What does it mean to a life insurance policy holder to convert from a stock to mutual insurance company?
"A stock insurance company is structured like a “normal” company. It has shareholders (that are the company's investors), who elect a board of directors, who select the senior executive(s), who manage the people who run the actual company. The directors (and thus the executives and employees) have a legal responsibility to manage the company in a way which is beneficial for the shareholders, since the shareholders are the ultimate owner of the company. A mutual insurance company is similar, except that the people holding policies are also the shareholders. That is, the policyholders are the ultimate owners of the company, and there generally aren't separate shareholders who are just “investing” in the company. These policyholder-shareholders elect the board of directors, who select the senior executive(s), who manage the people who run the actual company. In practice, it probably doesn't really make a whole lot of difference, since even if you're just a ""customer"" and not an ""owner"" of the company, the company is still going to want to attract customers and act in a reasonable way toward them. Also, insurance companies are generally pretty heavily regulated in terms of what they can do, because governments really like them to remain solvent. It may be comforting to know that in a mutual insurance company the higher-ups are explicitly supposed to be working in your best interest, though, rather than in the interest of some random investors. Some might object that being a shareholder may not give you a whole lot more rights than you had before. See, for example, this article from the Boston Globe, “At mutual insurance firms, big money for insiders but no say for ‘owners’ — policyholders”: It has grown into something else entirely: an opaque, poorly understood, and often immensely profitable world in which some executives and insiders operate with minimal scrutiny and, no coincidence, often reap maximum personal rewards. Policyholders, despite their status as owners, have no meaningful oversight of how mutual companies spend their money — whether to lower rates, pay dividends, or fund executive salaries and perks — and few avenues to challenge such decisions. Another reason that one might not like the conversion is the specific details of how the current investor-shareholders are being paid back for their investment in the process of the conversion to mutual ownership, and what that might do to the funds on hand that are supposed to be there to keep the firm solvent for the policyholders. From another Boston Globe article on the conversion of SBLI to a mutual company, “Insurer SBLI wants to get banks out of its business,” professor Robert Wright is cautiously optimistic but wants to ensure the prior shareholders aren't overpaid: Robert Wright, a professor in South Dakota who has studied insurance companies and owns an SBLI policy, said he would prefer the insurer to be a mutual company that doesn’t have to worry about the short-term needs of shareholders. But he wants to ensure that SBLI doesn’t overpay the banks for their shares. “It’s fine, as long as it’s a fair price,” he said. That article also gives SBLI's president's statement as to why they think it's a good thing for policyholders: If the banks remained shareholders, they would be likely to demand a greater share of the profits and eat into the dividends the insurance company currently pays to the 536,000 policyholders, about half of whom live in Massachusetts, said Jim Morgan, president of Woburn-based SBLI. “We’re trying to protect the policyholders from having the dividends diluted,” Morgan said. I'm not sure there's an obvious pros/cons list for either way, but I'd think that I'd prefer the mutual approach, just on the principle that the policyholders “ought” to be the owners, because the directors (and thus the executives and employees) are then legally required to manage the company in the best interest of the policyholders. I did cast a Yes vote in my proxy on whether SBLI ought to become a mutual company (I'm a SBLI term-life policyholder.) But policy terms aren't changing, and it'd be hard to tell for sure how it'd impact any dividends (I assume the whole-life policies must be the ones to pay dividends) or company solvency either way, since it's not like we'll get to run a scientific experiment trying it out both ways. I doubt you'd have a lot of regrets either way, whether it becomes a mutual company and you wish it hadn't or it doesn't become one and you wish it had."
"It's Permanent Insurance, sold as a savings scheme that is a bad deal for most people. The insurance aspect really doesn't mean much to most people. The classic example that's been around for decades is the ""Gerber Grow Up Plan"". Basically, it's a whole-life policy that accumulates a cash value. The pitch is typically given to grandparents, who kick in $10/mo and end up with a policy that is worth a little more than what was paid in. Why do people do it? Like most permanent life, it's usually an expensive investment choice." It is true that this is possible, however, it's very remote in the case of the large and reputable fund companies such as Vanguard. FDIC insurance protects against precisely this for bank accounts, but mutual funds and ETFs do not have an equivalent to FDIC insurance. One thing that does help you in the case of a mutual fund or ETF is that you indirectly (through the fund) own actual assets. In a cash account at a bank, you have a promise from the bank to pay, and then the bank can go off and use your money to make loans. You don't in any sense own the bank's loans. With a fund, the fund company cannot (legally) take your money out of the fund, except to pay the expense ratio. They have to use your money to buy stocks, bonds, or whatever the fund invests in. Those assets are then owned by the fund. Legally, a mutual fund is a special kind of company defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, and is a separate company from the investment advisor (such as Vanguard): http://www.sec.gov/answers/mfinvco.htm Funds have their own boards, and in principle a fund board can even fire the company advising the fund, though this is not likely since boards aren't usually independent. (a quick google found this article for more, maybe someone can find a better one: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mutual-fund-independent-board-rule-all-but-dead) If Vanguard goes under, the funds could continue to exist and get a new adviser, or could be liquidated with investors receiving whatever the assets are worth. Of course, all this legal stuff doesn't help you with outright fraud. If a fund's adviser says it bought the S&P 500, but really some guy bought himself a yacht, Madoff-style, then you have a problem. But a huge well-known ETF has auditors, tons of different employees, lots of brokerage and exchange traffic, etc. so to me at least it's tough to imagine a risk here. With a small fund company with just a few people - and there are lots of these! - then there's more risk, and you'd want to carefully look at what independent agent holds their assets, who their auditors are, and so forth. With regular mutual funds (not ETFs) there are more issues with diversifying across fund companies: With ETFs, there probably isn't much downside to diversifying since you could buy them all from one brokerage account. Maybe it even happens naturally if you pick the best ETFs you can find. Personally, I would just pick the best ETFs and not worry about advisor diversity. Update: maybe also deserving a mention are exchange-traded notes (ETNs). An ETN's legal structure is more like the bank account, minus the FDIC insurance of course. It's an IOU from the company that runs the ETN, where they promise to pay back the value of some index. There's no investment company as with a fund, and therefore you don't own a share of any actual assets. If the ETN's sponsor went bankrupt, you would indeed have a problem, much more so than if an ETF's sponsor went bankrupt. "Many answers here have given what look to be useful perspectives on your question.  I want to point out an interesting technical issue. If an employer contracts with an insurer, it agrees to cover all employees (or all that fill some pre-specified definition and no one else), and to offer only a limited range of options. If you buy insurance directly, you obviously have a huge range of choices, including the (technically illegal) one of no insurance at all. Your first thought is probably, ""Hey, that's great! More options, more chances to pick the plan that's right for me."" Sorry, no.  Yes, you have more options, but so does everyone else. If you are working for some large company, you get insurance, period. If you suspect you have an expensive health condition, you cannot buy more insurance; if you believe yourself to be healthy as a horse, you cannot get skimpier insurance and pocket the difference.  Healthy people and sick people are all in the same predictable pool. If you buy insurance freely, the insurer knows that the sicker you are, the more likely you are buy insurance, a phenomenon called adverse selection.  As a result, the premiums (fees) a person buying his own insurance pays are much higher, because most of his fellow policy-holders are sickly -- even if he himself is just risk-averse. On the other hand, if you are risk-neutral, if you can survive a $10,000 bill if it happens to arise, you can save big by finding the skimpiest imaginable insurance, where all your fellow policy-holders will be hale and healthy people like yourself." Well, actually in your brother's case it's quite a good idea. Not as a savings method, but as what it is - insurance. As long as he's alive and well he can pay his own debts, they're his problem and it's his responsibility. Once something, god forbid, happens to him - the debts become the problem of his survivors (you, if he doesn't have kids, for example). His life insurance should provide the means to pay off the inherited debts. So the point of life insurance as insurance is to make sure those who survive you have enough of what they need to continue living as they were with you. Some policies take into account injuries and work disability, so that not only when you die there are benefits, but also when you had an accident and can no longer work. Some policies are basically a combination of savings and insurance - that's the policies discussed in the investing threads. edit as clarified in the comments, debts cannot be inherited per se, they will be paid off from the estate before disbursement of such. What it means though is, if the deceased had accrued significant debt, all his assets may go to the creditors leaving survivors with nothing, which may also mean homeless. That was the kind of a problem I was talking about. "1) When it says ""an investment or mutual fund"", is a mutual fund not   an investment? If no, what is the definition of an investment? A mutual fund is indeed an investment. The article probably mentions  mutual funds separately from other investments because it is not uncommon for mutual funds to give you the option to automatically reinvest dividends and capital gains.    2) When it says ""In terms of stocks"", why does it only mention   distribution of dividends but not distribution of capital gains? Since distributions are received as cash deposits they can be used to buy more of the stock. Capital gains, on the other hand, occur when an asset increases in value. These gains are realized when the asset is sold. In the case of stocks, reinvestment of capital gains doesn't make much sense since buying more stock after selling it to realize capital gains results in you owning as much stock as you had before you realized the gains. 3) When it says ""In terms of mutual funds"", it says about ""the   reinvestment of distributions and dividends"". Does ""distributions"" not   include distributions of ""dividends""? why does it mention   ""distributions"" parallel to ""dividends""? Used in this setting, dividend and distribution are synonymous, which is highlighted by the way they are used in parallel. 4) Does reinvestment only apply to interest or dividends, but not to   capital gain? Reinvestment only applies to dividends in the case of stocks. Mutual funds must distribute capital gains to shareholders, making these distributions essentially cash dividends, usually as a special end of year distribution. If you've requested automatic reinvestment, the fund will buy more shares with these capital gain distributions as well." I am of the strong opinion that life insurance should be purchased as a term product and nothing more. The internal expense is usually high, the returns, poor and the product disclosure is often incomprehensible. The only purpose Cash Value Life Insurance serves, in my opinion, is to fund the retirement and college educations of those selling it. According to this article: With an all-stock merger, the number of shares covered by a call option is changed to adjust for the value of the buyout. The options on the bought-out company will change to options on the buyer stock at the same strike price, but for a different number of shares. Normally, one option is for 100 shares of the underlying stock. For example, company A buys company B, exchanging 1/2 share of A for each share of B. Options purchased on company B stock would change to options on company A, with 50 shares of stock delivered if the option is exercised.  This outcome strongly suggests that, in general, holders of options should cash out once the takeover is announced, before the transactions takes place.  Since the acquiring company will typically offer a significant premium, this will offer an opportunity for instant profits for call option holders while at the same time being a big negative for put option holders.  However, it is possible in some cases where the nominal price of the two companies favours the SML company (ie. the share prices of SML is lower than that of BIG), the holder of a call option may wish to hold onto their options. (And, possibly, conversely for put option holders.) No, you're not missing anything. RSUs are pretty simple when it comes to taxes. They are taxed as compensation at fair market value when they vest, basically equivalent to the company giving you a cash bonus and then using it to buy company stock. The fair market value at vesting then becomes your cost basis. Assuming the value has increased since vesting, selling the shares that vested at least a year ago (to qualify for lower long-term capital gains tax rates) with the highest cost basis with result in the minimum taxes.