None of us rely on their income. It's entirely them that want to leave a little more than their savings after they pass. But want it guaranteed as opposed to a 30-year Term.

They've never been taught basic investing so they're risk-averse in losing money from stocks that's why they like the IUL pitch. And I find it difficult to change their minds this late in their life about it. I just hope it won't hurt their current lifestyle.

Lmao fair. I don't need nor want their money. Just want them happy with their current lifestyle and that this won't bite them in the ass 14 years later and they're still alive.

But from everything here I guess ultimately it won't necessarily hurt them or their current lifestyle if they continue with this? And on the side, I push for them to open an IRA at least and help them pick low-cost indexes. Sounds like the only thing I can help do for them?

All good points and what I already plan/am doing with my 401k, IRA etc. And when I have kids do Term life + continue indexing.

They're old-mindset people. They're afraid of stocks and the idea of losing money in the short term and enjoy the idea of an IUL being life insurance for their remaining life. Even though the IUL is already buying Index's (which are stocks lol) with high costs it won't go negative at least.

Is there no middle ground for the legacy portion? My parents aren't poor, they still make a little more than 100k gross combined in a year, and will continue to work for a few more years. So I wouldn't say they are destitute, but I wouldn't say they have been the wisest with their money, they still have a bit of savings at the minimum and just want to help their children a bit more when they pass.

Your 2nd point also makes sense. No one depends on their income at this point. It's just a tough situation for them due to no other investments but they want to leave their children more than what they currently have in the future.

I wish they had the information for retirement accounts and investments when they were younger but unfortunately, that is their situation. For them, they just want to leave something to us when they eventually pass and believe a Term policy isnt long enough of a time window.

Can you dive deeper into the unnecessary part of life insurance until death?

What do older people do when they don't have the most money but still want to guarantee there is something for their children after death? They believe that with Term Life insurance it isn't guaranteed they'll pass before the policy expires.

For the 5k a year not losing money part, I didn't consider it because my thought is the 70k after 14 years will continue to pay the premium for the remaining years they'll live. And 200k policy - 70k cost = 130k is still positive in the long run for their dependants.

Thanks for breaking this up in such a clean way. I've brought up Term during the conversation with them before, but their concern is that with 30-year Term if they end up living past that point all of it would go to waste and they won't be able to give anything to their adult(20-30s) children (us).

It's the thought that people are dying older and also my grandmother recently passed in her late 90s so they dont want the chance they out live the policy term.