Is insurance worth it if you can afford to replace the item? If not, when is it?
This entirely depends on two factors: Now let's look at what AppleCare gives you: What it covers is any manufacturing defect. It also covers you for phone support, as otherwise it's a $49-per-incident charge even for simple issues. It also covers any software issues that you may come across as long as the issues pertain to Apple software or the operating system itself. What it doesn't cover is any damage caused by the user. If you snap the corner of the screen, drop it, spill liquid on it, modify it, etc... then you're responsible for paying the repair costs. If you're outside of phone support, then you're going to have to pay someone to fix any problems you come across. Now if we're to trust this handy study done in 2009, then we can say that the 3-year failure rate for Macbooks and Macbook Pros is 17.4%. We could go ahead and say that $350 / $2000 = 17.5% so the chances match up, but what's the likelihood that Apple is going to cover the full $2000? Only under extreme cases are you losing the full $2000 (theft, shock damage, etc...), and those are all cases that Apple won't cover anyways. Instead we're looking at cases such as (Please keep in mind it has been several years since I worked for Apple, so these figures may be off): So this reduces our possible savings significantly. Let's then also look at what the warranty becomes after they fixed a part: A replacement part or Apple Product, including a user-installable part that has been installed in accordance with instructions provided by Apple, assumes the remaining term of the Warranty or ninety (90) days from the date of replacement or repair, whichever provides longer coverage for you. Which means in this case that you have a 90-day warranty after they've fixed an issue. This significantly reduces the likelihood of a same part going bad multiple times in a row. Therefore the chances of that $350 being worthwhile are very much against you. Even if the system does fail in some way, it is likely that the repair would be cheaper than the AppleCare. The chances of running into a repair or series of repairs that pays for the AppleCare and then some are astonishingly low. I would still get it if you were giving it to someone who was significantly lacking in any technology concepts (such as a parent or grandparent) as they are more likely to utilize the extended phone support, especially for smaller things that they might nag you about! "In general, if you can afford to replace something, you are able to ""self-insure"".  You really want to understand a little of the statistics before you can make a generic call, but my rule of thumb is that insurance via ""extended warranty"" is rarely a good deal.  Here is a simple expected value math formula you can apply (when the > is true, then you should buy it): replacement cost x likelihood of using warranty % > cost of insurance You can then back-compute, what is the likelihood that I'd need to lose this item to break even?  Given your numbers: $2000 x Y > $350 or Y > (350/2000) or Y > 17.5% So if you think there is a 17.5% or greater chance that you'll need to have you system replaced (i.e. not just a simple fix) AND (as Scott pointed out) you'll be able to actually use the replacement warranty then the applecare is a good purchase.  Note, this only applies to items you can replace out-of-pocket without significant burden, because if you didn't have the $10k to replace your car, it wouldn't matter if the insurance wasn't such a good deal (especially if you need the car to get to work, etc.) So the obvious question is: ""Why would a for-profit company ever offer insurance on something they are statistically likely to lose money on?""  The obvious answer is ""they wouldn't,"" but that doesn't mean you should never buy this type of insurance, because you may have statistically significant circumstances. For instance, I purchased a $40 remote helicopter as a gift for my children.  I also paid the $5 for a ""no questions asked"" warranty on it because, knowing my kids, I knew there was a nearly 100% chance they would break it at least once.  In this case, this warranty was well worth the $5, because they did break it!  Presumably they make money on these warranties because most of the purchasers of the plan are more attentive (or too lazy to make the claim) than in this case. Edit note: I incorporated Scott's comment about likelihood of being able to utilize the warranty into a combined ""likelihood of using warranty"" term.  This term could be broken up into likelihood of needing replacement x likelihood of actually getting company to replace it I didn't do this above because it makes it a little harder to understand, and may not be a major factor in all cases, but you can definitely add it after the fact (i.e. if there's only a 90% chance Applecare will pay out at all, then divide the 17.5% by 0.9 to get 19.4% likelihood of needing the replacement for it to be cost effective). More complete formulas can be derived also (including terms for full replacement costs vs repair costs and including terms for ""deductible"" type costs or shipping), but I'm trying to keep things relatively simple for those who aren't statistics nerds like I am." "In regards to purchasing full coverage on your car even if you can afford to replace it, consider the hassle you have to deal with an accident that is not just the cost.  As an example, my sister's car was stolen and wrecked.  It was her problem to go recover the car on the other side of the state such that she would not be paying the storage ""fees"" imposed by the sheriff of the other county.  Had she had insurance they would have taken care of it call. Another story is that I rented a car and side swiped in the parking lot by a hit and run.  I was responsible for the minor damage.  I started down the path of paying out of pocket because it was small enough that I did not want to submit a claim.  The rental car agency started to pile on extra fees such that it was worth it to turn in a claim.  My insurance company was savvy enough to be able to dispute the extra charges.  After I submitted it to the insurance company I basically did nothing.  They took care of everything. So, in summary, when you buy full coverage on your car, it is not just a financial decision.  It is also about not having to deal with a hassle." The answer to this question is very different depending on the type of item.  From a purely financial perspective you would want to answer these questions which you may not have enough information to answer: Realistically the question I prefer to ask are: When something fails there is a big difference to me between having the cash and having an insurance policy that is suppose to cover it even if they are theoretically the same value.  Some insurance policies may even be better than cash, like homeowners insurance might help take care of details like finding a contractor to fix the issue, finding temporary housing if your house burns down, etc. Insurance is for events that are both and Unexpected and, for many people, catastrophic events are, for example, sickness, disability, death, car accidents, house fires, and burglaries, for which you may buy health, disability, life, auto, home, and renter's insurance.  It may be catastrophic for a family relying on a very old earner for that earner to die, and you can buy life insurance up to a very old age, but the premiums will reflect the likelihood of someone of that age dying within the covered period.  The more expected an event is, the more anything referred to as insurance is actually forced savings. Health insurance with no copays on regular checkups expects the insured to use them, so the cost of those checkups plus a profit for the insurance company is factored into the premiums ahead of time.  A wooden pencil breaking may be unexpected. Regardless of foreseeability, no one buys insurance on wooden pencils, as the loss of a pencil is not catastrophic. What is catastrophic can be context dependent. Health-care needs are typically unforeseeable, as you don't know when you'll get sick. For a billionaire, needing health-care, while unforeseeable, the situation would not be catastrophic, and the billionaire can easily self-insure his or her health to the same extent as most caps offered by health insurance companies. If you're on a fixed budget buying a laptop, if it unexpectedly failed, that would be catastrophic to you, so budgeting in the cost of insurance or an extended warranty while buying your laptop would probably make sense. Especially if you need that $2000 laptop, spending an extra 17.5% would safeguard against you having to come out of pocket and depleting your savings to replace it, even though that brings you to a grand total of $2350 before taxes. However, if you're in that tight of a situation, I would strongly recommend you to find a less expensive option that would allow you to self-insure. If you found a used laptop for much less (I can even see Apple selling refurbished Macs for less than $1000) you might decide that your budget allows you to self-insure, and you could profit from being careful with your hardware and resolving to cover any issues with it yourself. Extended warranty or insurance is a tricky thing.  In general, the big screen TV, or other electronics are going to become obsolete before they fail. Laptops, even Macs, are at risk for higher failure rates than other electronics.  The question remaining is whether after the item has reached its 3rd or 4th birthday, if you would already be in the market for a newer model.  In the big picture, if you have the money to buy a new replacement, or pay for a repair, you are better off to avoid the insurance. The highest failures are in the first year (aka 'infant mortality') and after N years, closer to 7-10, enough for obsolescence, than in years 2-5. As a rule, purchasing fairly priced (minus a spread) insurance on items you can afford to replace is a bad idea. However, in addition to the points mentioned in the previous answers, one should note that many types of insurance are UNDERpriced because on average people do not make claims even though they are entitled to them.  If you purchase something moderately priced at Best Buy and get the extended warranty and it breaks down a year later, you will be unlikely to even remember that you purchased the insurance much less go through the trouble of making a claim.  More likely you will just go buy a replacement or whatever the latest and greatest iteration is.  It's like homeowner's insurance--an amazing number of things is covered but no one ever makes claims, so it is cheap.  If you are a person who remembers and utilizes warranties and insurance, there are many types of insurance that will save you money in expectation.   The other thing is that you know more about your own riskiness than the insurer does.  I had a girlfriend who bought super comprehensive insurance on her crappy old car.  I was quite stern with her about it but could not change her mind.  She totaled it a few months later.  They bought her a replacement.  She got in a more serious accident with that car and got yet another one in addition to payment of her medical care, which did not even go to her health care insurance.  Yes, her rates went up, but not fast enough to deal with how risky she was.  Another example: I used to carry an e-book reader around in my shirt pocket and read it any time I had a chance.  Cheap item and not that delicate, but since I had it with me all the time and used it constantly, it was a big risk for the store.  The extended warranty would have been a great idea. In short, avoid extended warranties and insurance on things you can afford to lose unless you know that you are high risk or are otherwise more likely than average to make a claim. As many other posters have pointed out, unless you know (and your insurer doesn't) that because of any reason you are more likely than the average to damage your computer, insuring it doesn't really make a lot of sense if you can comfortably replace it should the worst happen. In this particular case of a laptop, insurance is especially unattractive because computers depreciate fairly quickly. If you break it... ...and you're insured, you will get the very same laptop you bought more than a year ago. ...and you're not insured, you can choose to either find the same laptop at a substantially lower price (Apple does not really lower prices that much but you can probably get a refurbished unit, just like you could get with AppleCare) or spend the original amount in a newer and more powerful laptop. Generically, like farnsy noted in the other answer, you will only come ahead in dollar terms when you are significantly riskier than the average insuree. Otherwise the insurance company would have higher rates to make a profit. In the case of Apple Care there can arguably be other factors involved. If you did not insure your $2000 laptop and it broke (unfixably) just after the warranty period, would you replace it with a new Apple product? Maybe not, so Apple could lose a customer. That means they have an incentive to keep you happy. If your product breaks but insurance replaces it, you are a happier customer and more likely to buy other Apple products. This is not an incentive for traditional insurance companies that only do business in insurance. Now, with the profit margins Apple likes in general, I don't know if they've underpriced their insurance. I sort of doubt it even. But their margins on it are probably not high, meaning it's a closer call even if you are only averagely risky. "The key point to answer the question is to consider risk aversion. Assume I suggest a game to you: Throw a coin and if you win, you get $5, if you lose nothing happens. Will you play the game? Of course, you will - you have nothing to lose! What if I suggest this: If you win, you get $10,000,005 and if you lose you must pay $10,000,000 (I also accept cars, houses, spouses, and kidneys as payment). While the expected value of the second game is the same as for the first, if you lose the second game you are more or less doomed to spend the rest of your life in poverty or not even have a rest of your life. Therefore, you will not wish to play the second game. Well, maybe you do - but probably only if you are very, very rich and can easily afford a loss (even if you had $11,000,000 you won't be as happy with a possible raise to $21,000,005 as you'd be unhappy with dropping to a mere $1,000,000, so you'd still not like to play).  Some model this by taking logarithms: If your capital grows from $500 to $1000 or from $1000 to $2000, in both cases it doubles, hence is considered the same ""personal gain"", effectively. And, voíla, the logartithm of your capital grows by the same amount in both cases. This refelcts that a rich man will not be as happy about finding a $10 note as a poor man will be about finding a nickel.  The effect of an insurance is that you replace an uncertain event of great damage with a certain event of little damage. Of course, the insurance company plays the same game, with roles swapped - so why do they play? One point is that they play the game very often, which tends to nivel the risks - unless you do something stupid and insure all inhabitants of San Francisco (and nobody else) against eqarthquakes. But also they have enough capital that they can afford to lose the game. In a fair situation, i.e. when the insurance costs just as much as damage cost multiplied with probability of damage, a rational you would eagerly buy the insurance because of risk aversion. Therefore, the insurance will in effect be able to charge more than the statistically fair price and many will still (gnawingly) buy it, and that's how they make a living. The decision how much more one is willing to accept as insurance cost is also a matter of whether you can afford a loss of the insured item easily, with regrets, barely, or not all." Another factor to consider is that resale value of the laptop is quite bit more if it is still under warranty.  This would apply to people who replace their laptop often. It is higher because the purchaser can be assured they are not getting a lemon.  I determined this by comparing prices on ebay before selling my computer. Of course, if you keep your laptop longer than the warranty, this means nothing.  But for me it meant I could sell my old laptop quickly and for a better price. Because I used my laptop for work and totally depended on it, even one day of downtime would cost me a lot, so it was worthwhile to keep a relatively new laptop under warranty. Also, for those using Apple Care, there is an undocumented perk:  Apple covered an out of warranty repair on a time capsule under my apple care for my laptop even tho they were not purchased at the same time. Can you afford to replace it? What does that mean?  Even if insuring means overpaying, it does spread the risk.  NB: This example is not about the Applecare program, which I think is a waste of money for many people. Others have explained very well if it would work for you or not.  I have a Macbook but no Applecare. I have an expensive smartphone with insurance for dropping and water damage, but not theft. After one year I cancel this insurance. I don't have $200K in my bank account.
I would not do this personally for most house items, since I really view them as consumables. I am using household items until they wear out, not placing my money in an investment that needs to retain or return value.  If you have any investment-like items, or if the value represents a significant (you decide this) portion of your annual income or net worth, then track it with inventory and schedule it on an insurance policy. If your home is destroyed and you have an inaccurate inventory or no   inventory at all, what does insurance provide for replacement of   property?  Maybe more importantly, will insurance even care about your   own personal inventory? (Isn't it easy to scam, through value   inflation?) For insurance, you need to start with the details of your homeowners policy. Often there will be a general blanket amount of what they will reimburse. If you have items over that amount, or need more coverage, you will need to schedule the items up-front with insurance. This way, the value of expensive items are known and agreed on by all parties before an event. It ensures a quick claim resolution, and it is the cleanest and easiest way to deal with the insurance company.  You need to talk to your agent about the unique aspects of your policy. You need to make sure the policy will cover your liabilities. "Insurance is bought for peace of mind and to divert disaster.   Diverting disaster is a good/great thing.  If your house burned down, if someone hit your car, or some other devastating event (think medical) happened that required a more allocation than you could afford the series of issues may snowball and cause you to lose a far greater amount of money than the initial incident.  This could be in the form of losing work time, losing a job, having to buy transportation quickly paying a premium, having to incur high rate debt and so on.   For the middle income and lower classes medical, house, and medical insurance certainly falls into these categories.  Also why a lot of states have buyout options on auto insurance (some will let you drive without insurance by proving bonding up to 250K.   Now the other insurance as I have alluded to is for peace of mind mainly.  This is your laptop insurance, vacation insurance and so on.  The premise of these insurances is that no matter what happens you can get back to ""even"" by paying just a little extra.   However what other answers have failed to clarify is the idea of insurance.  It is an agreement that you will pay a company money right now.  And then if a certain set of events happen, you follow their guidelines, they are still in business, they still have the same protocols, and so on that you will get some benefit when something ""disadvantageous"" happens to you.  We buy insurance because we think we can snap our fingers and life will be back to normal.  For bigger things like medical, home, and auto there are more regulations but I could get 1000 comments on people getting screwed over by their insurance companies.  For smaller things, almost all insurance is outsourced to a 3rd party not affiliated legally with a business.  Therefore if the costs are too high they can simply go under, and if the costs are low they continue helping the consumer (that doesn't need help).   So we buy insurance divert catastrophe or because we have fallen for the insurance sales pitch.  And an easy way to get around the sales pitch - as the person selling you the insurance if you can have their name and info and they will be personally liable if the insurance company fails their end of the bargain." At what point can you not afford the repair, and how will that repair affect your home? In your scenario, you would be claiming $1, which I could agree is universally bad. A good tip is to raise the deductible to the point you feel you can cover on your own so you aren't tempted.  (It would lower your premium too) This is what an emergency fund is for.  In your examples, if you have $10K in an emergency fund, don't file a claim.  If you have no emergency fund, and your roof is missing, I would suggest filing a claim. If you have no money, but the claim is to fix something that you could ignore (missing a back porch?  Lock the back door and don't go out of it) then save the $10K and pay for it out of pocket. When it doubt, pay for it out of pocket if possible. "The problem above is actually a pretty good list of the concerns around life insurance.  While there is no correct answer to the question as posed, this will vary among different WSCs, there is a simpler way to think about insurance in general that may make finding what is right answer for you easier. Buying life insurance, like almost all insurance, is on average a money losing purchase.  This is simply because the companies selling wouldn't offer it if they couldn't expect to make money on it.  Think about buying insurance (a warranty) on a new cell phone, maybe if you are particularly prone to damaging cell phones it can be in your favor, but for most of the people that buy it will lose money on average. People, of course, still buy insurance anyway to protect themselves from unlikely but very bad consequences.  The big reason to make this trade off is if the loss will have big lasting consequences.  To stay with our cell phone example having to replace a cell phone, at least for me, would be annoying but not a catastrophic event.  For myself, the protection is not worth the warranty cost, but that is not true for everyone. Life insurance is a pretty extreme case of this, but I find the best question to ask is ""if you (you and your spouse) were to die will your dependents lives become so much worse that you really dislike the idea of not being insured?"" For some working seniors, they already have enough saved to bridge their kids/spouse to adulthood/old-age that insurance makes no sense.  For some, their children/husband/wife would be destitute and insurance is an obvious choice and an easy price to pay even if it is very high.  The example you suggest seems on the border and good questions to ask are: Thinking about those questions may help you understand if the protection offers is worth the cost." "Lots of people make poor decisions in crises.  Some panic, and don't make any decision at all. Insurance for affordable things can provide emotional security:  If something goes wrong, the purchaser will not have to make a painful financial decision in a crisis.  Many people do not want to have the burden of arguing about money, or having to spend precious cash, or borrow money, or raid savings accounts, just at the time they are already reeling from another loss.  Having insurance ""just take care of it"" can save them an emotional double-whammy.   Several kinds of insurance fill this perceived need:" "Annual property tax and home insurance come to mind as things that are easily forgotten, but surely the biggest true, ""I didn't see that coming,"" is a major car repair. There are a number of things that can go wrong with a car with little warning and end up costing a thousand dollars or more.  Since most people are dependent upon their car for getting to work, doing anything but fixing or replacing the car is not an option.  If you fix it, that's an out of pocket expense that most aren't prepared for.  If the car has some age, you might be inclined to replace it, but doing so in a rush costs a lot more than taking your time in such a decision." "You're asking for opinions here, because it's a matter of how you look at it. I'll give it a shot anyway. For insurance purposes - there's a clear answer: you insure based on how much it would cost you to replace it. For some reason, you're considering as a possibility negotiating with the insurance company about that, but I've never heard of insuring something at a ""possible sales value"" unless you're talking about a one of a kind thing, or a particularly valuable artifact: art, jewelry, etc. That it would be appraised and insured based on the appraised value. Besides, most of the stuff usually loses value once you bought it, not gains, so insuring per replacement costs makes more sense because it costs more. As to your estimations of your own net worth to yourself - its up to you. I would say that something only worth what people would pay for it. So if you have a car that you just bought brand new, replacing it would cost you $X, but you can only sell it for $X-10%, because it depreciated by at least 10% once you've driven it off the dealer's lot. So I would estimate your worth as $X-10% based on the car, not $X, because although you spent $X on it - you can never recover it if you sell it, so you can't claim to have it as your ""net worth""." Can you afford to replace your home if it suffers major damage in a fire or earthquake?  Is your home at risk of flooding?  In the United States, one can purchase insurance for each of these risks, but the customer has to ask about each of them.  (Most default American homeowners policies cover fire and wind damage, but not earthquake or flooding.  I am not sure about hurricane or tornado damage.) Your most cost-effective insurance against fire, earthquake, or flood damage is to prevent or minimize such damage.  Practical measures cannot completely eliminate these risks, so homeowners' insurance is still a good idea (unless you are so rich you can easily afford to replace your home).  But you can do things like: Your most cost-effective health insurance is to have clean water, wash your hands before handling food, eat healthily (including enough protein, vitamins, and minerals), exercise regularly, and not smoke.  Your medical insurance can cover some of the inevitable large medical expenses, but cannot make you healthy. As someone who has worked for both an insurance carrier and an insurance agent, the reason people buy insurance is two fold: to spread risk out, and to get the benefits (when applicable) of approaching risk as a group. What you are really doing when you buy insurance is you are buying in to a large group of people who are sharing risk.  You put money in that will help people when they take a loss, and in exchange get a promise of having your losses covered.  There is an administrative fee taken by the company that runs the group in order to cover their costs of doing business and their profits that they get for running the group well (or losses they take if they run it poorly.) Some insurances are for profit, some are non-profit; all work on the principle of spreading risk around though and taking risk as a larger group. So let's take a closer look at each of the advantages you get from participating in insurance.  The biggest and most obvious is the protection from catastrophic loss.  Yes, you could self-insure with a group size of one, by saving your money and having no overhead (other than your time and the time value of your money) but that has a cost in itself and also doesn't cover you against risk up front if you aren't already independently wealthy.  A run of bad luck could wipe you out entirely since you don't have a large group to spread the risk around.  The same thing can still happen to insurance companies as well when the group as a whole takes major losses, but it's less likely to occur because there are more rare things that have to go wrong.  You pay an administrative overhead for the group to be run for you, but you have less exposure to your own risks in exchange for a small premium. Another significant but less visible advantage is the benefit of being part of a large group.  Insurance companies represent a large group of people and lots of business, so they can get better rates on dealing with recovering from losses.  They can negotiate for better health care rates or better repair rates or cheaper replacement parts.  This can potentially save more than the administrative overhead and profit that they take off the top, even when compared to self-insuring. There is an element of gambling to it, but there are also very real financial benefits to having predictable costs.  The value of that predictability (and the lesser need for liquid assets) is what makes insurance worth it for many people.  The value of this group benefit does decrease a lot as the value of the insurance coverage (the amount it pays out) decreases.  Insurance for minor losses has a much smaller impact on liquidity and is much easier to self insure.  Cheaper items that have insurance also tend to be high risk items, so the costs tend to be very high relative to the amount of protection.  If you are financially able, it may make more sense to self-insure in these cases, particularly if you tend to be more cautious.  It may make sense for those who are more prone to accidents with their devices to buy insurance, but this selection bias also drives the cost up further.  Generally, the reason to buy insurance on something like a cellphone is because you expect you will break it.  You are going to end up paying for an entire additional phone over time anyway and most such policies stop paying out after the first replacement anyway. The reason why people buy the coverage anyway, even when it really isn't in their best interest is due to two factors: being risk averse, as base64 pointed out, and also being generally bad at dealing with large numbers.  On the risk averse side, they think of how much they are spending on the item (even if it is less compared to large items like cars or houses) and don't want to lose that.  On the bad at dealing with large numbers side, they don't think about the overall cost of the coverage and don't read the fine print as to what they are actually getting coverage for.  (This is the same reason that you always see prices one cent under the dollar.)   People often don't really subconsciously get that they are paying more even if they would be able to eat the loss, so they pay what feels like a small amount to offset a large risk.  The risk of loss is a higher fear than the known small, easy payment that keeps the risk away and the overall value proposition isn't even considered. "IMO it's usually not worth it and here's why. There's a statistical distribution of how likely a unit may fail depending on its age. Probability is high for a short period after the unit comes into use because there are parts that were not thoroughly tested and manufacturing defects. Then all those defective parts fail and get replaces and the unit likely functions without faults for years. Then it reaches it lifetime end and again probability becomes much higher - parts wear out and start failing one by one. Every unit comes with a manufacturer warranty of one to two years already and that warranty will likely cover any defect causes by materials and manufacturing defects - the period when fault probability is initially high. ""Extended warranty"" only covers the unit for two-to-five years and most units have lifetime of about ten years. This means that the ""extended warranty"" is in effect when it is least useful." "You don't mention what kind of insurance you're talking about, but I'll just address one angle on the question. For some kinds of insurance, such as health insurance (in the US), auto insurance, and homeowner's insurance, you may be insuring against an event that you would not be able to pay for without the insurance.  For instance, if you are at fault in a car accident and injure someone, they could sue you for $100,000.  A lot of people don't have $100,000.  So it's not even a matter of ""I'll take the risk of having to pay it when the time comes""; if the time comes, you could lose virtually everything you own and still have to pay more from future earnings.  You're not just paying $X to offset a potential loss of $Y; you're paying $X to offset a potential derailment of your entire life.  It is plausible that you could assign a reasonable monetary value to that potential ""cost"" that would mean you actually come out ahead in the insurance equation. It is with smaller expenses (such as insuring a new cellphone against breakage) that insurance becomes harder to justify.  When the potential nonfinancial ""collateral damage"" of a bad event are less, you must justify the insurance expenses on the financial consequences only, which, as you say, is often difficult." Yes, it should be. As, where one has insurance, its an expense one would expect one to continue to incur in a normal budgetary emergency, even drop in the extreme. Your basic point is correct; the savvy move is to use insurance only to cover losses that would be painful or catastrophic for you. Otherwise, self-insure. In the specific example of car insurance, you may be missing that it doesn't only cover replacement of the car, it also covers liability, which is a hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars risk. The liability coverage may well be legally required; it may also be required as a base layer if you want to get a separate umbrella policy up to millions in liability. So you have to be very rich before this insurance stops making sense. In the US at least you can certainly buy car insurance that doesn't cover loss of the car, or that has a high deductible. And in fact, if you can afford to self-insure up to a high deductible, on average as you say that should be a good idea. Same is true of most kinds of insurance, a high deductible is best as long as you can afford it, unless you know you'll probably file a claim. (Health insurance in particular is weird in many ways, and one is that you often can estimate whether you'll have claims.) On our auto policy, the liability and uninsured motorist coverage is about 60% of the cost while damage to the car coverage is 40%. I'm sure this varies a lot depending on the value of your cars and how much you drive and driving record, etc. On an aging car the coverage for the car itself should get cheaper and cheaper since the car is worth less, while liability coverage would not necessarily get cheaper. "Discussions around expected values and risk premiums are very useful, but there's another thing to consider: cash flow. Some individuals have high value assets that are vital to them, such as  transportation or housing.  The cost of replacing these assets is prohibitive to them: their cashflow means that their rate of saving is too low to accrue a fund large enough to cover the asset's loss. However, their cashflow is such that they can afford insurance. While it may be true that, over time, they would be ""better off"" saving that money in an asset replacement fund, until that fund reaches a certain level, they are unprotected. Thus, it's not just about being risk averse; there are some very pragmatic reasons why individuals with low disposable income might elect to pay for insurance when they would be financially better off without it." It's not about moving the market or liquidity the non current months have reduced liquidity, checking today.  ES_F June today the most recent 5 min bar has 809 volume. while the september has 10616 volume on the same bar.  2. Commision p/l should be subtracted as actual actual.  I'm not necessarily worried about moving the market or liquidity im more or less worried about slippage. As some good strategies can decay very fast due to it.