23 July 2009
The tone of the beleaguered holders of Lehman minibonds has now softened, but many said yesterday they still find the compensation deal unacceptable.
A 74-year-old minibond investor surnamed Yiu said he wants the government to make the banks repay him 100 percent.
``I was about to renew my time deposit on November 2, 2007, when CITIC Ka Wah Bank cheated me to switch to equity-linked products,'' Yiu said.
Peter Chan Kwong-yue, chairman of the Alliance of Lehman Brothers Victims, said the compensation agreement was ``not acceptable at all.''
``This is not making sense,'' Chan said. ``The guy who drafted up this agreement _ either he is doing some very tricky thing, or he does not understand Hong Kong people at all.''
One hundred members of the Alliance protested all day yesterday outside the office of the Securities and Futures Commission.
Alliance member Ng Shing-fung said he thinks the banks will still be able to make a profit after compensating minibond investors, so he will refuse to accept the proposal. ``They are simply cheating us once more,'' said Ng, 63.
Raymond So Wai-man, an associate professor of finance at Chinese University of Hong Kong, urged individual investors to take the compensation, as the value of minibond collateral could fall further. ``The monetary value of your minibond has effectively been locked up,'' So said. ``Not getting back the money, you cannot invest even when there is a better investment opportunity.''
Independent lawmaker Priscilla Leung Mei-fun said minibond holders should seriously consider the proposal because they will have to resort to lawsuits to get full compensation. Sixty percent compensation is a fair baseline, Leung said.
Chan said the problem is the settlement agreement does not apply to so- called ``experienced investors,'' defined as people who had invested in leveraged or structured products five times in the three years before buying minibonds.
Even conservative investors in Hong Kong may have been convinced by banks to put their money into a foreign exchange-linked deposit, he said.
``I tell you, Martin Wheatley has no sense about the Hong Kong people,'' Chan said. ``First he says `minibonds' does not mean `bonds,' then he comes up with this agreement.''
However, Chan admitted the basic framework of the agreement seems ``reasonable at first glance. But when you think more about it, it gives you the sense investors are being trapped.''
Chan estimated about half the members of his group may qualify as ``experienced investors'' and would not be eligible for compensation. He said the Alliance will meet Sunday to decide whether to pursue further action.
Minibond investor Wong Kin-ming, 54, said he thinks the government is treating the public unfairly. ``Government policies are two-sided,'' Wong added. ``Sun Hung Kai just paid us all back.''
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
The Standard:Nightmare nears end
23 July 2009
Banks have agreed to splash out more than HK$6 billion to buy back all outstanding Lehman Brothers minibonds.
By doing so, they seek an end to a saga that has run for more than 10 months, sparking deep anger and distress among investors.
The 16 banks that sold the complex products will offer about 29,000 Hong Kong investors - more than 90 percent of those in the SAR who bought the high- risk derivatives linked to the collapsed US bank - an average 70 percent of their investments.
That means banks need to pay out around HK$6.3 billion to repurchase the minibonds.
The scandal, which began last September, has fueled street protests and had senior financial officials testifying before the Legislative Council.
The deal announced yesterday was thrashed out with the banks by the Securities and Futures Commission and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. It will "provide substantial benefits for the vast majority of customers holding minibonds that would not otherwise be received by them,'' said Martin Wheatley, chief executive of the Securities and Futures Commission, who described the deal as a "good compromise.'' Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Ceajer Chan Ka-keung agreed. "Those accepting the offers will be relieved of the delay and uncertainty in going through the liquidation process,'' Chan said.
A bank must pay a price equal to 60 percent of the principal of the original investment for investors below the age of 65, and 70 percent for those aged 65 or more as at July 1. They can retain any coupon payments already received.
Once the underlying collateral is recovered by the banks, each of them will make a further payment of initially up to 10 percent of the principal of the minibonds to customers below the age of 65.
And if recoveries exceed 70 percent, the banks will pay the entire excess amount to those who have accepted the offer, which could take some investors' settlements to 100 percent.
For example, assuming an investment of HK$100 and the product's collateral is worth HK$40, an investor will first receive HK$60 and then another HK$10 for the collateral recovered, taking the total settlement to HK$70.
If the collateral is worth HK$80, the investor will get HK$80. If the collateral is worth HK$100, the investor will be refunded in full.
Banks will make available a total of HK$200 million to the trustee of the minibonds to assist in the recovery of the underlying collateral for each outstanding series of the product. Those who have already reached a settlement with the banks will not qualify for the buyback. However, the banks will make ex-gratia payments to those whose settlements were less than they would receive under the deal announced yesterday. Banks need to inform customers about the offer ``in an expeditious manner'' and put money in their accounts within 30 days of the offer being accepted, according to the HKMA.
Professional investors, including non-individual and experienced investors, are not qualified under the repurchase offer, Wheatley said.
The regulators will call off investigations into the sale and distribution of minibonds by the banks in respect of investors accepting the offer. But authorities will continue investigations if there are claims of deception or other crimes. ``We intend to allocate resources to handle non-Lehman complaints,'' said Choi Yiu-kwan, HKMA deputy chief executive.
Each of the banks will also engage an independent reviewer to examine systems and processes relating to the sale of structured products and then report to authorities. The banks must also commit to the implementation of all recommendations by the reviewer.
A qualified third party also has to be engaged to review and enhance complaint-handling procedures.
``The distributing banks should draw lessons from this incident and properly implement the agreement reached with the regulatory authorities'' on selling structured investment products, Ceajer Chan said.
Speaking on behalf of the banks, David Li Kwok-po, chairman of the Bank of East Asia (0023), said the agreement demonstrates their ``unwavering commitment'' to Hong Kong and the welfare of customers.
Ahead of the repurchase agreement by banks, only brokerages Sun Hung Kai Investment Services and KGI Asia had fully refunded their clients. That occurred earlier this year. As of July 16, the HKMA had received 21,490 complaints concerning Lehman-related products, including minibonds.
Banks have agreed to splash out more than HK$6 billion to buy back all outstanding Lehman Brothers minibonds.
By doing so, they seek an end to a saga that has run for more than 10 months, sparking deep anger and distress among investors.
The 16 banks that sold the complex products will offer about 29,000 Hong Kong investors - more than 90 percent of those in the SAR who bought the high- risk derivatives linked to the collapsed US bank - an average 70 percent of their investments.
That means banks need to pay out around HK$6.3 billion to repurchase the minibonds.
The scandal, which began last September, has fueled street protests and had senior financial officials testifying before the Legislative Council.
The deal announced yesterday was thrashed out with the banks by the Securities and Futures Commission and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. It will "provide substantial benefits for the vast majority of customers holding minibonds that would not otherwise be received by them,'' said Martin Wheatley, chief executive of the Securities and Futures Commission, who described the deal as a "good compromise.'' Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Ceajer Chan Ka-keung agreed. "Those accepting the offers will be relieved of the delay and uncertainty in going through the liquidation process,'' Chan said.
A bank must pay a price equal to 60 percent of the principal of the original investment for investors below the age of 65, and 70 percent for those aged 65 or more as at July 1. They can retain any coupon payments already received.
Once the underlying collateral is recovered by the banks, each of them will make a further payment of initially up to 10 percent of the principal of the minibonds to customers below the age of 65.
And if recoveries exceed 70 percent, the banks will pay the entire excess amount to those who have accepted the offer, which could take some investors' settlements to 100 percent.
For example, assuming an investment of HK$100 and the product's collateral is worth HK$40, an investor will first receive HK$60 and then another HK$10 for the collateral recovered, taking the total settlement to HK$70.
If the collateral is worth HK$80, the investor will get HK$80. If the collateral is worth HK$100, the investor will be refunded in full.
Banks will make available a total of HK$200 million to the trustee of the minibonds to assist in the recovery of the underlying collateral for each outstanding series of the product. Those who have already reached a settlement with the banks will not qualify for the buyback. However, the banks will make ex-gratia payments to those whose settlements were less than they would receive under the deal announced yesterday. Banks need to inform customers about the offer ``in an expeditious manner'' and put money in their accounts within 30 days of the offer being accepted, according to the HKMA.
Professional investors, including non-individual and experienced investors, are not qualified under the repurchase offer, Wheatley said.
The regulators will call off investigations into the sale and distribution of minibonds by the banks in respect of investors accepting the offer. But authorities will continue investigations if there are claims of deception or other crimes. ``We intend to allocate resources to handle non-Lehman complaints,'' said Choi Yiu-kwan, HKMA deputy chief executive.
Each of the banks will also engage an independent reviewer to examine systems and processes relating to the sale of structured products and then report to authorities. The banks must also commit to the implementation of all recommendations by the reviewer.
A qualified third party also has to be engaged to review and enhance complaint-handling procedures.
``The distributing banks should draw lessons from this incident and properly implement the agreement reached with the regulatory authorities'' on selling structured investment products, Ceajer Chan said.
Speaking on behalf of the banks, David Li Kwok-po, chairman of the Bank of East Asia (0023), said the agreement demonstrates their ``unwavering commitment'' to Hong Kong and the welfare of customers.
Ahead of the repurchase agreement by banks, only brokerages Sun Hung Kai Investment Services and KGI Asia had fully refunded their clients. That occurred earlier this year. As of July 16, the HKMA had received 21,490 complaints concerning Lehman-related products, including minibonds.
Help Minibond investors to secure the collateral
Mr. Tan
If govt is reluctant to force FI to compensate like what happen in Hk, perhaps you can suggest that it takes the leader role to help Minibond investors to secure the Collateral [GE capital bonds etc] which has up to 70% value for the benefits of the investors.
This is a concrete action that would help all to investors - whether they are compensated or not. Don't forget, many investors are compensated just 10%.
If you read bullet point 3, "banks will make available an amount equivalent to the amount of commission income received by it as a distributor of the outstanding Minibonds to the trustee of the Minibonds to assist in the recovery of the underlying collateral for each outstanding series of Minibonds"
Regards
Steve
If govt is reluctant to force FI to compensate like what happen in Hk, perhaps you can suggest that it takes the leader role to help Minibond investors to secure the Collateral [GE capital bonds etc] which has up to 70% value for the benefits of the investors.
This is a concrete action that would help all to investors - whether they are compensated or not. Don't forget, many investors are compensated just 10%.
If you read bullet point 3, "banks will make available an amount equivalent to the amount of commission income received by it as a distributor of the outstanding Minibonds to the trustee of the Minibonds to assist in the recovery of the underlying collateral for each outstanding series of Minibonds"
Regards
Steve
Petition to Prime Minister (5)
389 people have signed the Petition and provided their full particulars. This is much better than the optimists (including me) had earlier hoped. Our initial target was only 300 signatures. Some pessimists poured cold water on this effort.
Please help to get more people to sign the Petition and achieve the new target of 1,000 signatures.
Q&A US Health Reform
The BBC news website explains the Obama administration's attempts to reform the American healthcare system
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8160058.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8160058.stm
The Petition is NOT a futile effort
Another blog described my effort to help the investors get a fair settlement as "futile". It is a sad state of affairs that we have a government that ignores the plight and appeal of the people. It is equally sad that we have many cynics who stand by and pass discouraging remarks.
Many signatories know that the petition may be ignored, as it has happened in the past. But, they are willing to come forward to have their voices heard. It is important that their signatures be placed on the record.
The situation has now changed, and it may warrant a re-consideration by our government. All investors in Hong Kong are being compensated at a minimum of 60% to 70% of the invested sum. I believe that the investors in Singpore should be treated on a similar basis, as the systemic mis-selling is similar in both territories.
I hope that everyone will take a positive approach and help to pass the message to all investors to sign the petition.
The petition is intended to include all investors, including those who have bought from the security firms. They have also been advised, either directly or indirectly, by the sales representatives who acted for the security firms. I hope that these investors will read the Petition more widely and come forwqrd to sign it.
Tan Kin Lian
Many signatories know that the petition may be ignored, as it has happened in the past. But, they are willing to come forward to have their voices heard. It is important that their signatures be placed on the record.
The situation has now changed, and it may warrant a re-consideration by our government. All investors in Hong Kong are being compensated at a minimum of 60% to 70% of the invested sum. I believe that the investors in Singpore should be treated on a similar basis, as the systemic mis-selling is similar in both territories.
I hope that everyone will take a positive approach and help to pass the message to all investors to sign the petition.
The petition is intended to include all investors, including those who have bought from the security firms. They have also been advised, either directly or indirectly, by the sales representatives who acted for the security firms. I hope that these investors will read the Petition more widely and come forwqrd to sign it.
Tan Kin Lian
Gathering in Hong Lim Park on 22 Aug 09
I confirm that there will be a gathering in Hong Lim Park on 22 Aug 09 from 5 pm to 6.30 pm. We will arrange for the Petition to be signed, for those who have not signed the online Petition. This Petition is addressed to the Prime Minister. We will arrange for a few people to speak on this issue. Please encourage more people to show up for bigger impact.
So far, I am the only speaker. If you are able to speak, please send an email to me at kinlian@gmail.com. I like to ask the coordinators of the class actions to speak and give an update. You may be able to attract more investors to join the class action.
So far, I am the only speaker. If you are able to speak, please send an email to me at kinlian@gmail.com. I like to ask the coordinators of the class actions to speak and give an update. You may be able to attract more investors to join the class action.
355 people have signed the online Petition to the Prime Minister on the credit-linked notes. We are now aiming for 1,000 signatures. Please pass the word around.
Minibond - misconceptions and unfair criticisms
Dear Mr. Tan,
I would like to respond to the following misconceptions and unfair criticisms:
1) The fixed deposit is about 1.5% in 2007 and you get 5% from minibond. You should have known better. So high differential. Still claims risk?
It is not fair to use 12 months fixed deposit rate because minibond is for 5 years. There are many low risk products offer 4% to 6% returns from the market. E.g. DBS6%NCPS, UOB5.05%NCPS, OCBC5.1%NCPS, OCBC4.2%NCPS…. If we compare the minibond with the OCBC 4.2% and 4.5% preference shares available from the stock market, which we can sell the shares anytime if we need cash, the 5% offered by minibond is not attractive because we can’t touch the money for 5 years.
2) High return high risk, since you get 5%, the risk should be high.
Many financial experts agreed that the reasonable return from long term investments (5 to 10 years) should be around 4% to 6%. A 5% return from minibond should not be considered as high as it is a long term (5 years) investment. All high risk investments are on short term basis, who would want to invest into a long term high risk product?
3) Who ask them to invest blindly on a product which they don’t understand?
Misled by the newspaper advertisements and sales brochures, many investors thought they were buying a five-year bond issued by the six leading banks. It turned out that it is a very complex product which even the sales people from the financial institutions are unable to explain clearly.
4) As a responsible investor, you should have read the prospectus before making the investment.
The minibond prospectus summary is as misleading as the sales brochures. The other parts of the prospectus give plenty of information on the credit ratings of the six leading banks which reinforce the believing that it is a bond issued by the banks.
It is also not realistic to expect an ordinary investor to understand fully the entire prospectus before making an investment. For example, of the tens of thousands of OCBC preferences shares investors, how many of them really read and understand fully the entire prospectus of the preference shares before making the investment?
5) Who would expect Lehman brothers to go bankrupt? (i.e. the risk is low at the time of selling) It is unfortunate that Lehman did fail. You have to accept it and move on.
Minibond is not a bond issued by Lehman or by the six banks. It is a high risk long term complex structure product. Who would dare to invest in a high risk product for 5 years?
Pang
I would like to respond to the following misconceptions and unfair criticisms:
1) The fixed deposit is about 1.5% in 2007 and you get 5% from minibond. You should have known better. So high differential. Still claims risk?
It is not fair to use 12 months fixed deposit rate because minibond is for 5 years. There are many low risk products offer 4% to 6% returns from the market. E.g. DBS6%NCPS, UOB5.05%NCPS, OCBC5.1%NCPS, OCBC4.2%NCPS…. If we compare the minibond with the OCBC 4.2% and 4.5% preference shares available from the stock market, which we can sell the shares anytime if we need cash, the 5% offered by minibond is not attractive because we can’t touch the money for 5 years.
2) High return high risk, since you get 5%, the risk should be high.
Many financial experts agreed that the reasonable return from long term investments (5 to 10 years) should be around 4% to 6%. A 5% return from minibond should not be considered as high as it is a long term (5 years) investment. All high risk investments are on short term basis, who would want to invest into a long term high risk product?
3) Who ask them to invest blindly on a product which they don’t understand?
Misled by the newspaper advertisements and sales brochures, many investors thought they were buying a five-year bond issued by the six leading banks. It turned out that it is a very complex product which even the sales people from the financial institutions are unable to explain clearly.
4) As a responsible investor, you should have read the prospectus before making the investment.
The minibond prospectus summary is as misleading as the sales brochures. The other parts of the prospectus give plenty of information on the credit ratings of the six leading banks which reinforce the believing that it is a bond issued by the banks.
It is also not realistic to expect an ordinary investor to understand fully the entire prospectus before making an investment. For example, of the tens of thousands of OCBC preferences shares investors, how many of them really read and understand fully the entire prospectus of the preference shares before making the investment?
5) Who would expect Lehman brothers to go bankrupt? (i.e. the risk is low at the time of selling) It is unfortunate that Lehman did fail. You have to accept it and move on.
Minibond is not a bond issued by Lehman or by the six banks. It is a high risk long term complex structure product. Who would dare to invest in a high risk product for 5 years?
Pang
SCMP:Investors want full refund, not 70pc
22 July 2009
Scores of minibond investors who lost their money when Lehman Brothers went bankrupt are holding out for full compensation of their principal sum and insist a proposed pay-off of up to 70 per cent is unacceptable.
A Ms Siu, 52, who declined to give her full name, purchased HK$6 million worth of Lehman minibonds from Bank of China (Hong Kong) and flatly rejected the proposal.
"This is not all right," she said. "I will continue to fight [for a full refund]."
She did not rule out accepting a 60 per cent pay-off and then taking the bank to court to recoup the rest of her investment. But she was not optimistic.
"Why can't the banks follow what Sun Hung Kai [Financial] did? How come the banks are not able to do something securities firms could?" she said.
Ms Siu said she planned to join about 100 investors at a protest at the Bank of China headquarters on Friday.
Bank of China sold most of the Lehman-linked minibonds in Hong Kong and many of the other banks are expected to follow whatever settlement terms are agreed by it. But a settlement deal offering just 60 to 70 per cent compensation is expected to be a tough sell to angry investors, who were emboldened in their fight by the 100 per cent pay-off arrangement agreed between more than 300 investors and brokerages Sun Hung Kai Financial and KGI Asia.
Democrat legislator Kam Nai-wai said whether the buy-back proposal was adopted would largely hinge on how many investors agreed to it. It was hard to predict how well received the settlement deal would be among the investors. Mr Kam said he planned to get their feedback on Sunday.
"As for the banks, if the proposed settlement cannot save them from trouble [from compensation seekers], it was not wise to take it," he said.
The Securities and Futures Commission should also explain why banks could escape from full responsibility while some securities firms could not, Mr Kam said.
Scores of minibond investors who lost their money when Lehman Brothers went bankrupt are holding out for full compensation of their principal sum and insist a proposed pay-off of up to 70 per cent is unacceptable.
A Ms Siu, 52, who declined to give her full name, purchased HK$6 million worth of Lehman minibonds from Bank of China (Hong Kong) and flatly rejected the proposal.
"This is not all right," she said. "I will continue to fight [for a full refund]."
She did not rule out accepting a 60 per cent pay-off and then taking the bank to court to recoup the rest of her investment. But she was not optimistic.
"Why can't the banks follow what Sun Hung Kai [Financial] did? How come the banks are not able to do something securities firms could?" she said.
Ms Siu said she planned to join about 100 investors at a protest at the Bank of China headquarters on Friday.
Bank of China sold most of the Lehman-linked minibonds in Hong Kong and many of the other banks are expected to follow whatever settlement terms are agreed by it. But a settlement deal offering just 60 to 70 per cent compensation is expected to be a tough sell to angry investors, who were emboldened in their fight by the 100 per cent pay-off arrangement agreed between more than 300 investors and brokerages Sun Hung Kai Financial and KGI Asia.
Democrat legislator Kam Nai-wai said whether the buy-back proposal was adopted would largely hinge on how many investors agreed to it. It was hard to predict how well received the settlement deal would be among the investors. Mr Kam said he planned to get their feedback on Sunday.
"As for the banks, if the proposed settlement cannot save them from trouble [from compensation seekers], it was not wise to take it," he said.
The Securities and Futures Commission should also explain why banks could escape from full responsibility while some securities firms could not, Mr Kam said.
Investing in gold
Dear Mr. Tan
Since bank interest rates have been very low recently, a friend has recommended me to invest in gold. The buying and selling of gold is through this company. The company’s website is (link deleted)
REPLY
I do not know if this organisation is reliable. You should not invest in any organisation that you are not familiar with. If you wish to invest with this organisation, you must do your research well. Some banks in Singapore offer similar facilities for you to invest in gold. I think that UOB is one of them. I suggest that you find out more about their offer.
If you wish to invest in gold, make sure that it is not more than 10% of your total savings. And hold it as a long term investment.
Since bank interest rates have been very low recently, a friend has recommended me to invest in gold. The buying and selling of gold is through this company. The company’s website is (link deleted)
REPLY
I do not know if this organisation is reliable. You should not invest in any organisation that you are not familiar with. If you wish to invest with this organisation, you must do your research well. Some banks in Singapore offer similar facilities for you to invest in gold. I think that UOB is one of them. I suggest that you find out more about their offer.
If you wish to invest in gold, make sure that it is not more than 10% of your total savings. And hold it as a long term investment.
Investing in a property for rental
Hi Mr Tan,
My wife and I own a HDB executive apartment, fully paid with CPF and cash.
We have some investments. We are considering to cash them for 20% down payment for a private property. We will rent the property to pay the monthly instalment.
Should we go for a second property or continue investing in equity? We are now in our 40s. It is for retirement use.
Hi
This is a personal view. It is all right to buy a property for one's occupation but not a good idea to invest in a property for rental.
I dislike investing in a physical property for the following reasons:
a) the price is too high
b) the return, after deducting expenses, is too low
c) it is a hassle to rent out the property
d) it does not offer diversifcation.
e) it is highly speculative and depends on making the right decision on timing and choice of property.
Investing in REITS may be a better idea, as it offers the same opportunity to make the same kind of potential gain as physical property, has less hassle in managing the property and offers diversification over several properties.
All the best in your decision!
My wife and I own a HDB executive apartment, fully paid with CPF and cash.
We have some investments. We are considering to cash them for 20% down payment for a private property. We will rent the property to pay the monthly instalment.
Should we go for a second property or continue investing in equity? We are now in our 40s. It is for retirement use.
Hi
This is a personal view. It is all right to buy a property for one's occupation but not a good idea to invest in a property for rental.
I dislike investing in a physical property for the following reasons:
a) the price is too high
b) the return, after deducting expenses, is too low
c) it is a hassle to rent out the property
d) it does not offer diversifcation.
e) it is highly speculative and depends on making the right decision on timing and choice of property.
Investing in REITS may be a better idea, as it offers the same opportunity to make the same kind of potential gain as physical property, has less hassle in managing the property and offers diversification over several properties.
All the best in your decision!
Bird Nest Industry in Kedah, Malaysia
I visited Padang Seria, which is in Kedah and 50 km from Penang Island. It is developing a bird nest industry. Over 100 shophouses have been converted into "bird nest house". The swiflets use the house to build their nests to raise the young swiflets.
My friend told me that a few other towns in Kedah and Johore are also developing this new industry. Bird nest has some medicinal value and is also a delicacy.
I shall be uploading some photos soon.
My friend told me that a few other towns in Kedah and Johore are also developing this new industry. Bird nest has some medicinal value and is also a delicacy.
I shall be uploading some photos soon.
Personal accident insurance
Dear Mr. Tan
I have a personal accident plan, which cost me about $150/annum with a sum assured of $100,000. Is it too expensive? I am in class 2.
REPLY
What is the coverage under the personal accident policy? Some policy covers death, accident, and temporary disablement. To decide whether to continue with this policy, it is best for you to get a quote for a comparable product from another company.
I have a personal accident plan, which cost me about $150/annum with a sum assured of $100,000. Is it too expensive? I am in class 2.
REPLY
What is the coverage under the personal accident policy? Some policy covers death, accident, and temporary disablement. To decide whether to continue with this policy, it is best for you to get a quote for a comparable product from another company.
Existing whole life policy
Dear Mr Tan,
I am looking for an insurance plan to increase my cover. I was looking for some low-cost insurances (due to my increasing expenses), such as decreasing term insurance.
I bought a whole life policy about 2 years ago, paying almost $160 monthly (for 15 years). I read from your blog that this insurance come with a high cost. What should I do with it? Should I terminate it and take the cash? Or I should hold on to it until the cash value is enough to cover the premiums I paid?
I had now decided to take a decreasing term, personal accident and a medishield plan.
REPLY
Please read the FAQ in my website: www.tankinlian.com/faq
For the whole life policy which has been taken for 2 years, it is probably better to continue with the policy, rather than to terminate it. However, you can ask for the cash value in 5 years time to decide on the best option. Read the FAQ on "existing insurance policy".
I am looking for an insurance plan to increase my cover. I was looking for some low-cost insurances (due to my increasing expenses), such as decreasing term insurance.
I bought a whole life policy about 2 years ago, paying almost $160 monthly (for 15 years). I read from your blog that this insurance come with a high cost. What should I do with it? Should I terminate it and take the cash? Or I should hold on to it until the cash value is enough to cover the premiums I paid?
I had now decided to take a decreasing term, personal accident and a medishield plan.
REPLY
Please read the FAQ in my website: www.tankinlian.com/faq
For the whole life policy which has been taken for 2 years, it is probably better to continue with the policy, rather than to terminate it. However, you can ask for the cash value in 5 years time to decide on the best option. Read the FAQ on "existing insurance policy".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)