March 23, 2014

WHY BILLIONAIRES BUY LIFE INSURANCE

image
If I had a million dollars, well, I’d buy you an exotic pet. Yep, like a llama or an emu. — Barenaked Ladies
If you had a billion dollars, you could buy a whole zoo. Or $201 million of life insurance. That record-breaking purchase happened in California. The premium is about $2 million a year  but cost-effective — perhaps even a bargain.

Self-insure?

Billionaires have the money to insure themselves to
  • pay medical expenses: no need for medical expense insurance
  • offset the costs of life-changing diseases: no need for critical illness insurance
  • replace income if unable to work: no need for disability insurance
  • provide lifelong income: no need for life annuities
Some afflictions have no cure at any price (and hence no insurance). RIP Steve Jobs (pancreatic cancer) and Warren Buffett’s wife Susie (oral cancer).

Life insurance is different. Large amounts are available and there is no substitute. Even so, why would a billionaire buy coverage?

Maintain Privacy

Life insurance protects the privacy of the buyer. Despite the media scrutiny, the owner of the $201 million of coverage remains anonymous. We know the gender (male) but not the age. The seller is ‘not legally permitted to disclose the name of the billionaire buyer but said it was a well-known Californian tech investor’ (Forbes). The insurers can’t say either. We wouldn’t have known about the purchase if the buyer hadn’t given permission for limited disclosure.

Since death benefits rarely through an estate, the beneficiaries need not be identified.

Have Flexibility

The beneficiaries are not notified until the time of a claim. This allows the buyer to change the beneficiaries and how much each receives.

The buyer can cancel or adjust the amount of coverage. In the case of the $201 million of coverage, the owner says that "he wants his next of kin to keep working hard" rather than waiting for a payoff.

The owner can reduce flexibility by making the beneficiaries irrevocable. This may be required upon divorce.

Save Or Grow A Business

A growing business may need outside money from lenders or investors. Those supporters want some assurances. The business might collapse upon the death of a key person like the owner, especially in the early years.

Ted Rogers is an excellent example. His dad died when Ted was only five: "He didn't have a lot of life insurance at that age, so the businesses were sold or shut or stolen."

In building Rogers, Ted borrowed from banks many times. They required he
have life insurance payable to them as protection. Term life insurance is ideal here --- the most coverage for the lowest price. Later, the temporary coverage can be made permanent for tax planning and estate planning.

DiversifY

You can put all your eggs in one basket and have that basket watched 24 hours a day. That doesn't mean problems won't arise. That basket may not be diversified. Billionaires have lost their fortunes (e.g., Allen Stanford, Sean Quinn, Patricia Kluge). Celebrities have gone broke too (e.g., Abraham Lincoln, Mike Tyson, Michael Jackson).

A solution is to invest in different classes of assets. Permanent life insurance allows, tax sheltered growth, tax-free access via leveraging and a tax-free death benefit. The payout is a predetermined amount at an unpredictable time (death). No other asset offers these characteristics.

Investments inside insurance may fluctuate and lack guarantees. That's true of investments outside life insurance too. However, permanent life insurance keeps growing in value because the date of death keeps getting closer. Can other investments make that claim?

What if an insurer goes bankrupt? There may be protection in those cases (e.g., by Assuris in Canada or a state government in the US). The risks are reduced by spreading coverage over multiple companies. The $201 million of coverage is spread over 19 insurers, each at risk for less than $20 million.

Pay Estate Liabilities

At death, large sums may be required to pay taxes and other obligations such as loans. Permanent life insurance is often the cheapest, fastest way to get cash for those liabilities. Also, there’s no need to have a rush sale on assets at an inopportune time. As a result, more of the estate gets preserved.

Caveats

Life insurance is only available to the healthy. The unhealthy pay more (e.g., smokers). Sometimes the risks are so high that no coverage is available at any price.

There are limits to how much coverage is available on one life. Maybe $201 million is less than the buyer wanted. Insurers want to prevent incentives for
If the coverage gets cancelled before death, there won't be a payout. It helps to earmark money to pay future premiums.
If affording the life insurance becomes a problem, some jurisdictions allow the sale of the policy to an investor. These life settlements get icky because the buyer gets a higher return the sooner the death.

click to see original photoSurprises

Apparently, the advisor behind the $201 million of insurance (Dovi Frances) didn’t get paid a commission. The firm (SG LLC) “charges clients a flat (and one can assume, steep) annual fee for advisory services ranging from asset management to alternative investments.”

The advisor got the client 4-5 years ago through a direct mail campaign.

Smart

Billionaires have access to excellent advice from top advisors. They do buy life insurance. How about you?

Links

PS There may be larger life insurance coverage on billionaires who value their privacy more than a Guinness World Record.

March 15, 2014

CAN YOU TRUST YOUR DOCTOR’S PRESCRIPTION?

prescription
When I was a child, I trusted my doctor. He made home visits, which is what you want when you’re sick.. He even gave me used syringes with the needles attached so I could refill the cartridges for my fountain pen from a big bottle of ink. I felt that he had my best interests at heart. Is the same true today?

Good People. Bad Results.

“… small branded promotional items should increase favorable attitudes for the brand being promoted …  but many physicians, because they are medical experts, believe they are not susceptible to these influences. In one survey, just 8% of physicians believed they were susceptible to influence by marketing items such as branded pens, whereas 31% of patients felt these items could influence physicians.”  — The Journal of the American Medical Association (May 2009)
Doctors may not think they’re influenced by vendors but they’re people too. Studies show that “even small drug company payments as low as $10 influence doctors’ prescribing patterns” (Australian Doctor).

Independence

The New England Journal of Medicine found that 94% of doctors have a relationship with a drug company. They receive
  • free meals at work (83%)
  • free drug samples (78%)
  • reimbursement for professional meetings or continuing medical education (35%)
  • payment for consulting, lecturing or enrolling patients in trials (28%)
The diagnosis and prescriptions may not be best for you. The problem lies in conflicts of interest. 

Schooling

Are medical schools are addressing the problems caused by conflicts of interest among their faculty? A study of policies found that  over 70% of Canadian medical schools failed. The highest score was 79% at Western University.

The big issues were
  • interactions with sales representatives (70%)
  • conflicts of interest or drug promotion in the curriculum (70%)
Having policies doesn’t mean they are effective or enforced. For instance, American medical schools tend to have strict policies but tend to ignore ghostwriting (that’s “when researchers take studies or parts of studies that were written by pharma and pass them off as their own independent work without disclosing the industry ties”). How objective do you think the articles will be? Perhaps court challenges will help since “medical journals, academic institutions and professional disciplinary bodies haven't succeeded in enforcing sanctions”.

Protecting Yourself

Spotting conflicts of interest is much tougher if you don’t know about them. An Australian study found that 76% of patients didn’t know about relationships their doctor might have with a drug company. They wanted transparency, which includes knowing about
  • any benefits in cash or kind from drug companies (71%)
  • financial incentives for participating in research (69%)
  • sponsorship to attend conferences (61%)
Patients felt that disclosure would help them make better decisions about their treatment (78%).

If you remember that people are people, you’re better able to protect yourself whether you’re dealing with a doctor or any other advisor.

Links

PS Buyer beware.