When is Cash Value Life Insurance a good or bad idea?
The standard answer I have heard is that if you were to purchase term life insurance and invest the difference between the cost of the policies, your investments would grow larger than the cash value of the insurance. Also when you take cash out of CVLI the insurance value drops by a like amount. So you can't have your cake and leave it to your heirs too. Either you get the cash value OR they get the insurance value. Hopefully, there could be some of both. Although I believe the philosophy of that answer I have two issues with it. First, you must be dedicated enough to invest the difference every month. I can imagine that might be tough to do consistently and if you take breaks from the investing will you still accumulate more than you would have with the insurance? Second, for the past couple of years all of my investments in mutual funds have lost value. My life insurance has continued to grow cash value over the same time period. Hmm, maybe there isn't a one size fits all solution. If you need a large amount of insurance, term life will certainly be more affordable. However, considering this as an investment I would not expect that to be a deciding factor. Good luck with your decision. It is great that at such a young age you are concerned about investments. Here's what I'd consider: "Buy term and invest the difference is certainly the standard recommendation, and for good reason. When you start looking at some sample numbers the ""buy term and invest the difference"" strategy starts to look very good. Here are the rates I found (27 yr old in Texas with good health, non-smoker, etc): $200k term life: $21/month $200k whole life: $177/month If you were to invest the difference in a retirement account for 40 years, assuming a 7% rate of return (many retirement planning estimates use 10%) you would have $411,859 at the end of that period. (If you use 10% that figure jumps to over $994k.) Needless to say, $400k in a retirement account is better than a $200k death benefit. Especially since you can't get the death benefit AND the cash value. Certainly one big difficulty is making sure you invest that difference. The best way to handle that is to set up a direct deposit that goes straight from your paycheck to the retirement account before it even touches your bank account. The next best thing would be an automatic transfer from your bank account. You may wonder 'What if I can no longer afford to invest that money?' First off, take a second and third look at your finances before you start eating into that. But if financial crisis comes and you truly can't afford to fund your own life insurance / retirement account then perhaps it will be a good thing you're not locked into a life insurance policy that forces you to pay those premiums. That extra freedom is another benefit of the ""buy term and invest the difference"" strategy. It is great that you are asking this question now while you are young. Because it is much easier to put this strategy into play now while you are young.  As far as using a cash value policy to help diversify your portfolio: I am no expert in how to allocate long term investments after maxing out my IRA and 401k. (My IRA maxes out at $5k/year, another $5k for my wife's, another $16.5k for my 401k.) Before I maxed that out I would have my house paid for and kid's education saved for. And by then it would make sense to pay a financial adviser to help you manage all those investments. They would be the one to ask about using a cash value policy similar to @lux lux's description.  I believe you should NEVER PUT YOUR MONEY INTO SOMETHING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. Cash value policies are complex and I don't fully understand them. I should add that of course my calculations are subject to the standard disclaimer that those investment returns aren't guaranteed. As with any financial decision you must be willing to accept some level of risk and the question is not whether to accept risk, but how much is acceptable. That's why I used 7% in my calculation instead of just 10%. I wanted to demonstrate that you could still beat out whole life if you wanted to reduce your risk and/or if the stock market performs poorly." "Buy term and invest the rest is something you will hear all the time, but actually cash value life insurance is a very misunderstood, useful financial product. Cash value life insurance makes sense if: If you you aren't maxing out your retirement accounts, just stick with term insurance, and save as much as you can for retirement. Otherwise, if you have at least 5 or 10k extra after you've funded retirement (for at least 7 years),  one financial strategy is to buy a whole life policy from one of the big three mutual insurance firms.  You buy a low face value policy, for example, say 50k face value; the goal is to build cash value in the policy. Overload the policy by buying additional paid up insurance in the first 7 years of the policy, using a paid-up addition rider of the policy. This policy will then grow its cash value at around 2% to 4% over the life of the policy....similar perhaps to the part of your portfolio that would would be in muni bonds; basically you are beating inflation by a small margin. Further, as you dump money into the policy, the death benefit grows. After 7 or 8 years, the cash value of the policy should equal the money you've put into it, and your death benefit will have grown substantially maybe somewhere around $250k in this example. You can access the cash value by taking a policy loan; you should only do this when it makes sense financially or in an emergency; but the important thing to realize is that your cash is there, if you need it.  So now you have insurance, you have your cash reserves. Why should you do this?  You save up your cash and have access to it, and you get the insurance for ""free"" while still getting a small return on your investment. You are diversifying your financial portfolio, pushing some of your money into conservative investments."
"An annuity is a product. In simple terms, you hand over a lump sum of cash and receive an agreed annual income until you die. The underlying investment required to reach that income level is not your concern, it's the provider's worry. So there is a huge mount of security to the retiree in having an annuity. It is worth pointing out that with simple annuities where one gives a lump sum of money to (typically) an insurance company, the annuity payments cease upon the death of the annuitant. If any part of the lump sum is still left, that money belongs to the company, not to the heirs of the deceased. Fancier versions of annuities cover the spouse of the annuitant as well (joint and survivor annuity) or guarantee a certain number of payments (e.g. 10-year certain) regardless of when the annuitant dies (payments for the remaining certain term go to the residual beneficiary) etc. How much of an annuity payment the company offers for a fixed lump sum of £X depends on what type of annuity is chosen; usually simple annuities give the maximum bang for the buck. Also, different companies may offer slightly different rates. So, why should one choose to buy an annuity instead of keeping the  lump sum in a bank or in fixed deposits (CDs in US parlance), or  invested in the stock market or the bond market, etc., and making periodic withdrawals from these assets at a ""safe rate of withdrawal""? Safe rates of withdrawal are often touted as 4% per annum in the US,  though there are newer studies saying that a smaller rate should be used.  Well, safe rates of withdrawal are designed to ensure that the retiree does not use up all the money and is left destitute just when medical bills and other costs are likely to be peaking.  Indeed, if all the money were kept in a sock at home (no growth at all), a 4% per annum withdrawal rate will last the retiree for 25 years. With some growth of the lump sum in an investment, somewhat larger withdrawals might be taken in good years, but that 4% is needed even when the investments have declined in value because of economic conditions beyond one's control. So, there are good things and bad things that can happen if one chooses to not buy an annuity. On the other hand, with an annuity, the payments will continue till death and so the retiree feels safer, as Chris  mentioned.  There is also the serenity in not having to worry how the investments are doing; that's the company's business. A down side, of course, is that the payments are fixed and if inflation is raging, the retiree still gets the same amount. If extra cash is needed one year for unavoidable expenses, the annuity will not provide it, whereas the lump sum (whether kept in a sock or invested) can be drawn on for the extra expense. Another down side is that any money remaining is gone, with nothing left for the heirs. On the plus side, the annuity payments are usually larger than  those that the retiree will get via the safe rate of withdrawal method from the lump sum. This is because the insurance company is applying the laws of large numbers: many annuitants will not survive past their life expectancy, and their leftover monies are pure profit to the insurance company, often more than enough (when invested properly by the company) to pay those old codgers who continue to live past their life expectancy. Personally, I wouldn't want to buy an annuity with all my money, but getting an annuity with part of the money is worthwhile. Important: The annuity discussed in this answer is what is sometimes called a single-premium or an immediate annuity.  It is purchased at the time of retirement with a single (large) lump sum payment. This is not the kind of annuity that is described in JAGAnalyst's answer which requires payment of (much smaller) premiums over many years. Search this forum for variable annuity to learn about these types of annuities." While this is a totally personal decision, I still think it would be a good idea to have some life insurance simply because you have someone that is currently dependent on your income.  Yes you have about 22 years in retirement, but if you consider taxes and market risk, there's still some uncertainty there.   Also, while your wife may be willing and able to work now, will she want to do that for years just to earn living expenses?   I would look at the costs on 10-year term life insurance and see if it's worth the extra peace of mind to you and your wife.  If your wife is fine with using your retirement as life insurance, then you can probably be OK without it. So to answer the question, it may be acceptable, but it's generally a very cheap way to get a lot of peace. I would not worry too much about the opinions of your parents - unless they are going to pay for the insurance, it's your decision. "I think the real problem here is dealing with the variable income. The envelope solution suggests the problem is that your brother doesn't have the discipline to avoid spending all his money immediately, but maybe that's not it. Maybe he could regulate his expenses just fine, but with such a variable income, he can't settle into a ""normal"" spending pattern. Without any savings, any budget would have to be based on the worst possible income for a month. This isn't a great: it means a poor quality of life. And what do you do with the extra money in the better-than-worst months? While it's easy to say ""plan for the worst, then when it's better, save that money"", that's just not going to happen. No one will want to live at their worst-case standard of living all the time. Someone would have to be a real miser to have the discipline to not use that extra money for something. You can say to save it for emergencies or unexpected events, but there's always a way to rationalize spending it. ""I'm a musician, so this new guitar is a necessary business expense!"" Or maybe the car is broken. Surely this is a necessary expense! But, do you buy a $1000 car or a $20000 car? There's always a way to rationalize what's necessary, but it doesn't change financial reality. With a highly variable income, he will need some cash saved up to fill in the bad months, which is replenished in the good months. For success, you need a reasonable plan for making that happen: one that includes provisions for spending it other than ""please try not to spend it"". I would suggest tracking income accurately for several months. Then you will have a real number (not a guess) of what an average month is. Then, you can budget on that. You will also have real numbers that allow you to calculate how long the bad stretches are, and thus determine how much cash reserve is necessary to make the odds of going broke in a bad period unlikely. Having that, you can make a budget based on average income, which should have some allowance for enjoying life. Of course initially the cash reserve doesn't exist, but knowing exactly what will happen when it does provides a good motivation for building the reserve rather than spending it today. Knowing that the budget includes rules for spending the reserves reduces the incentive to cheat. Of course, the eventual budget should also include provisions for long term savings for retirement, medical expenses, car maintenance, etc. You can do the envelope thing if that's helpful. The point here is to solve the problem of the variable income, so you can have an average income that doesn't result in a budget that delivers a soul crushing decrease in quality of living." Some things you missed in your analysis:   How will financing change your insurance costs?  I.e. what is the difference between the insurance that you would buy for yourself and what they require?   Note that it is possible that your insurance preferences are more stringent than the financing company's.  If so, this isn't a big deal.  But what's important is to consider if that's true.  Because if you'd prefer to drive with only the legal minimum insurance and they insist that you have full coverage with no more than a $1000 deductible, that's a significant difference.   Remember that you don't have $22.5k for six years.  You have an average of $10.5k (($22.5k + -$1500)/2) for six years.  Because you make payments ($24k) throughout.  So you start with $22.5k and subtract $333.33 a month until you reach -$1500.  That neglects both investment gains and potential losses.   It's not the $333 payment that will freak out mortgage companies.  It's the $24k debt.  But that's offset by your $22.5k in assets at the beginning.  And the car of course counts as an asset, albeit at lower than its sale value.  I.e. from the bank's perspective, paying $22.5k for a car out of savings is almost as bad as borrowing $24k for a car.  Both reduce your net worth.   Watch out for hidden fees.  In particular, 0% interest can often change into higher interest under certain circumstances.   If we assume a 7% return for the six years, that's about $1400 the first year and less each year after.  Perhaps $4500 over six years.  But you aren't going to get a 7% return if you keep $24,000 in a bank account in case you have to pay off the loan.  Instead, you'll get more like 1%, less than inflation.  Even five year Certificates of Deposit are only about 2%, right around inflation (1.9% for previous twelve months).   You can't keep the $24,000 in a securities account and be sure that it will be there when you need it.  If the market crashes tomorrow, your $24,000 might be worth $12,000 instead.  You'd have to throw in extra money from elsewhere.  Instead of making $4500 at the cost of $1500, you'd have paid $25,500 for $12,000.  Not a good deal.  So for your plan to work, that $24,000 needs to be in an account that won't fall in value.   You either need to compromise on the idea of a separate account that is always there when you need it, or you have to accept rather low returns.   Personally, I would prefer not to have the debt and not to pay extra on the insurance.  But that's me.  The potential investment returns are not worth it to me.  If you give up the separate account, you can make a few thousand dollars more.  But your risk is higher. "Yes, a HELOC is great for that. I just had my roof done last month (~$15K, ""ugh"") and pretty much every major contractor in my area had a 0% same-as-cash for at least 12 months. So that helps - any balance that I don't bank by 11/15/2015 will be on the HELOC." You seem to have a grasp of the basic principles involved, but your estimation of the risk you are taking seems a bit low. Your non-investment reserves are unlikely to cover your expenses for more than a month, so the chance that you would need to sell investments to cover additional expenses is high. You mention that I am flexible with the 'cash on hand' amount. For instance, for about three months I put a very tight spending/investing freeze on my life because I knew I'd be leaving jobs and moving (I already had the other job lined up). Those savings presumably went toward moving expenses, as your usual savings were insufficient. In the event that you are laid off suddenly, you might find yourself in the same position again, with added unplanned expenses like fees for breaking a lease. Your current plan involves selling investments to cover the gap. Based on your age you have probably only invested in a predominantly positive market, so the chance that you might need to sell investments for cash seems like a reasonable trade-off for the added potential gains. Your perception might change if the markets go south and you are forced to sell into a down market, possibly at a significant loss. You also don't indicate if your investments are currently sufficient to cover an extended period of unemployment. You are taking on a lot of risk under your current plan. Essentially you are trading possible investment gains for flexibility and time. By making small changes like saving at least enough to move as you did previously, you can give yourself time to react to job loss or other unexpected financial need. Rather than give the traditional emergency funds advice, I suggest you look at the broader picture. The total amount of savings/risk is up to you, but you should consider your current savings as insufficient to rely on as a safety net. I think it's a bad idea. You are taking a large amount of cash and changing it into an investment that is not liquid - if you need the money, it is expensive to get it back. Possible (unlikely) reasons: But usually, yeah, if you can pay cash, you should.