Why you should treat whole-life insurance policies with extreme caution
Whole-life insurance policies are often marketed to people in their 50s and over. But there are significant drawbacks and you could end up with nothing.
Get the latest financial news, insights and expert analysis from our award-winning MoneyWeek team, to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.
You are now subscribed
Your newsletter sign-up was successful
Want to add more newsletters?
Twice daily
MoneyWeek
Get the latest financial news, insights and expert analysis from our award-winning MoneyWeek team, to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.
Four times a week
Look After My Bills
Sign up to our free money-saving newsletter, filled with the latest news and expert advice to help you find the best tips and deals for managing your bills. Start saving today!
The vast majority of life insurance sold in the UK is term-life, which runs for a fixed period. In essence, you are betting the insurer that you will die before the end of the policy term; the insurer is betting that you won’t and that it will get to keep your premiums. Morbid as all of this is, term-life cover is a must if you have dependants.
Whole-life policies, by contrast, last until you die. The bet is about when that happens. If you die younger than expected, then the insurer pays out much more than you paid in premiums (it loses the bet). If you live a long time it gets to keep collecting your premiums (it wins).
Premiums are higher as the insurer is certain to pay out at some point. “Maximum cover” whole-life policies offer lower premiums at the outset but these can rise steeply, while “balanced-cover” policies’ premiums start higher but are fixed.
MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Whole-life policies are often marketed to people in their 50s and over (term life cover is less relevant once offspring have flown the nest and the mortgage is paid off). A big attraction is that it is possible to write the policy in trust, which is not subject to inheritance tax (IHT). Relatives get ready access to some cash when you die, sparing them some of the heartache of the probate process. They can then use the money to settle the IHT bill on your estate (if you are above the threshold). If you die early then one consolation is that the payout is much larger than the premiums, making for a very high return.
Locked in for life
Yet there are significant drawbacks. The key problem with whole-life policies is that you can effectively get locked in. This is an insurance product, not an investment. If you cancel or miss payments then the cover lapses – even if you have already paid tens of thousands of pounds in premiums.
An elderly person in poor health will find switching too expensive. That can leave them stuck paying burdensome premiums on a policy they took out decades before for fear of losing their cover. There is also no guarantee that the rules about trusts won’t be changed in the future.
Maximum-cover policies try to build up a pot of money through investment that can then be cashed in, but returns can be derisory after fees and premiums for the insurance element are deducted. Some whole-life policies don’t even invest the premiums during the first three years, instead using them to pay “sales commission to the broker or financial adviser”. To see what a terrible tangle people can get into with these policies, consider a case highlighted by Ali Hussain in The Sunday Times last month. In 2001 a man took out a policy costing £158 a month. It was supposed to pay £150,000 to his family when he died. But the investment returns have been so poor and the charges so high that he has now ended up paying £1,500 a month to give him a total payout of £371,000. What’s more, he has topped himself up with 29 additional policies rather than pay higher premiums, an option holders of these policies have to cover shortfalls and offset inflation. If he decided to cash in the original plan today, “he would get about £4”.
He cannot switch providers because of poor health and when he tried to “lower the costs by switching off an automatic commission paid to the financial adviser who originally sold him the product, he was told that this would end up costing him more”. It’s better to keep investments and insurance separate.
Get the latest financial news, insights and expert analysis from our award-winning MoneyWeek team, to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.
Alex is an investment writer who has been contributing to MoneyWeek since 2015. He has been the magazine’s markets editor since 2019.
Alex has a passion for demystifying the often arcane world of finance for a general readership. While financial media tends to focus compulsively on the latest trend, the best opportunities can lie forgotten elsewhere.
He is especially interested in European equities – where his fluent French helps him to cover the continent’s largest bourse – and emerging markets, where his experience living in Beijing, and conversational Chinese, prove useful.
Hailing from Leeds, he studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics at the University of Oxford. He also holds a Master of Public Health from the University of Manchester.
-
Will fintechs change the way you invest?: MoneyWeek TalksPodcast Fidelity's Tom Stevenson reveals his top three funds for 2026 for your ISA or self-invested personal pension
-
Three companies with deep economic moats to buy nowOpinion An economic moat can underpin a company's future returns. Here, Imran Sattar, portfolio manager at Edinburgh Investment Trust, selects three stocks to buy now
-
Why it might be time to switch your pension strategyYour pension strategy may need tweaking – with many pension experts now arguing that 75 should be the pivotal age in your retirement planning.
-
Rachel Reeves is rediscovering the Laffer curveOpinion If you keep raising taxes, at some point, you start to bring in less revenue. Rachel Reeves has shown the way, says Matthew Lynn
-
ISA reforms will destroy the last relic of the Thatcher eraOpinion With the ISA under attack, the Labour government has now started to destroy the last relic of the Thatcher era, returning the economy to the dysfunctional 1970s
-
Investing in forestry: a tax-efficient way to grow your wealthRecord sums are pouring into forestry funds. It makes sense to join the rush, says David Prosser
-
'Expect more policy U-turns from Keir Starmer'Opinion Keir Starmer’s government quickly changes its mind as soon as it runs into any opposition. It isn't hard to work out where the next U-turns will come from
-
Why pension transfers are so trickyInvestors could lose out when they do a pension transfer, as the process is fraught with risk and requires advice, says David Prosser
-
Modern Monetary Theory and the return of magical thinkingThe Modern Monetary Theory is back in fashion again. How worried should we be?
-
The coming collapse in the jobs marketOpinion Once the Employment Bill becomes law, expect a full-scale collapse in hiring, says Matthew Lynn