Follow Nick Bernardo on LinkedIn
Many people buy life insurance at a particular moment in their financial life and do not think about it again for years. That is understandable, but it also means people tend to outgrow their coverage. The coverage that made sense when you were 32 may be significantly different from what your plan actually requires today.
The Tipping Scale
Life insurance addresses a specific problem: if your income disappears, the people who depend on it are protected. Early in a career, that problem is substantial. Income is lower, debts are higher, and dependents are more reliant on what you earn. The need for coverage is real and the gap it would need to fill is large.
The challenge is that every variable in that equation changes over time. Things that change:
- Income
- Debt
- Savings + investments
- Children getting off the family payroll
- College
The need for coverage does not stay constant across a career. It tips. Understanding where you are on that scale is the starting point for any honest coverage conversation.
Why Term, Not Permanent
Term insurance tends to be a more practical fit for many families, and the reason is straightforward. It is built around a defined window of need. You pay for coverage during the years when the financial gap is largest, and the policy ends when that gap has closed. That is the point of the structure, not a limitation of it.
Permanent life insurance, by contrast, is designed to last indefinitely. For a small number of situations involving estate planning or business succession, that structure serves a genuine purpose. For many families, it means paying for a death benefit well past the point when the underlying need is gone. The cost of permanent coverage reflects that permanence, and in many cases that cost does not serve the plan.
If you have a permanent policy, the question worth asking is whether the need it was purchased to address still exists at the same scale. In many cases, the answer has changed.
The Review Moment
There are two situations that call for a coverage review. The first is a permanent policy that has been in place for years without being tested against the current plan. The second is a term policy approaching expiration, where the default assumption is often to renew without asking whether the same level of coverage is still warranted.
The more useful question is not what the policy costs or what it originally provided. It is what your plan actually requires today. That means looking at current income, current debt, current savings, and what a surviving spouse or dependent would genuinely need to maintain financial stability. The coverage that comes out of that analysis may be higher than what you have, lower, or structured differently. The point is to know.
The Math of Income Replacement
A practical framework for thinking about coverage need starts with income replacement. If the goal is to replace a $100,000 income for a surviving spouse over the long term, what is often considered a sustainable withdrawal rate of 4 to 5 percent points toward a coverage need in the range of $2 million. (Illustrative purposes only. Numbers approximate.) That figure is then offset by existing savings, investments, and other assets that would already be available to the surviving spouse.
The result is not a precise number. It is a reasonable range that makes the conversation concrete. Many families that run this calculation find their coverage is either more than their plan requires or structured in a way that no longer reflects how their finances have evolved.
If you have not revisited your coverage recently, we want to check on that together. Let’s see where your policy stands against your plan today.
This material is for informational purposes only and does not constitute insurance or financial advice. Life insurance needs vary based on individual circumstances. Please consult with a qualified advisor before making any changes to your coverage.