Ermms I have been emphasizing on WL as a form of guaranteed protection no matter which part of your life you are at. You brought in the cash value portion because you disagreed on this protection part and it is true that this option is available if needed.
You get a term life to enhance your protection to the amount you need, but have a WL in place as well so that when the term ends you still have guaranteed protection of certain amount.
Sure one can say I can put into investment, set aside funds. and self insure. But I would like to think that a guaranteed payout even in the later stage of your life will help you lessen your financial burden.
Main point I am driving at is to consider the hybrid of WL + term planning for certain age group. It is not a one size fits all planning.
Hope this is clear enough.
*I am referring to a limited pay WL with CI here maybe this is where we are confusing each other?
I really don't know what's confusing us...
ok, let's just say someone bought a limited-pay WL at age 25 with say 2.5x multiplier till age 70, basic coverage of $75k before multiplier, at $200/mth premium limited pay for 15 years.
IF, he kena TPD at age 50, we would get $187,500, which has a rough value of $100k today if we factor in 2.5% inflation rate over 25 years. Assuming he has another 20 years of lifespan, average we would have $5k (factored in inflation) per year to use. This kind of coverage is pretty negligible.
He would have paid $36k premiums for a $187.5k payout when on the other hand, he could have paid $27k premiums for a $200k payout using a 15 year limited-pay Term policy.
Having said that, I'm still not a limited-pay person.
On the other hand, if Life assure kena TPD at age 73, he would only get sum assured of $75k + whatever cash value accumulated, let's say it totals up to $125k, over 50 years of inflation, that amount is equivalent to about $40k today's value. Still, a Term Life would have a higher payout of $200k.
If life assured kena CI (TPD coverage have expired) on the other hand at age 83 and assuming his WL is still inforce, yes, he will receive payout while Term life has expired. With inflation factored in is worth about $28k, lets say he could live another 5 more years, he would have apprx. $500 (today's value) per month, which is still rather insignificant for managing any risk since his dependent's might have to quit their job or hire a caretaker to take care of him with the potential of loosing $1.5k or more for such cost.
Whole life only makes sense if Life Assured strongly thinks that his chance of getting into unfortunate events apart from death is very low, he banks on having the cash value returned to him for retirement if nothing happens to him, and also, he must have a good amount of budget to split between Term Life + Whole Life.
In terms of the savings portion for such case, Term + WL would have a better cash value accumulated instead of Term + Endowment.
Your point of guaranteed protection regardless which part of life the assured is at, is certainly valid. Just that the guaranteed protection value in the later stage is pretty much negligible and it shouldn't be focused too much on.