financemum

You need a level term insurance if your mortgage/remortgage are on interest-only bases. Why? Because the amount of the loan will remain at its start figure (unless you make overpayments), so, in order for your insurance to give you full cover, it needs to be level, for the full amount, and for the duration of your loan. If you increase your mortgage - for example you move - you can add extra cover by a suitable top-up or extra policy (subject to yourinsurability at that time).

If you change your loan to a repayment basis, simply reduce your existing cover to a reducing insurance for the remaining term of your loan - this can be done without further medical questions, because you will be reducing the risk to the insurance company.

You might choose to have a mortgage with is partly interest-only, and partly repayment (a 'part and part' mortgage). If so, you can have two separate policies, one matching the interest-only part, and the other matching the repayment part. However, it might be cheaper to take a single level policy for the full amount (and hence build up some over-insurance as time passes).

Ideally - and if not too expensive - try to cover your mortgage for critical illness cover as well, and if the mortgage is jointly held and depends upon a partner's income, then the policy should be on a 'joint life first death' basis.

As with all financial answers, this answer is a 'generalised' one which suits most people. However, your own situation may have some quirks that can influence the best solution for you; if you have any doubt, seek good advice.

Mortgage life insurance normally refers to a reducing term policy designed to follow the reducing capital of a repayment mortgage. Life insurance is a broad term covering all kinds of insurance which pay on death, and would include level term insurance, reducing term insurance, whole of life insurance, and others.

Life insurance is something that most of us will be all too happy not to claim! Most policies are purely for protection and, as Paul says, have no surrender or maturity value.

Endowment policies are combined life insurance/savings plans, and are not really very good at either. Whole of life policies are designed as insurance policies with an investment element as part of the insurance structure. These plans can build a (very modest) value. Of course, you cannot outlive such a plan, but you may be able to surrender it and put a small sum in your pocket.

I'd say the average has dropped below 70%, with many borrowers who have higher loan to value ratios effectively landlocked until their property increases in value.

For a new buyer around 80/85% is still vaguely commercial, but I really would avoid going to 90% if at all possible.

Paul is quite right about how other factors can affect your chances too.

PMI premium levels tend to be guided by the increase in medical services inflation which runs much higher than any of the normal published inflation measures.

Having said that, it doesnt mean that you cannot improve on the premium you are paying and potentially add in new benefits. It can vary from person to person but there are often good deals to be had in switching providers to secure a deal in today's terms.

even if you have pre-existing conditions (which are typically excluded on new plans) you can still retain cover when you move but as ever you need to be honest with your medical history when you let an IFA review the plan for you.

failing all this, if you like the peace of mind of having PMI but have seldom claimed, it might be worth finding out if you have the option to increase your excess which will reduce the monthly premium.

I usually advise my clients to consider a unit trust and designate it for your child /children. Even though a unit trust is associated with risk as there is an element of stocks and shares, over the long term, they do generally outperform better than cash accounts.

The alternative's are savings accounts with your local building society or a National Savings account. At present, the interest rates are dire, and probably will be for awhile, but I would seek advice on this area through an adviser so that you can consider the best option based on the amount you want to save, the term and your attitude to risk.

Feel free to ask me anymore questions

Not to my knowledge. They are very focused on reducing the deficit and have suspended all initiatives like this

to be honest, men could actually pose a greater reason for inequality in the basic state pension age as men in the UK on average have a lower life expectancy than women and have to wait longer to claim.

a woman at age 60 could be expected to live an average of 25 or more years whereas a man at 65 might only have 16!

when the original state retirement ages were devised, very few men even lived to 65 and the pension was a nominal sum and often only paid out for a couple of years as you had to be almost on the poverty line to be eligible and therefore generally had a very low quality/standard of living.

the most likely reason for the age gap would have been looking at age differences between couples and that 5 years was an average gap between men and women in relationships therefore when the man was 65 and retiring, the woman on average was 60 so it enabled both to retire together.

ultimately as life expectancy has improved dramatically, the taxpayer cannot afford to pay a generous pension to everyone at such a young age after already having reduced the number of years to qualify for a maximum pension to only 30 years.

a woman used to pay in for 90% of 44 years and a man for 90% of 49 years. so you can see women also paid in less and in theory got the same as men - this to some degree would have compensated for raising a family and not working but again, when the state pension was devised it was highly uncommon for women to be working whereas in today's more modern society women are the main breadwinners in some families/relationships.

it might be considered hard for the age to be increased but lets be honest, no one can actually afford to live on only £100pw regardless of whether thats at 60 / 65 / 70 so people have to do more to plan for their own financial future.

you have omitted to mention that men will see their age rise to 66 before women will, and the young (born from the 1960s on) will reach state retirement much later, i'm already set to age 67 but expect that to rise - but im not relying on my state pension to keep me, in fact i would be surprised if its still in its current form in 30 years time.

you can check your state pension age here:

http://pensions.direct.gov.uk/en/state-pension-age-calculator/home.asp

but remember the benefit of planning your own retirement is that you dont have to wait until 60/65/70 etc. a personal pension will give access at 55 (this will probably rise in the future too) but if you have other assets you can stop working whenever you like!

my view is that its always best to control your own destiny rather than relying on a "nanny state".

i'm not quite sure what you mean on this but i will take a guess that you have paperwork and are trying to identify what it relates to?

if you have been a member of a final salary pension and made it to at least 2 years of service, you will have deferred benefits in that scheme and might get an annual summary of benefits - but not all companies send this once you have left the employer although you can request them at any time.

in terms of personal pension types you should get paperwork from the pension/investment companies and if these are attached to former employers they will mention it on the scheme name ie "The Tesco Stakeholder Pension".

stakeholder plans will always carry the name so if you dont see the word on the paperwork, its a good guess that it is a personal pension which might be an older style contract but could also be a recent one.

if your question was relating to "do i have a pension with anyone as i am not sure" you can try the pension tracing service but they will ask you for details of who you have worked for, and you would already know this and could check with the old HR departments.

in terms of personal pensions that you have paid yourself, old bank statements will help.

if this doesnt cover what you meant, can you explain in a little more detail what you were hoping to find out.

thanks

in general terms you could argue that gender is irrelevant.

insurance relies on interpreting past data on claims experience.

therefore a young female driver might be considered to be a safer bet than a young male driver due to the notion of "boy racers".

if there were common traits between the genders that influenced the reasons for claims on motor or other policies, gender related pricing wouldnt occur.

the notion of female pricing on motor policies had been thought to be short lived last year as legal challenges were being made to outlaw it as somehow a form of discrimination.

the truth of the matter is that you can probably find as many bad drivers of all genders and ages, occupations, home towns, and so on.

but in order that people with a safer driving record are rewarded for their careful driving, insurers have to set a benchmark and the "good risks" fall below the mark and pay less, whilst others pay more, and possibly only a few sit on the line.

otherwise if we all paid the same amount regardless of our circumstances or history, there would be no disincentive to have a claim every year!

but the above comments are very general and it is still often possible to find a good deal even if you fit into a high risk category as just as many insurers set up to cater for hot hatches, former drink drivers and female only - i suppose its just that sheilas wheels gets more air time on the tv!

Generally when looking at term assurance, which is a type of life insurance, women are cheaper to insure than men as women have a longer life expectancy. However, if we look at critical illness cover then women are more expensive than men, as they are more likely to contract a serious illness.
Without knowing more specific details about the individual we couldn't give a precise cost different. However, running a quote with one insurer, based on a man and female of the same age, and looking for the same cover the woman is 38% cheaper to insure.

close credit cards / bank accounts that you no longer need - having lots of available credit can give the impression that you are stockpiling ready to draw it all out!

but keep a card for a backup or emergency

set up DDs to cover minimum payments

speak to your lender before you are late as they will often give leeway if you ask permission.

ensure that you are on the voters roll at your address as soon as you move home and try not to move too often.

always keep within your authorised account balances

check your credit file for inaccuracies - mistakes do happen and if there are mistakes you can prove, they must be rectified within 30 days.

this will give you a good starting point on your Top 10!

all insurance contracts generally change in cost due to ongoing claims and admin costs and the rise in cost of replacement goods ie car prices increasing, garage rates increasing.

it has never been a case of individual underwriting for pricing a policy that is why its seldom the case that you will pay the same year after year even with no change to your record (except for your age).

even the old notion that insurance becomes cheaper when you reach, 18 then 25 then 30 etc is a nonsense!

pensions per se will not be altered but certainly annuities will.

currently, men get higher rates (when compared on a like for like basis) as we live short lives (on average) and therefore the same pot of money would need to be paid out in a shorter period of time when compared to a woman.

all of this will change.

people that take their benefit by drawdown (unsecured pension income) and hybrid annuities will also see the same potential reduction as the base point for working out their income is still currently gender based.

its fair to say that pretty much every insurance contract will be changed (there are the odd exceptions like car breakdown cover and cover for your washing machine failing etc!)