percentage of doctors (including myself) have been suckered into one or more of these at one point or another. Why does that happen? I think there are a number of reasons:
- Lack of financial sophistication – As we’ve discussed previously, doctors aren’t exactly in the same category as accountants when it comes to knowledge of the financial world. This knowledge gap handicaps them when they go to make financial decisions. They are too trusting, too naive, too worried about things that don’t matter, and not worried enough about things that do. Even simple financial cliches that most investors know (such as “Don’t Mix Insurance and Investing” and “Buy Term and Invest the Difference”) can be profound revelations to a doctor who just spent a decade worth of 80 hour weeks inside the hospital walls. These products are purposely made to be very complex. They are NOT simple to understand, and when an investor points out issues with it, the salesman will quickly move on to another feature of the product. The complexity always favors the issuer, not the buyer.
- Mistaking an insurance salesman for a qualified investment adviser – Everyone markets themselves as a financial advisor or a financial planner these days, no matter what their qualifications. Insurance salesmen, stock brokers, and mutual fund salesmen like to take advantage of the fact that they know just a little more than you. Unfortunately, most of their training is in sales, which means they can make whatever product they happen to profit from look extremely attractive to you. Learn more about selecting and checking up on your advisor here.
- Belief that doctors need to invest differently than everyone else – We like to think we’re special, and in some ways we are. We have highly specialized skills allowing for relatively high salaries with correspondingly high tax burdens, we have high debt burdens, we have a significant delay to the start of our earnings, and we are big targets for litigation, both malpractice and non-malpractice. When financial salespeople tell us we’re different and special, that makes us feel special (and better). But you know what, 95% of what we need to do financially is no different from any other middle class investor. And for nearly all physicians, the additional benefits of a mixed insurance/investment are not worth their costs. Most of the benefits are either unnecessary or available in a less expensive manner.
- Belief that insurance products provide asset protection benefits not available in other ways – Advisors are quick to point out that the cash value of a life insurance policy or the value of an annuity is protected from malpractice and other litigation. What they usually fail to point out is that so are your 401Ks, IRAs, and sometimes a great deal of your home equity.
- Belief that insurance products provide estate planning benefits not available in other ways – The salesman also love to illustrate how life insurance proceeds are estate tax-free. Of course, hardly any Americans (including physicians) pay estate taxes at all. A typical married physician has to leave behind more than $10 Million at his death to pay ANY estate tax. Most doctors will never have that amount of assets. Estate tax law can change at any time, of course. It wasn’t that long ago that the exempt amount was only $1 Million. But through gifting and trusts there are ways to eliminate or minimize that burden without paying for overly expensive insurance.
- Belief that insurance products provide tax benefits not available in other ways – I am appalled at how many physicians don’t max out retirement accounts such as 401Ks and IRAs before “investing” in life insurance. The tax benefits of a 401K exceed those of cash value life insurance. Not only do you get the tax-free growth over the years, but you also get an upfront tax deduction. Cash value life insurance doesn’t offer that. Don’t expect to learn that from someone who sells it though. Even fully taxable investment accounts provide some tax benefits not available in an insurance product.
- Misunderstanding the value of a guarantee – Most of these products come with some kind of a guarantee. It might be a certain amount of guaranteed value at some point down the road, some kind of guaranteed minimum growth rate, or a guaranteed amount payable at death, but I can assure you there will be some kind of guaranteed benefit. Is there a value to that guarantee? Of course, and it seems especially valuable in times of high market volatility or political uncertainty. However, in nearly every case the buyer is overpaying for that guarantee. The complexity favors the seller, not the buyer.
- Misunderstanding of the importance of keeping insurance costs down – As these products become more and more complex, they become less and less like commodities. Commodities are all the same and are sold based on price. If a company sells a variable annuity that is different from every other variable annuity on the market, it becomes very difficult, bordering on impossible, to compare competing products and the investor usually ends up with the one that pays the biggest commission to the salesman. Each of these products have some type of an insurance component. The insurance company can charge whatever it wants for that. If you have no way of determining what the insurance cost should be, how will you know if you’re being ripped off? You won’t, and you are.
- Misunderstanding of the importance of keeping investment costs down – To make matters worse, the investment component is also often overpriced. Variable life insurance and variable annuities in particular place your money into the equivalent of mutual funds, except they are managed by the insurance company. The company not only doesn’t hire very good managers (why would it, no one buying the fund is looking very closely at them), but it also overcharges for them. The expense ratios on these variable annuity “funds” are some of the highest I’ve seen. They can range from 1.5% to 3% or even higher. That’s 10 times what you’d pay for a mutual fund at Vanguard, even an actively-managed one.
- Misunderstanding of the value of liquidity – One of the biggest downsides of these insurance products is the lack of liquidity. A pretty good rule of thumb in investing is to never buy something that you can’t look the price up in the Wall Street Journal every day. Stocks, bonds, and mutual funds can generally be sold any day the market is open. You can “go to cash” any time you want. This allows you access to your money to invest it elsewhere, spend it, or give it away. Insurance products always limit your liquidity. In fact, the only ways you can access your cash in most products is to “borrow” from your policy (which has its downsides, including sometimes causing the policy to fail) or to surrender it completely, often for much less than what the “cash value” is supposed to be. Liquidity has a value, and far too often insurance product investors give it away for nothing.
In future posts I’ll discuss each of these products individually including their origin, how they’re sold to unsuspecting (and sometimes quite sophisticated) investors, the benefits of each (there are benefits, believe it or not) and the downsides.


Great post, I am really enjoying your blog
Thank you so much for your blog. It will help me a great deal!
Pingback: Disability Insurance Part 6 – Other types of disability insurance | The White Coat Investor- Investing And Personal Finance Information For Physicians, Dentists, Residents, Students, And Other Highly-Educated Busy Professionals
Thanks for contbriuitng. It’s helped me understand the issues.
I currently have the following:
400K SGLI
100K FGLI on wife
400K – 20 year term through USAA (18 years left)
I leave the military in 4 months and need to decide what to do next:
I was thinking of doing 600K of 30 year and 100K of universal life on myself and 200k of 30 year on my wife (with 50K universal). Do you think I would be better served in foregoing universal life all together and just doing 1 million of 30 year on myself and 400K of 30 year on my wife?
Perhaps 50K universal on both of us and then large term?
This is a huge factor for me as I transition as my original plan (the first listed) is likely to cost me about $200-250 a month. I could get that to $100 a month if I just did term.
Beau-
You are underinsured. When you think of term life insurance at the beginning of your career it should be in terms of millions, not hundreds of thousands. If you die, your insurance would pay off your mortgage, and then provide an income of about $18K a year to your family. That’s not going to go very far.
Forget the universal life insurance and use the money you would have spent on it to buy more term. I’d be thinking in the ballpark of $2 Million for you and perhaps $500K-$1 Million on your spouse.
SGLI and VGLI aren’t that great of a deal. In fact, USAA isn’t even that good of a deal (I know, I have a policy with them). Check out this post for more tips on buying life insurance:
http://whitecoatinvestor.com/how-to-buy-life-insurance/
Thanks for the reply. It looks like I could get 1.5mil on myself and 750K on my wife for around $125-150 a month. The website you suggest it great. I am going to look into Banner and give USAA a call as well. I prefer to keep things in the USAA “house” if you will but lately I have been finding better deals elsewhere on most of their products.
I really appreciate the blog style of your site as I can see other peoples opinions as well.
Pingback: What About Cheap Variable Annuities? | The White Coat Investor- Investing And Personal Finance Information For Physicians, Dentists, Residents, Students, And Other Highly-Educated Busy Professionals
Pingback: Doctor's Eyes Only - A Review | The White Coat Investor- Investing And Personal Finance Information For Physicians, Dentists, Residents, Students, And Other Highly-Educated Busy Professionals
Thank you very much for discussing these important issues.
This is incredible. Every single point on this post is literally incorrect or irrelevant. The title is also decieving. As a financial professional who contributes to my 401(k), contributes to my brokerage accounts structured in varying manners and also owns a considerable amount of both whole life and term life, I am very disappointed to see this on a site that so many Docs, who are genuinely looking for good information, frequent.
In general, there are no “bad” financial products. Cash value life insurance is no worse a product than term life, 401(k)s, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, traditional qualified plans, REITs, Options, ETFs… etc. All can be good. The key is to work with an intelligent and creative advisor whom can first identify what action needs to be taken to further your interests/success and subsequently train you on how to create an effective strategy utilizing some combination of the disposable options.
Just like in medicine, a Doc is always better if he has the entire array of tools, ideas and training at his finger tips. So too is the case with a good advisor. A good advisor would never discount the value of any product, including whole life insurance through a mutually owned company. It is no more complex than any other combination of products one might otherwise recommend. I would argue that discounting the use of permanent life insurance which has historically been a solidly performing product and has been leveraged by the wealthiest individuals, banking institutions and corporations throughout history, would be equally as unsophisticated as relying solely on one product, insurance based or otherwise.
I would highly recommend that anyone seriously considering this decision finds a licensed advisor who knows how to design a strategy that encompasses multiple asset classes and has the ability to pressure test a series of various outcomes that incorporate insurance as part of a financial strategy and a financial strategy without it. If this article seems unusually hostile toward permanent life insurance, you should take pause. Why so hostile? Why not more hostility toward traditional investments that could (and do) literally go from being worth something to being worth nothing? In hindsight, wouldn’t all that money have had been better placed almost anywhere else, including cash value insurance? Why not more hostility toward guaranteed future taxation at a potentially higher rate than your current effective tax when using a 401(k)? Ask yourself, are tax rates going up or down? Why not more hostility toward taking too much risk? Is more and more risk the solution? I am not saying that pure investment vehicles are bad, but I am saying that all products have advantages and disadvantages.
In a future environment where you need your money to be safe, flexible and pliable, it is best to have an array of products that respond to market forces, interests rates, tax rules and life in general differently. That way, you limit exposure in the event that one asset class is threatened. Negating an asset class alltogether, is simply unwise.
Several points in reply:
1) Every point is incorrect or irrelevant. Amazing isn’t it that someone could be so dumb?
2) I’m not surprised you’re disappointed to see this on a site frequented by doctors. Before this conversation goes further, how about you reveal the sources of your income as I have done. Specifically, what percentage of your income comes from the sales of life insurance, and specifically permanent life insurance products. In my experience, most who advocate for permanent life insurance are not surprisingly those who benefit directly from its sale. Why is that?
3) A good advisor absolutely would discount the value of a poorly designed product. A bad advisor is one who pushes you into it to increase his commissions.
4) You really don’t believe permanent life insurance is a more complex product than a total stock market index fund? Try explaining them to a 2nd grader.
5) “Solidly performing” is a rather generous description of a product that most people dispose of once they learn more about it.
6) Hostile? I sense defensiveness. It doesn’t affect me one bit if everyone else in the world decides to pour their life savings into permanent life insurance products. How would it affect you if no one bought another policy?
7) Can you seriously with a straight face use the word “guaranteed” in the same sentence as “potentially”? I guarantee that you’re potentially wrong.
8) It doesn’t matter if marginal tax rates go up so long as your effective tax rate drops in retirement. You’re still better off with a tax-deferred product.
9) If you really think your effective rates will be higher than your current marginal rates, the answer isn’t more life insurance, it’s roth conversions.
10) I’m not sure this post argues for “more and more risk.” I have no idea where you’re getting that from. There are plenty of traditional investments and simple life insurance products that can be used to reduce risk of all kinds without combining the two.
11) Life insurance is only considered an asset class by those who sell it. Even if you decided to consider it an asset class, there’s no reason one needs to invest in every available asset class. There are many that have been shown to provide poor long-term risk adjusted returns. Small growth stocks, for example.
Dear white coat,
Your last point is way off and makes me question the validity of this blog. You mention small cap stocks as poor performers. Do some homework and check your facts. If you look at any 20 year rolling periods in the market from 1930 until today, small cap stock as a whole beat large cap stocks about 98% of the time.
You also failed to mention the real returns investors are getting in their brokerage accounts and retirement plans. DALBAR has done research that shows the average investor has only made about 3.5% on their money the last 20 years. This isn’t even beating inflation when you factor in taxes.
Lastly, planning that everyone will be in a lower tax bracket in retirement is a dangerous assumption. To make this happen, rates and brackets can’t go up (may not work with our nations debt), and the investor will have a lower income than they live off of now.
WCI is not the only person who believes whole life insurance is rarely a good idea. Or, that life insurance should never be considered an investment.
Dave Ramsey: http://www.daveramsey.com/article/the-truth-about-life-insurance/
Motley Fool: http://www.fool.com/personal-finance/insurance/2006/05/08/whole-life-vs-term-life.aspx
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-smarter-mutual-fund-investor/2011/11/01/life-insurance-avoid-universal-and-variable-policies
Whole life insurance is not “BAD”, however for most younger people, especially people who have other investment options it is often a poor choice. I have 1.5 million of term on myself. I pay a rate that is 1/3 of what it would be to have cash value insurance policy on just myself for 500K.
So, taking an average 30ish year old male into account, which would you rather have:
30 years of protection at 1/3 cost for 1.5 million PLUS $120,000 in an investment account (using a very conservative 5% and assuming no other deposits) at the end of that 30 years (Total cost $30,000) or:
30 years of protection at $400,000 with an option to continue that coverage when I likely no longer need it but now have a fixed income in retirement, or cashing it in. If I cash it in I expect to get industry average (3-5% return BEFORE fees) on the small amount they invested which will likely be less but at best will be equal to my investment return above. Only I took the risk of being vastly under insured so I could have the benefit of paying 3x the amount for the same return.
I talked with numerous cash value specialists and an independent fee only financial adviser before making my decision. One thing I have noted is that their projections are universally very optimistic. They forget to tell you that 1) You are unlikely to see 8-9% returns because their fees are very high and outside of the late 80′s-early 90′s this has not been seen in the insurance market 2) They only invest a small portion of what you are paying in 3) They almost always show a projection that involves a large initial lump sum or additional deposits (over-funding) which is what is actually generating their returns.
I fully believe cash value is a “safe” investment” its just not very financially wise for most people when compared to other options.
So I just recalculated… I would actually only get $200,000 of universal for the cost of my 1.5 million dollar term. Also using an estimator I found that my cash value on a $200,000 policy after 30 yeas would be about $95,000. $25K less than the term option by it cost my $60,000 more. So my return on the whole policy is about 1:1. My return on my term plan would be 4:1
Jim-
Thank you for your comment. I think you missed a word in that point. The word is growth. Small cap GROWTH stocks are the black hole of investing. Despite increased risk, there is no increased return in that “quadrant.” The long-term higher returns from small-cap stocks are primarily from small cap value stocks. Also, using rolling periods as separate data points is a statistically questionable tactic. You may think you have 82 separate data points, but in reality you only have 4 completely unrelated data points, and no one should feel at all confident about results obtained from a study of 4 points. Do I think small cap stocks will have better returns than large cap stocks going forward? Absolutely. How sure am I? Not nearly as sure as you.
You are correct that the average investor is falling far short of long-term asset class returns. This is primarily due to expenses and behavior, both of which a wise investor can control. Unfortunately, the average “investor” in whole life insurance has a NEGATIVE return because he doesn’t stick with the investment long enough to reach the low positive returns possible with these insurance-based assets.
It’s absolutely NOT a dangerous assumption. Remember that we’re not talking about tax BRACKETS (aka the marginal tax rate) in retirement. We’re comparing the marginal tax rate now with the EFFECTIVE tax rate in retirement. For example, consider a married doctor who was making $250K a year and saving in a 401K/IRA in a tax-deferred manner. He is saving money at his marginal tax rate- 33%. In retirement, let’s say they pull out $100K one year. Assuming they take the standard deduction, the first $19,500 comes out tax-free. The next $17,400 comes out at 10%. The next $53,300 comes out at 15%. Then the last $9800 comes out at 25%. Overall effective tax rate for that withdrawal is 12.2%. Saving at 33% and spending at 12.2% is a winning formula. Once they start taking Social Security, that rate will go up slightly since 85% of their SS income will be taxable, but it will still be far lower than 33%. They can get the rate even lower by spending Roth assets (0%) or liquidating taxable investments at the long-term capital gains rate.
Most retirees not only have a lower income than they have during retirement, but a far lower income. I calculate I can live just as well in retirement on 28% of what I’m making now. By cutting out taxes, work-related expenses, children-related expenses, and retirement savings, this is pretty standard. Assuming a typical doc will make MORE in retirement than during their career is the bizarre assumption being made in this discussion. Not only do they not need to, but most aren’t saving anywhere near enough to replace half their income, much less the whole thing.
You may question “the validity” of this blog all you like. No one is asking you to agree with any and every point made on it. (In fact you don’t even have to read it.) I’m confident you’ll probably never agree with me with regards to the fact that most doctors should never own a whole life policy. As Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Based on your comments and the fact that you dodged the question about how you earn your income, I think the reader may safely assume a large percentage of it comes from cash value life insurance commissions.
Pingback: A Whole Life Insurance Success Story | The White Coat Investor- Investing And Personal Finance Information For Physicians, Dentists, Residents, Students, And Other Highly-Educated Busy Professionals