2 ms·
I'm fascinated by the pricing implication here. The older you are, and the more imminent your need for it, the cheaper it is!
by Edd314159 4y ago
I'm fascinated by the pricing implication here. The older you are, and the more imminent your need for it, the cheaper it is!
- mohamedattahri 4y agoNot really; it would be the same as saying that leasing a car is cheaper if nearer to death than not. We're not a life insurance that you have to contribute to in exchange for a payout. We're a service that watches over you for one year to make sure your plan is revealed and shared with your loved ones.
- Edd314159 4y agoWell if you plan to lease the car for the rest of your life, however long that ends up being, then yes the number of years left in your life determines how much it is going to cost you. This comparison breaks down in a few ways: with the car, I realise the value of it immediately, as I get to drive it around, whereas for a service that only activates on my death, the value is only _potential_ until that actually happens. Also, I can terminate my car lease and feel OK about it, I have already realised value, it did its job. If I pay for this service for a year, but I don’t die, have I realised any value? Maybe marginally in the peace of mind I will feel while alive, but there’s no arguing that the optimal way for me (or more realistically, my estate) to get the most value for money is to buy just one year of service, and then kick the bucket in that same year? Edit: I’m not saying any of this necessarily wrong, it’s just a really interesting quirk of pricing incentives