Tan Kin Lian

Many people buy life insurance to provide financial security to their family. If premature death occurs, the policy provides a cash sum to take care of the future financial needs of the family.

Insurance agents are drilled into thinking that they play a “noble” role in safeguarding the future of many families. This is half the truth.

Here is the other half: Many families are being grossly overcharged for the modest financial protection offered by the life insurance policy. After deducting the high expenses, their net savings do not earn a sufficient yield for them to live on during their retirement.

Let me quote a real example. Take the case of a male at age 30 saving $300 a month over 30 years. He is able to secure a sum assured of $100,000 under an endowment policy.

If premature death does not occur (and this represents probability of 95%), he is likely to receive a maturity sum of say $171,000, representing a yield of 3% per annum on his savings over 30 years. The insurance agent says that this looks like a good deal, considering that his family had enjoyed financial security for 30 years.

If the policyholder had invested the same sum of money in a low-cost investment fund that mirrors the investments of the life insurance company, he is likely to earn a net yield of about 5% per annum. At the end of 30 years, this will give an accumulated amount of $239,000.

This investment fund earns $68,000, or 40% more than the proceeds of the insurance policy. This is reflected as the “effect of deduction” in the benefit illustration given to the consumer at the point of sale of the life insurance policy. Most people are not aware about the existence of this figure, let alone understand what it means.

The effect of deduction of $68,000 represents a “reduction in yield” of 2% per annum, i.e. the difference between the net yield of 3% and the gross yield of 5%.

The insurance agent will probably explain that this is the cost of the valuable benefit provided by the policy, namely, the financial security provided to the family for 30 years.

What the agent did not say, which is probably dishonest, is that the policyholder could have bought the same financial security to the family through a decreasing term insurance policy for only one-tenth of the cost, or about $7,000. The low cost term insurance, which is what the agent does not offer to the policyholder, will allow the policyholder to earn $61,000 more over the 30 years.

The remainder of the “effect of deduction” goes to pay for the agent’s commission, the overriding commission to the agency managers, the advertising expenses, the sales incentive trips, the overhead expenses of the insurance company, and the profits for their shareholders.

If the policyholder buys a whole-life policy or a critical illness policy, the “effect of deduction” is higher than that for an endowment policy. Although the coverage is higher and wider, the total cost is still about ten times of the cost of a comparable term insurance plan.

The investment-linked policy is equally bad for the policyholder. I have seen benefit illustrations for these policies where the reduction in yield is 4% or more. If a reduction in yield of 2% amounts to $68,000, a reduction in yield of 4% will more than double the cost. This is taking too much from the unsuspecting consumer. It amounts to daylight robbery.

Here is my advice:

1. Do not buy any high-cost life insurance policy. High-cost life insurance plans are those where the policy combines life insurance protection with savings. Low-cost life insurance policies – term insurance policies – cover protection only.

Examples of high-cost life insurance policies include whole life, endowment, critical illness, education and investment-linked policies, where many months of your premium are used to pay the insurance agent’s commission.

2. If a policy is recommended to you, you should ask about the “effect of deduction” and the “reduction in yield”. If the insurance agent is not able to show these figures, you should stop the discussion as the agent is incompetent or dishonest. Ask the agent to disclose the total amount of commission payable over the first three years of the policy. Remember, the commission comes entirely from your premiums.

3. Find out about the cost of decreasing term insurance to provide the same coverage. Do not ask the same agent, as he or she is likely to quote you a large premium. Call the hotline of another insurance company. If they do not provide a decreasing term policy, you can buy a level term policy for a higher premium.

4. The coverage of $100,000 is probably inadequate for your family. You need to be covered for about five years of your earnings. Most people need $200,000 or $300,000. If you buy decreasing term insurance, you can afford to have higher coverage as the cost is low.

My history in NTUC Income

Some people will point out that during my tenure as chief executive of NTUC Income, I had offered the same life insurance policies that are now being discouraged in this article.

Here is the truth. The policies that were sold during my time have a cost to the policyholder that is less than half of similar products in the market. This is achieved by reducing the agent’s commission and the administrative, marketing and other expenses. These policies give a return on maturity which is 15% to 30% higher than similar products in the market.

This statement applies to the old policies introduced during my tenure. I do not wish to comment on the new policies introduced by NTUC Income after I have left. The consumer should ask about the “effect of deduction” and the “reduction in yield” on these new policies and make their judgement.

——————-

You May Also Like

总理笑称无视防疫措施 水獭家族到总统府“做客”

受冠状病毒19疫情影响,总统府已多日没接待任何访客或政要,水獭家庭却趁着这段期间,大摇大摆地在总统府“做客”将近一周。 总理李显龙今日(6月22日)在脸书上发帖,指一家七口的水獭家庭“到访”总统府,过去六天在国家公园局的监视下,于府内忙碌地探险。 “这些顽皮动物完全无视安全社交距离规则,愉快地在草坪上漫步、在池塘里嬉戏,还作日光浴。” 帖文中,李总理也附上水獭们在草坪上行走的照片,立刻吸引网友关注,短短两小时就有631人转发。 网民纷纷笑言,迎来第二期解封措施,不少地方都出现人潮,总统府对水獭们来说,更为自由和舒适。网民也调侃道,水獭们没戴口罩、没保持安全社交距离,还违反了五人访客限制的规定,更提醒李总理要注意,别让水獭们将池塘中的鱼吃光光。 不少网民也在评论区分享日前遇到水獭群出现的地点,包括碧山宏茂桥公园和拉柏多公园等。

Government must adopt mindset of 'servant leadership'

~ By Ng E-Jay ~ A few days ago in Phnom Penh,…

坐拥95亿元储备金 读者:国大欠人民一个解释

上月28日,本地媒体揭发新加坡国立大学坐拥95亿储备金,在去年3月底结束的财政年度中,收到2亿2700万元捐款,并赚取6亿200元的投资收入,成为我国最成功的筹款机构。 报导引起民间关注,此前亦有民众质疑,大学如果已拥有大量储备金,不明白大学还需要捐款者捐献的原因。“慈善捐款的饼就这么大,如果拿下一大块,就意味着留给其他慈善机构的就不多了。到底捐款和储备金,要多少才算足够?” 旅居台湾的博客鄞义林也曾评述,政府资助这些公共大学,但新加坡本地学府也是征收最贵学费的地区之一。 “换言之,国人已经为教育缴纳足够的税赋,然而行动党政府还要人民承担更多学费(全球第五贵),这些学府赚有盈余,反观不少毕业生毕业后需面对负债,这公平么?” 对于这些质疑声音,此前国大发言人曾解释,大学利用储备金赚取投资收入,用于资助不同的运作费,如奖学金、支持研究和推广企业化;大学也需要继续筹款让储备金处于健康水平,才能加强长期的财务可持续性。 在本月22日,再有另一读者陈文发(译音)在《海时》撰文,再度质疑国大坐拥的巨额储备金,理应用来应对学费增长的问题;也认为国大欠人民一个解释,究竟累积95亿元储备金要作何用? 他指出,一般非政府组织的标准是累积两年的储备,但国大的储备难道没有限制?他也吁请国大应暂停募款,直至其储备降至一定数额位置。 对此,国大高级副教务长陈清贤教授特别在《海时》论坛答复陈文发的质问,解释截至去年3月31日财年,95亿储备金的架构: 其中有59亿元是捐赠基金(Endowed funds) 特定用途的非捐赠金捐献约八亿元 累计运营盈余28亿元(占30巴仙)…