- UID
- 218224
- 帖子
- 440
- 主题
- 106
- 注册时间
- 2011-5-26
- 最后登录
- 2012-9-12
|
9#
发表于 2011-7-11 19:25
| 只看该作者
Well put darlia. Don't try to find a justification, just use the PV approach. You could argue that both Tucker and Max need enough life insurance to meet their minimum expenses. Max has high earnings volatility, which means his family has the ability to live on low earnings. Tucker has lower earnings volatility, so his family is used to getting the same (median amount) of earnings. Therefore their minimum standard of living is higher. By that logic, he needs more life insurance for them to live normally.
It's a flawed argument, but it's the best I can do. Hence, just stick with the PV approach with a higher discount rate.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at Monday, May 16, 2011 at 11:42PM by sbmarti2. |
|