Lawyer's Heirs Fight Insurers in $56 Million Policy Intrigue
online.wsj.com
online.wsj.com
I can't really consider any 81-year-old's death to be unexpected. Which makes me wonder why anyone was underwriting life insurance for him.
That said, I am sure insurance companies knew what they were doing.
Therefore, what this scheme amounts is in effect investors thinking they are smarter than actuaries(or willing to take a lesser payout, or some bizarre tax advantage).
Let's assume one 80 year old can buy a 10million dollar policy(for simplicity we assume all premiums paid to the end of life) for say 5 million.
Then investors offer 5million 100 thousand for the said policy. Person is richer 100 thousand out of this. That is investors think that the person will die sooner than the insurance company has calculated.
If the investors buy sufficient number of policies, they are guaranteed a pretty steady income, but as the article shows it is not risk free.
Lots of psychos in this business. Someone will eventually consider the use of bullets to make the... payoff date more predictable.
That's amazing.
And these are essentially no-risk investments. Am I understanding this correctly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment
In 1965, aged 90 years and with no heirs, Calment signed a deal to sell her former apartment to lawyer André-François Raffray, on a contingency contract. Raffray, then aged 47 years, agreed to pay her a monthly sum of 2,500 francs until she died, an agreement sometimes called a "reverse mortgage". Raffray ended up paying Calment the equivalent of more than $180,000, which was more than double the apartment's value. After Raffray's death from cancer at the age of 77, in 1995, his widow continued the payments until Calment's death.
90 + 1995 - 1965 = 120
She died in 1997 at 122 years according to above link to wikipedia.