Insurance & Costs of having and raising a child

(27-08-2012, 09:23 AM)godjira1 Wrote:

(26-08-2012, 09:00 PM)Temperament Wrote: i have thought of putting my estate into a trust.
But it's "quite expensive" to create one. i think the maintenance is expensive too.
i think it's expensive because the estate i will leave behind is not large enough to warrant a trust. (my own standard).
Usually a person has a trust because of creating a perpetual "livelihood" for a sub-intelligent child or a child who will remain a child forever.
And i impress on my only son how expensive a trust is.
So if he doesn't shows he interested or capable in investment, i will create a trust if i have to.
Anyway i think my wife somehow at least can manage to take over after all my years of nagging about investments.

This is why i have a trust (son is autistic and daughter is noisy haha) so need more than a straightforward will.

Maybe its just the limited sample size but my missus also shows no interest in investing (tried to get her to read the intelligent investor, the most important thing, etc, refuses). Says its risky... Though i always say inflation is the biggest risk of all!

As far as i know no female relatives of mine or my wife is interested in investing in the stock markets.
i suspect it's due to our DNA or GENE passed down from Cave-MAN ancestors. Basically Science can advance very fast but our DNA/GENE can not catch up fast enough.

(27-08-2012, 07:44 AM)KopiKat Wrote: IMO, one of the difficulties would be to find a trustee (whom you trust) who's also good at investing. In such a case, I guess it'd be best to leave simple instructions for the trustee not to do anything drastic to a trust that can comprise mainly of a portfolio of stocks that's expected to provide a steady stream of dividend income that'd be sufficient for the livelihood of the beneficiaries (with some dividend surplus to be reinvested into the same stocks in the portfolio to help offset inflations).

Alternatively, I was wondering if it's also possible for the trust to be a client of a Boutique Fund? ie. all the trustee need to do is to invest for the trust through the Fund Manager. If so, what's the minimum requirement, in terms of $$ value? Same $2Mil as Accredited Individuals or some other requirements?

Thx!

You can appoint the trust company to be the trustee if you wish. As long as the instructions are explicit enough for a robot to follow e.g. "only own SGX index stocks but no airlines or shipping or semiconductors, and reinvest 50% of dividends, pay out the rest" it should be relatively cheap to implement.

The trust can of course be the client of a boutique fund. If the fund manager is based in Singapore, the usual rules apply i.e. if the manager is not licensed to take retail money, the trust has to meet the qualified investor requirement.

Note that since the trust is not an individual person, the requirement is net assets of $10m. If the trust doesn't have $10m it may still be possible to do a "look through" i.e. if each beneficiary (who is an individual) has $2m of net assets, the trust could possibly qualify, but best to confirm with a lawyer on this matter.

(24-08-2012, 08:24 PM)greypiggi Wrote: Yes. Kids are wonderful. They can really exasperate you and make you all warm and fuzzy at the same time. They are infinitely forgiving and so innocent. I have 3 kids and they are definitely worth the time, resources and effort put in and add to my life dramatically. I give up some freedom for sure but its a good trade off. So congrats cityfarmer! Enjoy!

As for financial planning, I find kids cost quite little when young. Just diapers, milk cost. The must do thing is to buy medical insurance for them. I bought best one and totally do not regret. My older kid has some issues when 4 yrs old and the bill was almost 10k! Lucky my insurer covered in full. Next highest cost is education when preschool and in primary school. Supplement classes and preschool add up to about 1k per mth for 3 kids. The other expensive one is holidays but it is not a need. Cuz need to book 5 tickets and 2 hotel room or suite always....

As for university, I bought ILP for each of them as forced savings plan in wife name. Enough for local uni over 20 years. At the same time cover wife. Got better at investing and so did not top up for overseas possibility and prefer to invest my own.

ILP

(27-08-2012, 02:54 PM)d.o.g. Wrote:

(27-08-2012, 07:44 AM)KopiKat Wrote: IMO, one of the difficulties would be to find a trustee (whom you trust) who's also good at investing. In such a case, I guess it'd be best to leave simple instructions for the trustee not to do anything drastic to a trust that can comprise mainly of a portfolio of stocks that's expected to provide a steady stream of dividend income that'd be sufficient for the livelihood of the beneficiaries (with some dividend surplus to be reinvested into the same stocks in the portfolio to help offset inflations).

Alternatively, I was wondering if it's also possible for the trust to be a client of a Boutique Fund? ie. all the trustee need to do is to invest for the trust through the Fund Manager. If so, what's the minimum requirement, in terms of $$ value? Same $2Mil as Accredited Individuals or some other requirements?

Thx!

You can appoint the trust company to be the trustee if you wish. As long as the instructions are explicit enough for a robot to follow e.g. "only own SGX index stocks but no airlines or shipping or semiconductors, and reinvest 50% of dividends, pay out the rest" it should be relatively cheap to implement.

The trust can of course be the client of a boutique fund. If the fund manager is based in Singapore, the usual rules apply i.e. if the manager is not licensed to take retail money, the trust has to meet the qualified investor requirement.

Note that since the trust is not an individual person, the requirement is net assets of $10m. If the trust doesn't have $10m it may still be possible to do a "look through" i.e. if each beneficiary (who is an individual) has $2m of net assets, the trust could possibly qualify, but best to confirm with a lawyer on this matter.

d.o.g.,

Thank you!
Something to think about and perhaps something to aim for...$10Mil...assuming MAS don't keep raising the bar...

(27-08-2012, 03:09 PM)KopiKat Wrote: d.o.g.,

Thank you!
Something to think about and perhaps something to aim for...$10Mil...assuming MAS don't keep raising the bar...

Wow, $10 Mils, what an ambitious target...

Wish you all the best.... I will try to catch-up

(27-08-2012, 03:17 PM)CityFarmer Wrote:

(27-08-2012, 03:09 PM)KopiKat Wrote: d.o.g.,

Thank you!
Something to think about and perhaps something to aim for...$10Mil...assuming MAS don't keep raising the bar...

Wow, $10 Mils, what an ambitious target...

Wish you all the best.... I will try to catch-up

From what I learned, trusts make sense to escape estate duties since the money is pledged away already. But countries are wising up and only allow only irreovokable ones. As for value , yes 10m usd is right. The other common reason is if one has a kid that is unable to wisely use the inheritance. Then a trust that controls investment and payout works. I will see how my kids grow up and tax laws to decide if trust makes sense. Trust fees if I recall is about 10k sgd or so per year.

---

ILP
[/quote]
Insurance linked plans. Basically term and investment together products.

(27-08-2012, 09:23 AM)godjira1 Wrote: This is why i have a trust (son is autistic and daughter is noisy haha) so need more than a straightforward will.

The benefit of trust comes when any family member is having a permanent condition that creates difficulties in making a decent living for life.
It is quite heartbreaking to leave the world when your children are still unable to fend for themselves.
This was not adequately addressed in Singapore yet although the gov is planning to up the child bearing benefits.

(27-08-2012, 05:04 PM)greypiggi Wrote: trusts make sense to escape estate duties since the money is pledged away already.

Estate Duty does not apply where a person dies after 15 Feb 2008

Thank you Bibi. I have contacted hsbc via their website today and hope to receive some response. A quick look at ur earlier attachment tho seems to show a very exorbitant premium, as clearly explained by D.O.G.'s rationale earlier.

(27-08-2012, 11:56 PM)Muck Wrote: Thank you Bibi. I have contacted hsbc via their website today and hope to receive some response. A quick look at ur earlier attachment tho seems to show a very exorbitant premium, as clearly explained by D.O.G.'s rationale earlier.

Yes, the premium is about twice compared to those which covers till age 65. And not forgetting this covers only CI. If death coverage included it might be even more expensive.