Visit our sponsor.
Whole of Life policies, ( including Universal Life ), are life insurance policies designed to last for your whole life. ( Not strictly true, but to all intents and purposes valid ).
They do this by building up a fund in the early years that then subsidises the insurance cost in the later years. ( Hence the reason these policies build up a cash value in the quote ).
You need to be aware that there is some complex maths and lots of assumptions behind the premium computation, and that not all quotations are comparable. For instance one common trick is to either assume a high growth rate within the fund, or use a " maximum sum assured" basis, both of which have the effect of reducing a quote. The reality is that the figure quoted on a creative basis is much more likely to be increased later on than a standard quote. If in doubt ask for a " standard sum assured" and a growth rate assumption of between 7% an 8%pa.
This is made clear by the following figure. The level line is the cover, and the curves are the value of the fund building up, and then falling way. When the fund drops back to ZERO the policy terminates. ( Strictly speaking the premium is increased to the true rate for the age, which effectively means that the price hike will send it rocketing beyond affordability. The main curve runs to age 105, will therefore be in force, at the original premium, on death.
The lower curve runs out at age 55, which means that a new policy would be needed, making the "whole of life" something of a misnomer. This curve could be caused by using a maximum sum assured, or an optimistic and unrealised growth rate.
They are usually sold on one of four basis.
1) To provide for an Inheritance Tax Problem
2) As part of a Partnership or Director share purchase deal. ( Where the idea of cash back appeals in spite of the tax inefficiency ). See Business Protection.
3) As a method of combining life insurance and savings in one flexible package that allows you high cover when you need it, and high savings when you don't.
4) As a Critical Illness policy. (1) and (2) are perfectly sound. As to (3), good practice, ( and low charges and tax efficiency) favours keeping savings and insurance separate. Be wary of such a pitch.
Option (4) is a little different in that the logic behind the policy is that you are concerned that you might want to continue the cover into retirement. From a normal financial planning view this would be frowned on as your income at that time should be from pension, and therefore the illness would not have the financial consequences that would arise if it had happened during your working life. OTOH you may be pessimistic about the future of the NHS etc. and see the policy as funding treatment. Such a view would justify the use of Whole of Life.