Tubbs said:
Should I be paying less life cover premium the less I have outstanding on my mortgage ?
As ClubMan says, ideally you should (and probably do?) have basic reducing term insurance, joint life. When you initially took out your mortgage, this cover would have had to match the original term and amount of the loan. However, even if you subsequently reduce your term/loan, by accelerating your repayments or making a lump sum repayment, it
may make sense to leave that 'excess' cover in place — it's cheap 'n' cheerful extra cover, and the premiums will have been calculated on the basis of your then younger age.
For example:
- Borrow €300K in 2000, age 25, over 25 years, and buy insurance to match.
- By 2006, you're in a position to boost your monthly repayments, so shortening the remaining loan term from 24 to 15/16 years — or, alternatively, you use a windfall to clear a large chunk of the capital amount.
- You could now cancel your old 25-year, (reducing) €300K policy — then you'd have to replace it with a new policy (for a lesser sum/term), but you're now in the 31-40 bracket and have, say, taken up smoking in protest against the pub ban . Suddenly your premiums for a 16-year/€200K policy look very close to what you were originally paying for another 24 years' cover at a higher ('though still reducing) level.
(I'm open to correction on all of this, and of course other factors may come into it too — insurance premiums rise and fall over time, just like interest rates...)
Two good times to review/renew your cover are
(a) if you give up smoking or your risk profile changes in some other way
(b) as you approach the cut-off between age bands. Some insurers distinguish between a 41-year-old/44-year-old/49-year-old, others seem (?) to lump everyone from 41-50 together.
If you have (or 'acquire') dependents, then of course that's a whole new ball game...!