Bullet 2:07 Sun Jun 4
Life Assurance any WHO experts?
|
|
I know a football forum may not be the best place to ask, but WHO has delivered before and information is always given with best intentions.
I received a letter from Scottish Friendly stating that my life cover is not sustainable following a review, premiums puchase units in their investments fund savings plan.
I have to sign to choose either of 3 options.
1. Increase monthly payments from £87 to £363!!! WTF
or
2. Reduce life cover from 200k to 20k (a 90% decrease FMOBs)
or
3. Cash in the policy early which will incur early redemption fees I expect they will pay out a negligible amount.
I paid this for more than 30 years so about £30k paid in.
Thanks in advance for any advice. COYI xxx
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
Yorkammer
7:32 Sun Jun 4
Re: Life Assurance any WHO experts?
|
Obviously it all depends on your personal circumstances, but assuming you are about 60, a non smoker and in reasonable health, you should be able to cover yourself for around £125K for the next 20 years for the premium you are currently paying. Try a few quotes on comparison sites.
|
Bullet
6:57 Sun Jun 4
Re: Life Assurance any WHO experts?
|
With Kind Regards 2:50 Sun Jun 4
Many thanks for taking the time to post. That is the answer I was seeking. Thanks also to everyone else's advice.
The old cynic that I am thought as I'm nearing retirement and possibly snuffing it they want me to cash out to avoid a large payout by quadrupling monthly payments or reducing the life cover by -90%. But sounds like this is the norm with many financial products not delivering due to bad investments.
|
HCee
4:35 Sun Jun 4
Re: Life Assurance any WHO experts?
|
WKR has got it spot on
If anyone is still financially dependent on you then you still need the life cover but the current policy may not be the answer
If you are in good health you may want to consider Term Assurance as an alternative
If no one is financially dependent then you may be better off cashing the plan in
|
Nurse Ratched
4:05 Sun Jun 4
Re: Life Assurance any WHO experts?
|
Oak Island! What a fabulous story that is. I remember many years ago reading a long article about it in The Times. I think it might have been written by Brian Appleyard, but it was decades ago, so memory could be faulty. I was fascinated.
|
Westham67
4:02 Sun Jun 4
Re: Life Assurance any WHO experts?
|
I keep all of my loot on Oak Island hidden in a labyrinth of caves and deadly traps. I am the only one with to the map and 4 dozen codes
|
Nurse Ratched
3:55 Sun Jun 4
Re: Life Assurance any WHO experts?
|
Hmm.
|
yogib
3:39 Sun Jun 4
Re: Life Assurance any WHO experts?
|
If you’re going to cancel the policy if I were you I’d look at taking out another policy first, be it a term policy or whatever, sometimes people become uninsurable
|
With Kind Regards
3:30 Sun Jun 4
Re: Life Assurance any WHO experts?
|
Nurse Ratched 3:22 Sun Jun 4
It could be that. It could be that a fund (or funds) with insufficient level of investment risk was / were chosen at outset.
It could be the policy was set up on a ‘Maximum Cover’ or ‘Targeted Cover’ type basis.
Without knowing the policy details it is pure speculation.
Most important are Bullet’s objectives going forward.
|
Nurse Ratched
3:22 Sun Jun 4
Re: Life Assurance any WHO experts?
|
Has this fund been managed too conservatively, considering it's been going for 30 years??
|
joe royal
3:17 Sun Jun 4
Re: Life Assurance any WHO experts?
|
Do you own your house?
If so I’d cancel the policy, stick in in an ISA or premium bonds and top up with the 87 a month you are spending now.
If you are up to your eyes in debt with youngish kids then I’d keep paying or look elsewhere.
|
With Kind Regards
2:50 Sun Jun 4
Re: Life Assurance any WHO experts?
|
Bullet, Obviously I could tell you more precisely than I have in the following if I saw the Policy details, but it seems like you have a Whole of Life policy - which will carry on until you die whenever that is provided you pay the premiums - rather than a Term policy which has a specific end date.
Most WoL policies (certainly when you took your one out) build up an investment pot that is used to go towards paying the higher ‘real life’ premiums when you get older. Unfortunately if the investment pot does not have good enough investment returns or the future costs of running the policy rise above expectations (or both) then you will be asked to pay more to keep the policy going.
This is where you find yourself now.
The main question (I think) has to be - if you died tonight who would miss you financially?
If the answer to that is nobody (eg you have no debt or financial liabilities and no financial dependents) then why not just take the current encashment value?
If there is a financial need in the event of your death then the next question is whether the policy you currently have is the best way to provide the amount you need or whether (perhaps) a Term policy would be better.
I hope that helps.
|
| 
