Sure, you can hammer a nail in the wall with your screwdriver, but . . . it’s not the most effective way.

It’s impossible to effectively compare tools, without first DEFINING THE JOB. Sure, if you’re going to live in a place 30 years, buying is better. But if you’re only going to be there six months, you’re NUTS to buy – renting is definately the way to go.

On your guaranteed death payout – If you have to pay in for 10 years, before you get the payout, well, if I’ve paid in $72,000 (cost of insurance over 10 years at that price), I’m not really BUYING a half million, am I? It’s more like $400,000. AND, it doesn’t even pay out, unless I DIE, which likely won’t happen until I’ve paid in another $144,000 – total paid in, HALF the payout, and only if I die?

Buy term invest the difference is still being used, because IT MAKES SENSE. Buying life insurance as an INVESTMENT product, is like buying a pair of $800 Prada heels, to bang that nail into the wall. It will make a lot of money for the agent, and even MORE money for the insurance company.

And once the customer’s paid in a few years, they’ll realize what a dumb investment tool LIFE insurance is, and that’s why 95% of universal life or whole life polices, stay in force five years or less.

Not all insurance agents do investments. That requires a different license. Investment advisors are the ones that give investment advice. You might repost your question under "personal finances". And, most of the time the stock market bounces back.

These agents are out of the business or refuse to return the clients phone calls when the level period has ended & now the ART has started & the clients cant afford the new period & the conversion rates to UL or WL is as equally unaffordable. Then on top of this, the "investments" are not performing as promised.

A lot of these people are no longer insurable or on fixed incomes, so they end up just losing their policies.

Another trend that I am seeing is that agents are rolling over perfectly performing UL, both standard & variable into new policies, that may give the client a higher interest rate than they are currently making, but this is only for a temporary period, then the minimum guaranteed interest rate on the new policy is 2% if their lucky, where as the minimum gtd interest rate on their original policy is anywhere from 3%-5%, then on top of this most of these clients are in their 50’s & 60’s, so the coi is much higher than their original policies. The only person who benefits from this is the agent, not the client. This is just another form of churning.
.

The best way to use term is, as the purpose it was originally created for, young couples, or people who needed a large amount of coverage for limited period (i.e. business loans, key man policies…). Regardless, term is meant to be a short term solution & agents need to keep that in mind.