Free Ebook.


Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

« Vote for Your Favorites | Main | 529s Are Not Tax Deductible at the Federal Level, But May Be at the State Level »

March 22, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I had a recent experience with a car I didn't own, in which I learned that my insurance company wouldn't cover any damages because I didn't have collision on any of my vehicles. They will extend coverage to another car I may be driving based on coverage I already have.

Since the incident I have put collision on one of my vehicles, now I should be covered if I put a dent in someone else's car. I probably could have paid 10 years in premiums over what this fender bender cost me out of pocket.

I'm convinced that insurance is unnecessary. Why? Because over time, the expected returns come out the same, with the exception that the insurance company must pay its employees/agents as well as post a profit. If you can insure yourself, then you can avoid paying the insurance company's operating costs and profits.

The only caveat to this is simply that this is a riskier investment. An insurance company spreads the risk over all of its policy-holders, so the risk of loss to you is very little; whereas if you insure yourself, the risk falls solely on you, and so the risk of loss is fairly high.

So it comes down to this: would you feel comfortable in making an investment that has a probability of hgih returns, but also a high risk of loss of principle? Do you invest in agressive investments? Then insurance yourself is for you. But if you're a more conservative investor, willing to accept lower returns for a lower risk of loss, then you should stick with using an insurance company.

We dropped full coverage on our cars 4 years ago. It was too expensive being our ages and the worth of our cars. If we picked it up now our cars are worth maybe $4k, should be less but for some reason the gas prices keep it higher than expected. And so that extra $2k in premium is definitely worth dropping.

I take a slightly different view. If one has more than one car in the family, the advice in the article makes sense, because in the worst imaginable case, an accident will only cause a certain amount of inconvenience until the car can be replaced out of savings and income. Kill the extra coverage for all but the most expensive car, and max out the deductible on that one.

But if you don't have another car, and can't conduct all of your life's business on public transit for an extended period, then C&C insurance makes sense in a lot more cases. In that situation, you can find yourself needing to replace your car within 48 hours of an accident or else being set on the road to bankruptcy.

I’ ve forgotten how many time’ s myself and numerous others have shown that abstinence- only sex education is a complete waste of time and money. Since president Reagan introduced it and with the support of“ God told me to” G. W. Bush, the amount of funding for abstinence only education has risen to 175 Million per year (but still the rates of teen pregnancies and STDs has increased, such that the US has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancies in the developed world) and has totalled over 1. 5 Billion!!

That last comment seems relevant.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Start a Blog


Disclaimer


  • Any information shared on Free Money Finance does not constitute financial advice. The Website is intended to provide general information only and does not attempt to give you advice that relates to your specific circumstances. You are advised to discuss your specific requirements with an independent financial adviser. Per FTC guidelines, this website may be compensated by companies mentioned through advertising, affiliate programs or otherwise. All posts are © 2005-2012, Free Money Finance.

Stats