And the winner is: The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America for its just-released “Consumer Attitudes: Whole Life Insurance & Retirement.”
We’ve become accustomed to surveys used to position various financial companies and their products as the answer to Americans’ retirement needs. A lot of money is currently up for grabs, after all. But even we were impressed by the big insurer’s attempt to hoist whole life insurance onto that pedestal.
Yes, whole life insurance, the kind derided for decades by consumer advocates as an overpriced, oversold blend of life insurance and an investment account.
The ancient advice to “buy term and invest the rest” still holds for the huge majority of people, in our view. Term insurance, you’ll recall, is the kind that simply pays off if you die--and it tends to be far cheaper than whole life when people most need it.
Indeed, many people won’t need life insurance at all when they reach retirement age. Unless you still have children or others dependent on you for support, there’s little reason to keep buying life insurance. (If you’re of retirement age and happen to have a whole-life policy you’ve been paying premiums on for years, deciding whether to keep it is another issue.)
Among other things, Guardian says its “research shows that 80 percent of individuals and families owning a whole life insurance policy believe they will have enough money to live comfortably during retirement, compared with 60 percent who do not own whole life insurance.”
Maybe so. But people who believe they own the Brooklyn bridge probably feel much the same. Plus, if they’re looking for a way to keep active in retirement, they can always set up a toll booth.
—Greg Daugherty
PS: Those who agree or disagree, vehemently or otherwise, are invited to comment below. You don’t have to leave your name but please indicate any affiliations, so other readers will know where you’re coming from.
Greg Daugherty’s “Retirement Guy” column is a monthly feature of the Consumer Reports Money Adviser newsletter.