Main site > MoneySavingExpert.com Forums > About MSE > Martin's Blogs & Appearances Discussion > 'Warning! Axa Sun Life and other over-50s plans (... (Page 1)

IMPORTANT! This is MoneySavingExpert's open forum - anyone can post

Please exercise caution & report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous post to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com

  • Be nice to all MoneySavers
  • All the best tips go in the MoneySavingExpert weekly email

    Plus all the new guides, deals & loopholes

  • No spam/referral links
or Login with Facebook
'Warning! Axa Sun Life and other over-50s plans (but don't just...) blog discussion
Closed Thread
Views: 3,848
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
# 1
MSE Helen
Old 02-04-2012, 5:59 PM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,919
Default 'Warning! Axa Sun Life and other over-50s plans (but don't just...) blog discussion

This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.





Please click 'post reply' to discuss below.

Last edited by MSE Helen; 02-04-2012 at 6:02 PM.
MSE Helen is offline
Report Post
# 2
jamesd
Old 03-04-2012, 10:35 PM
Deliciously Dedicated Diehard MoneySaving Devotee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,799
Default

This doesn't change your main points, but it does decrease the value of the insurance a bit. You've used the wrong mortality statistics. Those are period statistics, you should have used cohort, which are available in spreadsheet form from ONS. The spreadsheet is less convenient for showing regional variations, though.

For Beatrice her cohort life expectancy at 60 in 1997 was 82.4 years. At 75 in 2012 it's 88.1 years. Ignoring investment returns it would still on average make sense for her to continue paying in.

In practice she can put the monthly premiums into an ISA and it'll probably grow by enough to make paying in the wrong choice on average. For it to be the optimal choice to pay in she'd need to be closer to 80 than 75.

This leads to some somewhat reasonable general guidance:
  • If you're a woman aged 80 or over or a man aged 77 or over and in good health it's probably good to continue paying in.
  • If you're a woman aged 75 or younger or a man aged 72 or younger and in good health it's probably good to cancel.
  • Between those ages the difference isn't likely to be great, just use your personal preference.
  • If you're in Scotland or a very poor area, or did manual labour instead of office work, reduce those ages by three years for each.
  • If you're in a rich area or a professional like a doctor or solicitor, increase the ages by three years for each.
  • If you have heart trouble, smoke or are very overweight decrease the ages by three years for each.

The education, regional and health factors are very crude but enough to give some idea of how things change and produce somewhat decent results, though a more detailed tool could definitely do better. At the extremes:

Man in Scotland who was a labourer, has artery disease, smokes, drinks a lot and is obese, good to continue paying in from age 62.
Woman professional in a rich area with no health trouble, good to continue paying in from age 86.

You probably already know about the difference between period and cohort life expectancies so this is mainly a note for others that the true age to which at least 50% of people their age will live is likely to be a few years longer than shown.

Given your liking for statistics you're probably itching to have a calculator that can work out the likely best choice for each person...
jamesd is offline
Report Post
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jamesd For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 3
oldvicar
Old 03-04-2012, 11:27 PM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,069
Default

Quote:
you could pay more in, than is paid out
Quote:
the AVERAGE 65-year-old man will pay in more than they ever get out
I am glad that you are warning against these nasty little policies, with high charges and frequently inadequate cover. But why the outrage at the facts qoted above?

Surely this is normal for any type of sustainable insurance?
{Payments in} = {Policy admin overheads} + {Insurance company profit} + {Payments out}.
It is only to be expected that, on average, people will pay in more than is paid out.

It's the same with e.g. my house insurance. I expect to keep paying in to cover my risks, but I would very much prefer never to have a payout. Its the same for the majority of buildings policyholders. Only the 'lucky' few have their house burn down and get paid out more than they put in.
oldvicar is offline
Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to oldvicar For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 4
MSE Martin
Old 04-04-2012, 1:28 PM
Money Saving Expert
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: MSE Towers, London
Posts: 8,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesd View Post
This doesn't change your main points, but it does decrease the value of the insurance a bit. You've used the wrong mortality statistics. Those are period statistics, you should have used cohort, which are available in spreadsheet form from ONS. The spreadsheet is less convenient for showing regional variations, though.

For Beatrice her cohort life expectancy at 60 in 1997 was 82.4 years. At 75 in 2012 it's 88.1 years. Ignoring investment returns it would still on average make sense for her to continue paying in.

In practice she can put the monthly premiums into an ISA and it'll probably grow by enough to make paying in the wrong choice on average. For it to be the optimal choice to pay in she'd need to be closer to 80 than 75.

This leads to some somewhat reasonable general guidance:
  • If you're a woman aged 80 or over or a man aged 77 or over and in good health it's probably good to continue paying in.
  • If you're a woman aged 75 or younger or a man aged 72 or younger and in good health it's probably good to cancel.
  • Between those ages the difference isn't likely to be great, just use your personal preference.
  • If you're in Scotland or a very poor area, or did manual labour instead of office work, reduce those ages by three years for each.
  • If you're in a rich area or a professional like a doctor or solicitor, increase the ages by three years for each.
  • If you have heart trouble, smoke or are very overweight decrease the ages by three years for each.
The education, regional and health factors are very crude but enough to give some idea of how things change and produce somewhat decent results, though a more detailed tool could definitely do better. At the extremes:

Man in Scotland who was a labourer, has artery disease, smokes, drinks a lot and is obese, good to continue paying in from age 62.
Woman professional in a rich area with no health trouble, good to continue paying in from age 86.

You probably already know about the difference between period and cohort life expectancies so this is mainly a note for others that the true age to which at least 50% of people their age will live is likely to be a few years longer than shown.

Given your liking for statistics you're probably itching to have a calculator that can work out the likely best choice for each person...
Interesting stuff - thank you
Martin Lewis, Money Saving Expert.
Please note, answers don't constitute financial advice, it is based on generalised journalistic research. Always ensure any decision is made with regards to your own individual circumstance.

Don't miss out on urgent MoneySaving, get my weekly e-mail at www.moneysavingexpert.com/tips.

Debt-Free Wannabee Official Nerd Club: (Honorary) Members number 000
MSE Martin is offline
Report Post
# 5
MSE Martin
Old 04-04-2012, 1:30 PM
Money Saving Expert
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: MSE Towers, London
Posts: 8,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldvicar View Post
I am glad that you are warning against these nasty little policies, with high charges and frequently inadequate cover. But why the outrage at the facts qoted above?

Surely this is normal for any type of sustainable insurance?
{Payments in} = {Policy admin overheads} + {Insurance company profit} + {Payments out}.
It is only to be expected that, on average, people will pay in more than is paid out.

It's the same with e.g. my house insurance. I expect to keep paying in to cover my risks, but I would very much prefer never to have a payout. Its the same for the majority of buildings policyholders. Only the 'lucky' few have their house burn down and get paid out more than they put in.
Except this isn't insurance its assurance - as death is assured. My problem here is the very poor return against a definite circumstance.

In effect you're insuring against dieing earlier than average - and that's really how it needs to be portrayed, i simply dont think many people who get the policies perceive it as insurance and especially not insuring against early death.
Martin Lewis, Money Saving Expert.
Please note, answers don't constitute financial advice, it is based on generalised journalistic research. Always ensure any decision is made with regards to your own individual circumstance.

Don't miss out on urgent MoneySaving, get my weekly e-mail at www.moneysavingexpert.com/tips.

Debt-Free Wannabee Official Nerd Club: (Honorary) Members number 000
MSE Martin is offline
Report Post
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MSE Martin For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 6
thelovelysamantha
Old 04-04-2012, 2:44 PM
MoneySaving Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1
Default

This is such a common matter of concern to we olds. I'm not a big fan either of insurance or assurance since by definition the provider exists to make money but neither do I want my eventual executor to have to take out a loan to cover the immediate expenses when I shuffle off. We have therefore opened a joint account; it's not that easy with a bank or building society if you don't share a name/address and don't want to have to keep shifting it to keep it from reverting to a punitively puny rate of interest, but there are possibilities such as holding investment trust shares within a joint account. Has anyone else tried this route? Obviously we can't hold ISA cash jointly, and our tax liabilities are different, so this keeps it about as simple as I think it can be as the shares pay a distribution of capital rather than a dividend. I can't imagine I'll live long enough for there to be any problem with capital gains, unless the HMRC rules/threshold change!
thelovelysamantha is offline
Report Post
# 7
jamesd
Old 04-04-2012, 8:47 PM
Deliciously Dedicated Diehard MoneySaving Devotee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,799
Default

Check with your own bank for specifics but it's common practice for a bank to release funds from current or savings accounts in the form of a cheque to an undertaker when presented with a death certificate and invoice from the undertaker for anticipated funeral costs. NatWest is one bank where I have personal experience of doing this and it was a straightforward process that took about a week from start to undertaker receiving the cheque. An undertaker will normally just go ahead with the funeral without waiting for payment, the person doing the arranging would be expected to give a personal guarantee to pay.

The advantage of this approach is that you can have your money sitting in an account and making you some money while you're still alive and yet still have it available very quickly to take care of funeral expenses. Since you need an emergency fund anyway, this can be doing dual duty as both your emergency fund while alive and funeral expenses when needed.

For non-funeral expenses the joint account approach can be a good one, though do be aware that it will create a financial association between the credit records of each joint holder and that may be undesirable in credit reports.

If you want to make life easier for the person handling the immediate things:

1. Write down your funeral preferences.
2. Write down a list of people you want to be told and invited, and say if there are any you don't want invited.
3. Write down a list of your accounts and contact information for them all.
4. Ensure that any executor named in your will is really willing to be your executor. If they refuse things can get very messy.
jamesd is offline
Report Post
# 8
oldvicar
Old 05-04-2012, 12:38 AM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MSE Martin View Post
Except this isn't insurance its assurance - as death is assured. My problem here is the very poor return against a definite circumstance.

In effect you're insuring against dieing earlier than average - and that's really how it needs to be portrayed, i simply dont think many people who get the policies perceive it as insurance and especially not insuring against early death.
I see. Thanks for responding Martin.

Possibly a 'fairer' way to sell such policies would be to make them 'paid up' after a time.

For example just making up some figures to illustrate: for the promise of a payout of 1000 upon death, charge a premium of 10 a month, but after 15 years of premiums (1800 paid in) if the policyholder still survives stop collecting the premiums but stil pay out 1000 when death eventually occurs.

Still a pretty pointless product for the majority of people. The main problem is they are (mis)sold mainly on the emotional benefit of 'caring for loved ones when you are gone' rather than any truly practical benefit.

The majority of policies probably would count as mis-sales if the insurer was responsible for ensuring the product was suitable for a customers needs. But these are sold on the basis of 'guaranteed acceptance', no questions asked (i.e. no fact find).
oldvicar is offline
Report Post
# 9
thelawnet
Old 05-04-2012, 4:17 AM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,342
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesd View Post
For Beatrice her cohort life expectancy at 60 in 1997 was 82.4 years. At 75 in 2012 it's 88.1 years. Ignoring investment returns it would still on average make sense for her to continue paying in.
But that to me is the biggest problem with the article.

You cannot ignore investment returns.

To consider one of the examples in the article:

'Big Bob is a 65-year-old darts player in pretty decent health. His kids are struggling and hes alone, so he decides to put a bit of cash aside each month in an over-50s plan, paying 5 a month with Axa. It promises to pay him out a guaranteed 660 when he dies provided he lives at least two years.'

There are a few things that give an indication about Bob's life expectancy here.

Big Bob - is he obese, or an alcoholic, or both?
Darts player - likewise, does he spend a lot of time in the pub, or smoking?
He's alone - this will reduce his life expectancy, for a number of reasons
Kids struggling - not sure what this means, but he has some support here, probably increasing his life expectancy.

Anyway, moving on, let's just say Bob is 'average', and can expect to live around 21 years.
Regardless of the value of the final payout, the problem here is that the longer you pay in, the more significant inflation becomes.

To simplify it, let's say there are annual payments of 100 at the beginning of each year, and you get back 1000, and inflation is 5% per year.

If you live 2 years, you pay in 100 in today's money in year 1, 95 in today's money in year 2, therefore paying in 195 of net present value, and you get back 1000*.95*.95 = 902.50 We pay in a nominal 200 and get back a nominal 1000, but we paid in a real 195 - 97.5% of the nominal value, and got back a real 902.50, only 90.25% of the nominal value.

What happens if you were to pay in for 10 years + then die? This is a geometric series, n=10, r=0.95, a=100, so the NPV of the payments is 802.56, while the NPV of the payout is only 598.74; this time the real value of the payments is 80.26% of the nominal, but the real value of the payout is just 59.87% of nominal.

In other words, while they might quote higher payouts for younger people, by the expected date of death, these payouts will be ravaged by inflation, relative to the amount paid in - ALL of your payout will be in inflated, 2033 (expected date year death) pounds, whereas your payments in will be partly in expensive 2012 pounds, and only the very last payments will be depreciated to the extent of the ENTIRE payout.

Taking the example from the article:

  1. Find out how long itll be before he pays in more than itll pay out
    Divide the payout by the monthly contribution:
    660 divided by 5 = 132.
    This gives the number of months after which he will have paid in an amount equal to his lump sum.
    132 months divided by 12 = 11 years.
    So, as Bob is currently 65, if he reaches the age of 76, he will have contributed more than the planned payout.
This isn't right at all.

Let's derive a better formula.

Let (100% - monthly inflation) = r, the number of months premiums paid = n, the assured amount = m, and the monthly payment = a

The NPV of the assured amount is m * r^n.
The question is when does this equal the NPV of the sum of payments
This sum is given by a * (1-r^n) / (1-r)
So in general this becomes a good deal when m * r^n > a * (1-r^n)/(1-r)
If annual inflation is 5%, r = 0.995926, we know m = 660, a = 5, so
660 * 0.995926^n > 5/0.004074124 * (1- 0.995926^n)
i.e. 660 * 0.995926^n>1227.258-1227.258* 0.995926^n
or
0.995926^n > 1227.258/1887.258
i.e. n = log(1227.258/1887.258, 0.995926)
= 105.46 months, or just short of 9 years

Another point from the article
Though its important to note that if you were to die during the first one or two years (which varies by policy) you would not get a payout.


Not quite true.


Per Axa,



If you die in the first 2 years, wed pay back all the premiums paid, plus half as much again.


A male aged 85 paying 74/month assures 4,055 on death. He has approximately a 22% chance of dying before 2 years, in which case he gets back all the premiums paid, plus 50%.


Here are US mortality rates by age:


http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html


(can't find UK ones)

I plugged these into a spreadsheet and calculated the probability of death at any given age for someone age 85, and the NPV of payments and death benefit at that age.
From this, I calculate the profit if you die during a given year.

For example, if you live to be 105, you will receive the lump sum with NPV of 1381, but you will have paid premiums of 11,440. This gives a loss of NPV from dying at that age of 10,060.
On the other hand, IF you die after 2 years (say 2.5 on average), your profit is 1389, based on having paid 2.5 years of premium and the NPV of the death benefit. Sum all the possible death years and you find the profit has an expected loss of 1612.50


Take the example of a 65-year-old man whos been told hes only likely to live for another five years. On that basis, even an Axa plan for 74 a month would pay out 12,085 if you did die after five years youd only have paid in 4,400 to get it, a very efficient investment.
So for someone whos very unlikely to make the average life expectancy, these can be a seriously good gamble.

Well that really depends on the nature of what's limiting your life expectancy. If you look at the actuarial tables above, mortality risk for a 65-year-old in the next year is 1.7%. In order to have a life expectancy of 5 years, it's likely that your mortality risk in the next year is say 17%. But it might not be, and whether it's a good deal depends on these numbers. If for example the doctor says 'we expect you to live five years, but if you beat that, it's likely to be twenty', then when you combine the fact that you don't get the full payout until 2 years, and for someone with limited life expectancy, then there's presumably a substantial chance that they will die within 2 years, all but killing the payout, with the chance that if you return to health as a 70-year-old, you can very likely face another 20 years of life, it can add up to a poor deal.

Bottom line of course is that these policies are almost always a bad deal.

Quote:
For it to be the optimal choice to pay in she'd need to be closer to 80 than 75.

This leads to some somewhat reasonable general guidance:
  • If you're a woman aged 80 or over or a man aged 77 or over and in good health it's probably good to continue paying in.
  • If you're a woman aged 75 or younger or a man aged 72 or younger and in good health it's probably good to cancel.
  • Between those ages the difference isn't likely to be great, just use your personal preference.
  • If you're in Scotland or a very poor area, or did manual labour instead of office work, reduce those ages by three years for each.
  • If you're in a rich area or a professional like a doctor or solicitor, increase the ages by three years for each.
  • If you have heart trouble, smoke or are very overweight decrease the ages by three years for each.
This depends on the actual payout of your personal policy. Perhaps there are some historical policies that have generous rates, I don't know. In order to make a general assessment, you need:
  • monthly payment
  • assured amount
  • age
  • sex
And then you can make health/lifestyle adjustments


Quote:

The education, regional and health factors are very crude but enough to give some idea of how things change and produce somewhat decent results, though a more detailed tool could definitely do better. At the extremes:

Man in Scotland who was a labourer, has artery disease, smokes, drinks a lot and is obese, good to continue paying in from age 62.
Woman professional in a rich area with no health trouble, good to continue paying in from age 86.
I think you are conflating risk factors and indicators of those risk factors, but the two are not the same.

Someone who is a labourer or Scottish is more likely to make bad lifestyle choices, SUCH AS poor diet (artery disease?), smoking, obesity, excess drinking, and so on. But if you are a Scottish labourer eating healthily, enjoying a decent pension, exercising regularly, etc., then those factors are what count, and your life expectancy will be on the right-hand side of the curve. Being Scottish does not shorten your life expectancy, and you shouldn't adjust based on it for individual cases - it's only useful for considering the cohort as a whole (e.g., do people in Scotland get a worse deal from these schemes than people in England), not for individuals.
thelawnet is offline
Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to thelawnet For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 10
jamesd
Old 05-04-2012, 10:15 AM
Deliciously Dedicated Diehard MoneySaving Devotee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thelawnet View Post
But that to me is the biggest problem with the article. ... You cannot ignore investment returns.
True.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thelawnet View Post
Here are US mortality rates by age ... (can't find UK ones)
ONS probably has some, you might try some searching around their site.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thelawnet View Post
I think you are conflating risk factors and indicators of those risk factors, but the two are not the same.

Someone who is a labourer or Scottish is more likely to make bad lifestyle choices, SUCH AS poor diet (artery disease?), smoking, obesity, excess drinking, and so on. But if you are a Scottish labourer eating healthily, enjoying a decent pension, exercising regularly, etc., then those factors are what count, and your life expectancy will be on the right-hand side of the curve. Being Scottish does not shorten your life expectancy, and you shouldn't adjust based on it for individual cases - it's only useful for considering the cohort as a whole (e.g., do people in Scotland get a worse deal from these schemes than people in England), not for individuals.
I agree. I was mixing the two deliberately, using some personal factors and some indicators to keep things simple. Should really be done with more in depth individual questioning. Good enough for my purpose - a short post to illustrate a conceptual way of varying things - but definitely imperfect. The personal risk factors aren't really independent of each other either but trying to get into that would have been way over the top...

Last edited by jamesd; 05-04-2012 at 10:18 AM.
jamesd is offline
Report Post
# 11
thelawnet
Old 05-04-2012, 2:22 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,342
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesd View Post
True.

ONS probably has some, you might try some searching around their site.
I did, though only up to age 89 The US figures for 90+ seem to fit so I used those for ages of 90 and above for my spreadsheet:

http://www.!!!!!!!!!!!!/document/3BBzPnmA/actuary.html

These plans have rather more variations than discussed in the article.

For instance the Asda/LV policy has a capped policy, where you won't pay more premiums than you get out.

Now it's a given that these policies are almost always a bad idea, in the first place, but if you've held a capped policy for a long time, it's a better bet to keep it.

E.g., Asda/LV 50+ plan, male age 70 assures 6,034 @ 50 PCM with uncapped premiums, or 4,281 @ 49.34/month with capped premiums

The expected value of these policies (taking into account the risk of dying in year 1) is -2,668.81 and -1,156.10 respectively. Both a poor deal, but because the cost of capping (with Asda/LV) is constant with age, the older you are the better a deal it is (since for a younger person the assured amount, by the time of death, will be ravaged by inflation anyway).

After 3 years of payments, however the capped policy is worth 312.52, while the uncapped policy remains resolutely an absolute stinker, with an expected value of -1583.99

Basically, although an uncapped policy is also a bad deal, unless you are either young (closer to 50 than 70), or just took it out very recently, it's worth keeping. A capped policy - not so much.
thelawnet is offline
Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to thelawnet For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 12
PaulFD
Old 05-04-2012, 7:11 PM
MoneySaving Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6
Default

Find a funeral director that offers a pre-paid funeral plan. Preferably with the Funeral planning services. Google their website. The money is held in a trust untill needed.
PaulFD is offline
Report Post
# 13
thelawnet
Old 07-04-2012, 1:08 AM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,342
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulFD View Post
Find a funeral director that offers a pre-paid funeral plan. Preferably with the Funeral planning services. Google their website. The money is held in a trust untill needed.
Which could be a long time, earning a nice fat profit for the Funeral Planners.

It's no better than a 50+ plan.
thelawnet is offline
Report Post
# 14
SiWilts
Old 08-04-2012, 11:58 AM
MoneySaving Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13
Default

These plans are fine if you're someone in bad health or maybe have had major heart surgery, for example and still remain in bad health.
Then there's a greater chance you won't pay more premiums than the amount of life assurance that you're covered for.

So these policies can be decent value but can also be bad value. Not much different from any kind of insurance really.

How many of us have paid house insurance premiums for many years without needing to claim?
SiWilts is offline
Report Post
# 15
andy2004
Old 10-04-2012, 12:04 AM
PPR
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 1,300
Send a message via Yahoo to andy2004
Default

My mum took out the plan mentioned above, and after paying it and getting to the point where she's going to pay more than what she would get back on death, decided to stop paying.
Few facts. 1 i told her not to take it out in the first place, that it would be better to pay it into a bank account like an isa.
2 i told her before she cancelled it that she wouldnt get a penny back, but after my sisters phoned them and had a word with sunlife who said on her death they would pay out some of the amount but it wouldnt be the full amount even if she cancelled and stopped paying, so my sisters cancelled it for her, whilst my sister was on the phone with them, dont remember getting any letters from them about the phone call.
But we still get letters from sunlife asking my mum to take out a new policy of the over 50's which she chucks in the bin.
Personally believe the sunlife rep was lying to my sister, but i guess its to late to do anything about that as it was about 3 years ago.
my sister i do remember said all we had to do when my mum dies is phone sunlife and give them a number to receive payment.
I'm waiting on the day i can say i told you so to my sisters, they think they know better than me, i told them after my sister finished speaking to sunlife they where lying to her about the cancellation and yes your mum would get a pay out on her death.
andy2004 is offline
Report Post
# 16
norbet
Old 09-05-2012, 9:55 AM
MoneySaving Convert
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thelawnet View Post
Which could be a long time, earning a nice fat profit for the Funeral Planners.

It's no better than a 50+ plan.
You should also consider that the cost of funerals also rise. You could buy a pre-paid funeral plan now and no matter what the cost of it is when you die your funeral cost will be met.
In that sense I'd say it's better value than a 50+
norbet is offline
Report Post
# 17
davidanddeirdre
Old 09-05-2012, 5:13 PM
MoneySaving Convert
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: E Yorks
Posts: 73
Default Me Dave

I find it difficult to understand why people worry about what will happen to their bodies after they are dead, even more difficult to understand how they let themselves be conned by insurance companies into parting with money unnecessarily for years or decades. No-one other than those of working age with children or other dependents to worry about should need to take out life insurance. As for funerals, if the nearest and dearest want to attend something more lavish than a minimalist funeral, then they can pay for it. In my case, there is currently enough for a decent party which is what I hope they will have, just sorry I won't be able to attend. If in my later old age all my assets have been swallowed up by care homes, well so be it.
davidanddeirdre is offline
Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to davidanddeirdre For This Useful Post: Show me >>
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
 
 




Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 Forum Jump  

Contact Us - MoneySavingExpert.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:03 PM.

 Forum Jump  

Free MoneySaving Email

Top deals: Week of 22 October 2014

Get all this & more in MoneySavingExpert's weekly email full of guides, vouchers and Deals

GET THIS FREE WEEKLY EMAIL Full of deals, guides & it's spam free

Latest News & Blogs

Martin's Twitter Feed

profile

Cheap Travel Money

Find the best online rate for holiday cash with MSE's TravelMoneyMax.

Find the best online rate for your holiday cash with MoneySavingExpert's TravelMoneyMax.

TuneChecker Top Albums

  • ED SHEERANX (DELUXE EDITION)
  • STATUS QUOAQUOSTIC (STRIPPED BARE)
  • SAM SMITHIN THE LONELY HOUR (DELUXE EDITION)

MSE's Twitter Feed

profile
Always remember anyone can post on the MSE forums, so it can be very different from our opinion.
We use Skimlinks and other affiliated links in some of our boards, for some of our users.