Whole life insurance as an investment vehicle

I was approached by a "financial advisor" who offered free financial advice. This planner was a friend of a friend, so I agreed but told them straight off the bat that I was not looking to hire a financial planner. They said that was fine, and that the advice would certainly be free because I’m a friend of a friend.

This is where I made my first mistake. After a few meetings, this advisor gave me a "financial plan" that included paying for term life insurance AND whole life insurance AND disability insurance (all policies under the company they work for). These would come out to $4,700/year when my salary is only in the $80-90k range. Not to even mention that I am 22 years old with no dependents and have no need for life insurance. This "financial plan" also didn’t include rent, mortgage payments, car payments, or anything else I might need to pay in the future.

I can understand being advised to get disability insurance, but this financial advisor knew that I had not even signed up for my company’s disability insurance and so would not be able to make an informed decision on it. I told this person "no," but they tried to convince me I was making a bad choice. They told me that whole life insurance was a good investment, even better than investing in some index fund, and generally made it sound like this would be the worst financial decision of my life.

I asked my friend about this, and it turns out his mother also sells life insurance. The difference is that she’s ethical and only sells whole life insurance to people who actually need it (i.e., not people in their early 20s who have no health issues and no dependents). I found out that whole life insurance is not an investment, and if it is, then it’s a pretty lousy one. I found out that I probably don’t need two different life insurance policies at the age of 22 with no dependents.

My point is, there are certain people passing themselves off as "financial planners," "financial advisors," or "financial whatever" who tell you that they want to make sure you’re financially secure and would only want to advise you to do things that are in your best interests. These people are snakes, but somehow, they are able to legitimize themselves behind a big company. I’ve heard that a lot of them target younger people and use fear to convince them to buy a bunch of insurance they don’t need.

Just be careful, fellas, and do your own research.

Long story short, recently saw a Financial Planner as I was about to make my first home purchase. It was a stressful time and I was looking to consult a professional to make sure I could afford long-term. I'm not financially illiterate but I'm not an expert, especially with things like forecasting how finances can affect my future long-term. In retrospect, I really should have seemed multiple planners but ended up going with the one due to time restrictions in the property search (pre-approval and the like).

This planner wasn't exactly badly reviewed. The process seemed legit, starting off with an SOA (Statement of Advice) being issued and a good amount of questions and direction from me. I wasn't quite sure what this document would entail but basically, it had some basic general advice (skewed a little bit) followed by switching my super to their fund and buying some life insurance through them. I got the piece of paper with this advice and found out that they would cost 11% of my total super to engage for the entire year which is huge. There was more content of disclaimers than actual advice. Probably only 3 pages of actual numbers.

Basically, after a year of engagement, I'd be worse off financially than if I hadn't engaged them at all. I should have read between the lines but this wasn't clear during the engagement phase.

Anyway, I coughed up the amount for the SOA (a month's salary) because I had signed for it, but I feel like they shouldn't have engaged me if I was going to be financially worse off after their services. The percentages weren't made clear until the advice was issued which was basically a glorified fee proposal.Anyway, let this be a warning to you all to really hone in on what you're getting if you do seek it and decide if it's not something you can figure out yourself. It was a waste of time and money for me and can't help but feel I was tricked as I'm not an expert in this field. I've put it down to a hard lesson learnt.

A financial services guy told a lunch group that it made no difference whether people donated appreciated stock directly to a charity or sold it and donated the proceeds to charity. He claimed that, either way, “you still got the charitable deduction. ”While this is true, he completely ignored the capital gains tax that would be triggered when the person (rather than the charity) sold the appreciated stock. He could not comprehend that a direct donation of the appreciated stock to charity could save the donor from having to pay tax on that capital gain.

He was totally obsessed with the relatively minor charitable deduction on their tax return. I thought this was horrible advice and a disservice to anyone who followed his financial advice.