Insurance & Costs of having and raising a child

While the term plans are ok, the range of WL products made available is a joke. Only limited to pay till age 70 and 85. Looks like MAS has succumbed to industry pressure not to rock the boat too much.

http://www.martinlee.sg/buying-insurance...mmissions/

I think we should also avoid the situation where being dead is far more valuable than being alive.

Insurance should provide financial support for perhaps not more than 2 years to allow surviviors to adjust to a new situation.
It is not replacement of income for an indefinite period.

Neither should it be the only source of financial support.

This is a great improvement over the current method of selling policies through agents. Most of them are not equipped with sufficient knowledge to advise customers.
Friends and relatives usually bear the cost of "on the job training".

Term insurance is more affordable and meets most needs. Unless you like more bells & whistles.

(31-07-2014, 08:57 AM)egghead Wrote: BT today:
Govt-mandated scheme from next year involves cover of up to $400,000

No-commission life insurance up ahead

$400,000? My agent was asking me to take up a million $ term sometime ago. Guess I still have to go back to her...

(31-07-2014, 12:10 PM)martinlee Wrote: While the term plans are ok, the range of WL products made available is a joke. Only limited to pay till age 75 and 85. Looks like MAS has succumbed to industry pressure not to rock the boat too much.

http://www.martinlee.sg/buying-insurance...mmissions/

So far, the whole life plans I bought for my family are 10-yrs and 5-yrs premium term. My rational is, since I intend to keep it for whole life, why pay over long period of time?

Paying till 75 (or 70 from your blog) or 85 will means that the insured will need to pay beyond their retirement. Frankly speaking, that is not rational at all. Till age 60 or 65, before retirement will be more practical. Who still want to continue to pay for insurance after retirement?

(31-07-2014, 12:30 PM)Porkbelly Wrote: I think we should also avoid the situation where being dead is far more valuable than being alive.

Insurance should provide financial support for perhaps not more than 2 years to allow surviviors to adjust to a new situation.
It is not replacement of income for an indefinite period.

Neither should it be the only source of financial support.

This is a great improvement over the current method of selling policies through agents. Most of them are not equipped with sufficient knowledge to advise customers.
Friends and relatives usually bear the cost of "on the job training".

Term insurance is more affordable and meets most needs. Unless you like more bells & whistles.

For this, I agree with you. Insurance to me, is a cost to pay for getting a financial protection. It should not be a "wealth enhancer" where the beneficiary's life actual improves (with much more money than necessary) with the death of the insured.

(31-07-2014, 05:38 PM)NTL Wrote:

(31-07-2014, 12:10 PM)martinlee Wrote: While the term plans are ok, the range of WL products made available is a joke. Only limited to pay till age 75 and 85. Looks like MAS has succumbed to industry pressure not to rock the boat too much.

http://www.martinlee.sg/buying-insurance...mmissions/

So far, the whole life plans I bought for my family are 10-yrs and 5-yrs premium term. My rational is, since I intend to keep it for whole life, why pay over long period of time?

Paying till 75 (or 70 from your blog) or 85 will means that the insured will need to pay beyond their retirement. Frankly speaking, that is not rational at all. Till age 60 or 65, before retirement will be more practical. Who still want to continue to pay for insurance after retirement?

It's 70. I wrote 75 wrongly earlier.

That's why I said the implementation is half-hearted. The WL part is quite ridiculous.

DIY term people will benefit though.

If you want 1mil cover, you can DIY with 3 companies. A bit of a hassle but still doable.

(31-07-2014, 05:30 PM)NTL Wrote:

(31-07-2014, 08:57 AM)egghead Wrote: BT today:
Govt-mandated scheme from next year involves cover of up to $400,000

No-commission life insurance up ahead

$400,000? My agent was asking me to take up a million $ term sometime ago. Guess I still have to go back to her...

Go and get from SAF AVIVA Group Insurance & SAFRA NTUC Group Insurance lor.
Probably cheaper with the agent commissons...haha

(31-07-2014, 06:45 PM)opmi Wrote:

(31-07-2014, 05:30 PM)NTL Wrote:

(31-07-2014, 08:57 AM)egghead Wrote: BT today:
Govt-mandated scheme from next year involves cover of up to $400,000

No-commission life insurance up ahead

$400,000? My agent was asking me to take up a million $ term sometime ago. Guess I still have to go back to her...

Go and get from SAF AVIVA Group Insurance & SAFRA NTUC Group Insurance lor.
Probably cheaper with the agent commissons...haha

I am an expired soldier. Can't get already right? Or can I?

Anyway, I don't like the group policy T&C. I rather pay a little more and own my own policy.

i think this move is great, if insurance companies are consulted it means they have a way to counteract this. the fight will still continue.

although its limited to 400k it means the diy guys will need to be really savvy about it.

DIYInsurance.com.sg started by giving 30% rebate on commission, looks like the MAS went a step further. still it allows you to compare between different terms and whole life insurance, which is a benefit thereafer you can go direct to the agency > http://www.investmentmoats.com/budgeting...ce-com-sg/

Disclaimer: Investment Moats is an affiliate of Providend which creates DIYInsurance.

(31-07-2014, 12:30 PM)Porkbelly Wrote: I think we should also avoid the situation where being dead is far more valuable than being alive.

Insurance should provide financial support for perhaps not more than 2 years to allow surviviors to adjust to a new situation.
It is not replacement of income for an indefinite period.

Neither should it be the only source of financial support.

This is a great improvement over the current method of selling policies through agents. Most of them are not equipped with sufficient knowledge to advise customers.
Friends and relatives usually bear the cost of "on the job training".

Term insurance is more affordable and meets most needs. Unless you like more bells & whistles.

Firstly, I personally believe that each person's death & tpd coverage should for all liabilities eg housing loans, car loans.

Then, additional coverage would depend on the number of dependents the person has. For instance, if the person has a 3 year old son. The additional coverage should cater for enough living expenses for the 3 year old son till he is financially independent, eg 25/26 years old. Using 26 years old, the son has 23 years before becoming financially independent and annual living expenses is estimated to be $10k per year. The person should then have an additional 230k of death/tpd coverage.