Hi Christine, I know Dave is a well respected advisor on these boards, but I have to say I have always been told to steer clear of anything other than Term Life. Thanks... uhh, I think? Hopefully I'm not losing any respect from the lack of financial planning experience from whoever 'always' told you to steer clear of anything other than Term Life. Many people here have also "always" been told to pay off their mortgage as fast as possible, "period," regardless of the risks & harm it can create too. What many have "always" heard is not always so valid. Dave perhaps you could clarify why Universal Life is a good option in general and also specifically in this case? I have been on this site off and on for a very long time, however, I have not read that many posts on this particilar board to know your general philosophy on this. Sure. FIRST off, it is most likely the case that "everyone" who "always" advised you to avoid anything but "term" was specifically talking about buying life insurance for the purpose of the insurance DEATH benefits... not the financial planning features available within certain types of it. For the best death benefits "bang for the buck"... Term life premiums are state regulated, so for the most part you pay for the benefit coverage you get, and nothing more, regardless of the carrier (which is GOOD if what you want is a payoff at death.) Differences in term life premiums are generally quite small, and when one carrier appears to be "cheaper" per $1,000 of benefit than another (i.e. if you Google for 'cheapest term insurance' etc.) its generally because that carrier has less capital reserves to protect its policy-holders, thus less costs... and is thus more at risk of being illiquid... *OR* it fights harder NOT to pay all of the benefits expected when its policies mature, and thereby it has less costs of fulfillment. There are OTHER very important financial benefits to life insurance contracts, however, OTHER than the ultimate payoff of a death benefit at policy maturity. Congress has written legal "tax-shelter" features into the IRS code such that cash values sheltered within properly structured life insurance contracts grow and are harvestable UN-TAXED. Universal Life *IS* a term life policy (underwritten through age 100,) that offers a SEPERATE (un-comingled) cash accumulation account with the unique tax sheltered benefits only available inside cash-value life contracts. (NOTE that this is distictively different from old-fashioned "whole life" contracts that inseperably comingle insurance costs with their cash-values.) For FINANCIAL PLANNING purposes we want the maximum shelter benefits with the LEAST actual insurance coverage we can get away with (since, for this particular purpose, we don't care about death benefits.) The cash account within a Universal policy is allowed to grow tax free (no annual capital gains nor income taxes,) and is allowed to be accessed for spending tax free (via zero-interest policy "loans" which have no repayment requirement until the policy "matures"... aka when the insured dies.) Our OP is concerned about college tuition fund planning. The general strategy with college funding is to take advantage of *ALL* external funding resources (public assistance, grants, loans, and public/private scholarships) *BEFORE* dipping into the family-accumulated funds. THe catch-22 is that *MANY* external funding sources are "means tested." This means that they look at the student's fmaily's financial profile 1st... and if the family has funds in reserves, the external sources DEDUCT those from the support calculations (in essence saying "you guys drain your OWN accounts before we'll offer you any support!") Of course, this is completely contrary to the idea of rewarding those who are responsible... which is the whole point of using Universal Life insurance contracts to accumulate college tuition (and subsequently retirement funding for the parents.) Universal Life policies can also be "owned" by someone other than the person that the policy is insuring (the "insured.") The owner can be grandparents, uncles/aunts, god-parents, seperate trusts, or simply trusted friends. Because the ownership of this accumulation asset can be legally seperated from the student's family balance sheet, the student's family does NOT have to drain all of their own reserves before taking advantage of external educational support resources. PERSONALLY (and professionally,) in regards to actual death benefits... I would probably almost "always" harmonize with whoever else was "always" telling you to avoid anything other than term life. For death benefits (replacement of a parent's income for family support, most commonly,) term is generally the best way to go. For FINANCIAL PLANNING, however... age-100 term life coupled with cash values (in the form of Universal Life,) can be a very sharp strategy from both the tax-shelter perspective, and the avoidance of means-testing punishment of the more financially responsbile. Cheers, Dave Donhoff Leverage Planner

Hi Len VT, If you've been holding your stocks for an extended period, you'll likely have a substantial capital gain built up and if you liquidate investments you'll have capital gain tax to pay, which will mean that you'll have to liquidate a larger amount of pre-tax asset value in order to have the after-tax amount needed for your renovation. Not only that, you'll have to pay commission to sell them and, after the house loan is paid off, commission again to re-purchase, supposing that you'd choose to buy the same stocks later. Not only that, I think that the markets are down now, so I'd rather not liquidate some of my stock market-based assets, these days, lacking serious need. In fact, I've been buying more, recently, and expect to buy more, later, as I expect an advance in the markets, though I think that it may be later than jkom51 thinks. I hear some folks telling of set-up costs related to a home equity line of credit, which is understandable, as a lender wants to be sure that the property is as claimed, is properly evaluated, lacks large loans against it now, etc. I have used stock certificates and mutual fund certificates as collateral for a line of credit, and had no set-up fees to pay. If you were to use stocks or mutual funds, you might qualify for a lower interest rate, in that liquidation would be much easier, in case of default. Also, I've allowed my line to sit unused for substantial periods, and there have been no inactivity fees, either. In fact, in that you have much larger assets than you'd need to liquidate to fund your upgrade, you might choose to take out a larger loan and make some increased equity investments currently. I understand that the interest rate on your home improvement loan would be deductible, but not being a resident of your country I'm not sure. If it is not, you'd want to keep the two loans separate, as the line of credit for further equity investment would be deductible in your area, I'm almost positive. While interest rates currently are low, I expect to see them rise, for when one considers the bad odour internationally that has developed in recent months over the U.S. sub-prime mortgage debacle, and the huge U.S. gov't. debt, much of it held abroad, it could well be that, in the light of the deficits developed recently, largely due to the Iraq war, it may be necessary for the U.S. gov't. to offer higher rates to foreign holders in order to entice them to make further loans, before long. Good wishes as you consider your options further - I hope that you are happy with your choices, later. ole joyful

Okay, I've been reading this thread and not responding to it b/c I don't want to have it come out wrong. I can't keep quiet any longer. I agree with many statements above. I would like to say these things: If you haven't already filed bankruptcy-DON'T do it. Your husband is like a child and you are not teaching him any good sound financial responsibility by bailing him out all the time. You've bailed him out 2x already and then signed for a loan for someone who has no credibility. Doesn't pay bills and loves to spend....HELLO that was not a smart move but you have to move ahead...can't look back. You guys created these debts you have to pay them. Your biggest expense next to your mortgage is your student loans....in almost all cases they can't be discharged. So you will still end up having to pay that. You've already stated you need your cars, so you'd be keeping those. You have to pay back your 401k loan...So basically you'd be trying to file off your 60k in CC and your SBA loan? Good luck.....you are going to ruin your credit....for a very long time IF you even get your bankruptcy granted with the new laws, you still may have to pay some of that back. What happens if you file and then have poor credit, no credit cards and then your water heater goes, or your furnace? You have no cards to pay it, no savings to pay it and no money to pay it. So you skip car payments to pay it then can't catch up and car gets repo'd and you have no way to work, lose your job, lose your house. Sounds extreme but it could happen. There are lots of people that are ONE crisis away from poverty and homelessness. I would set a budget, stick to it. Kick DH a$$.....if he's a photographer, start going to bridal shows get some clients offer better package pricing. Brides are bargain shoppers, if you have the best price and great photos you are hired. Hit the road and take photos of things when he isn't working. Enter photo contests w/cash prizes. Put your name out there. Free advertising is everywhere!!!! Stop crying over it and FIX IT!!!! Also, if you can sell stuff.....like 10 chairs to buy 4...then be smarter with the money. Sell 6 keep 4 and pay some bills. Take ALL the cards away from DH and give him a weekly allowance and that's it. If he's unhappy with that let him know that he did it to himself and needs to learn the hard way. Money doesn't grow on trees and the credit tree just got cut down. NO MORE MONEY......no more excuses. You made these bills now you have to lay in the "bed of bills" for a while. Once you recover from this you will feel a sense of relief and feel like a better person that you "took the bill by the horns" and paid everything down. You did the right thing and not the easy way out. Anyway, I'm all fired up, I hope this doesn't come across as insensitive. It's time to put your husband in his place and if he's not on board then he's got to find someone else to take advantage of financially b/c it's not gonna be you.

The idea of front loaded interest on mortgages is a bit of a misconception, while you pay more interest in the early years that is only because you owe more money (If you have a 3.9% mortgage then you pay 3.9%/12 on the outstanding balance you owe each month). While that may sound pertinent, the discussion is really about effective interest versus compounding interest. As you pay on your principle you pay less interest, so over time the interest charges are smaller because your principle is smaller. While on an investment you start with a principle and if left alone for some period of time the interest continues adding to the principle and therefore pays more interest. This discussion is largely around the idea of people who have some income coming in and some ability to make payments. While, I could note that guaranteed payment annuities are about equal to house payments, they are no more liquid than houses so not really an investment that is better than a house. In the end, we are discussing people who want to be done with the headache of a mortgage and not people who simply don't have the income to continue paying a mortgage. Edit: It is also important to remember that a 15 year mortgage doesn't mean you have to make 15 years of payments. Making even a few years of payments before liquidating the investments to pay off the balance will typically result in gains. I think a lot of people focus too much on the stress of coming up with the money for monthly payments and forget that any time you get tired of stressing over payments, you can simply liquidate your investment and pay off the loan. While I have said the same thing jn3344 has many times, I have a completely different conclusion. When you have a paid off house and little money in the bank you have no options for dealing with uncertainty. Cash gives you options, the farther you get from cash the less options you have, and nothing is farther from cash than a house. Think of it this way. My father was just this week presented with a treatment option for a medical condition that was not covered by Medicare, the time sensitive treatment was going to cost $35,000, but it would greatly improve his quality of life. What allowed my father to make that decision was having access to $35,000, if he paid for his house outright and didn't have any money then he couldn't make that decision. Now suppose spending this $35,000 means my father will not be able to continue paying his mortgage and will have to move out of his house into a smaller apartment. I feel confident he will tell you walking around his smaller apartment beats not being able to walk around his bigger house. Edit: Many people have a false sense of security from a home. The only real security a paid off home provides is the equity (the access to cash). Homes are fairly inefficient domiciles, the taxes, maintenance and less efficient utilities minimize any real savings over renting. The path to homeless has nothing to do with a paid off house and a lot to do with not enough cash.