Whole Life is not a great “Investment Alternative” – use the death benefit when age becomes a factor

Whole Life is a poor “investment alternative.” Consider what an insurance company may say, annotated with our comments:

1) Tax Deferred
Does not make up for fees and poorer returns. The mortality fees alone can bring the total fees up over 2%, which compares poorly to a stock index bought via an ETF, were the fees are below .1%
2) Attractive returns compared to bank alternatives
Yes, to a bank, but NOT to your own portfolio of stocks or funds
3) More than initial deposit guaranteed in early years
Only at first and at some cost
4) Strong dividend history
Dividends are only a part of the return on investments – whole life is far worse than a good variable life policy let alone stocks purchased directly or via mutual funds, over time
5) Death benefit (DB) income tax free
Always true of life insurance because it is subject to estate taxes
6) Returns very high if DB paid in early years
“so what?” This is intended to be a long-term purchase
7) Beneficiary can be changed easily without having to redo wills and trusts
Meaning that proper estate planning is not being done
8) Annuitization of other assets easier to do, which can lead to higher retirement income
“Easier” means you pay them to do it instead of doing it yourself, which means shifting the allocation of your own portfolio depending on cash needs