Comments on: The First Marriage Insurance Web Startup – SafeGuard Guaranty

By: jason

jason — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Wow, this just makes me sad. I can’t believe this is where we are going now. The worst part is this will probably be very successful…. sigh.

By: floogy

floogy — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Hahah! Second that. I just don’t see people who are truly committed to their marriages shelling out $30/mo to show that they don’t *really* expect to keep it together. Insuring a choicepoint (unlike insuring accidents) leaves people who have it in the back of their minds to claim the policy (in the view of the insurer, these are theives) as the prime customer base. Perhaps the difficulty in proving a divorce was not premeditated or executed to exploit the policy is what they plan to use to stay afloat. This video never touched on any of the first questions to hit me regarding this innovation. Sometimes, just sometimes, things aren’t already being done because they’re bad ideas.i

By: John Logan

John Logan — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I don’t think anyone would be saddened by the fact that our research shows that most people would buy our insurance for the long term cash value of a successful marriage and not simply for the insurance factor, meaning their incentive is to STAY married.

Jason and Floogy may have missed the fact that our product is not only a financial safety net, but also a great way to build wealth.

There is, however, a sad reality to the fact that if study after study holds true, today, since we now have the largest population of adults who came from fragmented families and they are 3x more likely to divorce themselves, the divorce rate will go up dramatically in next 25 years unless we (as a society) take real steps to incent people to work through their problems instead of bailing out of a marriage at the first sign of trouble.

And, with all due respect, Floogy may not know that 7 out of 10 divorces are not a “choice point” for one of the parties involved.

In most cases, one spouse has divorce thrust on them like a liability lawsuit and is forced to use what net worth they have (if any) to defend themselves and their rights to custody or marrital assets. Gone are the days when only one spouse worked so there is little opportunity for a new revenue stream to set up a second household. Add to that the huge debt most Americans carry today and the fact that the personal savings rate in the US is worse than any other industrialized nation and as a result, almost half of American families spend at least some time below the poverty line as a result of divorce. Outside the US, it’s even worse.

Fortunately, we don’t consider the fact that people want to invest in themselves (not some complicated mortgage derivative) and protect their future at the same time a bad idea. And call it good or bad, statistics being what they are, we believe that if we can provide the means for ANY newly divorced mother to keep even ONE child out of a life of poverty, all the monetary benefits pale in comparison. I’ll wager you do too.

I welcome feedback on our product both pro and con, so feel free to visit our website and email me from there.

By: floogy

floogy — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Very good of you to reply here, John. I missed the long-term cash benefit in keeping the marriage together. Would recommend that, with your target market, the need to push the long-term cash benefit is great since that is what will keep one partner from being outraged at the other for daring to bring up marriage insurance.

I could have been clearer in communicating that I believe you’ve hit upon a very *practical* idea. For your sake, and the sake of people who will in future be financially pained by divorce, I hope this catches on and that the longer-the-better incentives are strong enough that people who marry for residence permits aren’t tempted to pad their bank account in the same maneuver, at your expense.