Forced Savings
Whole life insurance is expensive: You're paying not only for insurance but also for the investment portion. That extra cost might almost be worth it if these policies were a good investment vehicle. But usually they aren't. Insurance agents like to call these policies retirement plans, emphasizing the "forced savings" inherent in forking over the premiums each month "for retirement."

Term: Where the Value Is
To get a real sense of the value of term, let's compare a term policy and a universal life policy. Say a 40-year-old nonsmoking male has a choice between a $250,000 Met Life universal policy with a $3,000 annual premium and a same amount of renewable term coverage with a 20-year fixed premium of $350. At the end of one year, the universal policy, assuming it paid 5.7% per year, tax-deferred, would have a cash value of exactly zero (cash value is the amount you would get back if you canceled the policy). But say he had instead invested $2,650 (the difference between $3,000 and $350) in a no-load mutual fund that averaged a total return of 10% annually. At the end of the first year, he'd have $2,841, accounting for taxes on the earnings at a 28% rate. At the end of 10 years, he would have accumulated more than $46,000 in after-tax savings in the mutual fund. Over the same period, the cash value of the policy would have climbed only to $31,819.

That's not to say that whole life insurance is always a bad idea. Wealthy people can use whole life in their estate planning by setting up an insurance trust that will pay their estate taxes from the proceeds of the policy. And for the growing number of people in their late 40s or early 50s who are just starting families, whole life is at least worth a look.