Extracted from Economist magazine:
http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15772822&subjectID=348960&fsrc=nwl
Stephan Binder of McKinsey, a consultancy, thinks that people should be insured for 10-12 times their annual income. By this measure, Asians (and, for that matter, everybody else) are woefully underinsured. What’s more, social-security entitlements in the region are paltry compared with other rich countries. So annuity schemes are a natural supplement for retirement income. Japan, the greyest of the Asian countries, is already seeing the effects of demographic change. The dankai generation—which refers to the 8m people born between 1947 and 1949—spent 14.5 trillion yen ($125 billion) on insurance with individual annuities in 2006. And that was before most of them had retired.
Another avenue for growth is in health-care plans, which are undersupplied. In the Japanese market, over half of new policies cover medical costs such as cancer. Other Asian countries are sure to follow as the savvy pre-retirement generation—who no longer believe that their families will care for them, and do not think government schemes will suffice—start to think about their future. Joseph Ngai of McKinsey reckons that rich Asia could see 11-12% growth in insurance premiums
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Insurance loophole? Cabby refuses to pay up for car accident
http://motoring.asiaone.com/print/Motoring/Drivers/Story/A1Story20100325-206694.html
Cabby refuses to pay up for car accident and discharges insurance firm from payment but he is only willing to pay $300 out of a $2,000 bill.
Cabby refuses to pay up for car accident and discharges insurance firm from payment but he is only willing to pay $300 out of a $2,000 bill.
Invest your savings in a low cost investment fund
Hi Mr Tan,
I have read your article on not buying Critical illness insurance. Recently my insurance agent has been advising me to embark on a 15 year limited Critical illness Insurance of coverage 100K, premium of 4.6k per year. I will be paying only for 15 yr, but the coverage will still continue. The return is 131.5k (total premium paid is 70.3K) after 30 yrs should I surrender then.
I have told my agent that Medishield or private shield should be enough to cover should a critical illness strike, this is what he said:
1) Shield covers hospitalization but does not cover all kind of medications as well as recuperative treatments, for eg.TCM, hospice care, medical equipment, and all miscellenous charges. For eg, it does not cover shots of Herceptin which cost $4k per shot to kill cancer cell. This shot need to be administer 17 times, once every 3 weeks to tackle breasts cancer.
2) Many long term illnesses like heart attack, stroke, paralysis, brain diseases total permanent disability and cancers require long term medication and aftercare. These if not hospitalised will never be taken care by Shield plans.
3) Shield requires co-insurance. Co-insurance can be a huge amount. For eg, chemotherapy is charged on a package by doctors depending on different conditions. On avg, it comes in 8, 12, 16,24 cycles which avg cost around $25,000 -$60,000 over a 2-3 month period. A min 10% co-insurance will be at least $2500 to $6000 every 3 months. If chemo treatments consistently needed, they can come up to more than 32K -50K per year just on co-insurance and misc expenses.
I would really like to have your comments on this.
REPLY
If you invest $4,600 for 15 years in a low cost investment fund and is able to earn 5% p.a. the accumulated sum at the end of 15 years is $104,000 and at end of 30 years is $216,000. The chance of making a critical illness claim in 30 years is likely to be less than 10% and this is likely to occur towards the end of this period (when you get older). For these people, the accumulated sum may be more than the payout under the critical illness policy.
The chance of surviving 30 years without a claim is more than 90%. For these people, they will get the projected sum of $131,000 and lose $75,000 (compared to $216,000). Both figures are not guaranteed.
The people who benefit from a critical illness policy are those who contracted it within the first 15 years, and the chance is small. I would prefer to take this chance than to have a 90% chance of losing out on one third of the accumulated savings.
It is better to buy a rider to cover critical illness for 15 years (and you can get it from a policy under SAFRA, for example) and invest your savings in a low cost investment fund., If this cover is not available at a low cost, it is better to take the risk of not having a criticial illness cover.
I have read your article on not buying Critical illness insurance. Recently my insurance agent has been advising me to embark on a 15 year limited Critical illness Insurance of coverage 100K, premium of 4.6k per year. I will be paying only for 15 yr, but the coverage will still continue. The return is 131.5k (total premium paid is 70.3K) after 30 yrs should I surrender then.
I have told my agent that Medishield or private shield should be enough to cover should a critical illness strike, this is what he said:
1) Shield covers hospitalization but does not cover all kind of medications as well as recuperative treatments, for eg.TCM, hospice care, medical equipment, and all miscellenous charges. For eg, it does not cover shots of Herceptin which cost $4k per shot to kill cancer cell. This shot need to be administer 17 times, once every 3 weeks to tackle breasts cancer.
2) Many long term illnesses like heart attack, stroke, paralysis, brain diseases total permanent disability and cancers require long term medication and aftercare. These if not hospitalised will never be taken care by Shield plans.
3) Shield requires co-insurance. Co-insurance can be a huge amount. For eg, chemotherapy is charged on a package by doctors depending on different conditions. On avg, it comes in 8, 12, 16,24 cycles which avg cost around $25,000 -$60,000 over a 2-3 month period. A min 10% co-insurance will be at least $2500 to $6000 every 3 months. If chemo treatments consistently needed, they can come up to more than 32K -50K per year just on co-insurance and misc expenses.
I would really like to have your comments on this.
REPLY
If you invest $4,600 for 15 years in a low cost investment fund and is able to earn 5% p.a. the accumulated sum at the end of 15 years is $104,000 and at end of 30 years is $216,000. The chance of making a critical illness claim in 30 years is likely to be less than 10% and this is likely to occur towards the end of this period (when you get older). For these people, the accumulated sum may be more than the payout under the critical illness policy.
The chance of surviving 30 years without a claim is more than 90%. For these people, they will get the projected sum of $131,000 and lose $75,000 (compared to $216,000). Both figures are not guaranteed.
The people who benefit from a critical illness policy are those who contracted it within the first 15 years, and the chance is small. I would prefer to take this chance than to have a 90% chance of losing out on one third of the accumulated savings.
It is better to buy a rider to cover critical illness for 15 years (and you can get it from a policy under SAFRA, for example) and invest your savings in a low cost investment fund., If this cover is not available at a low cost, it is better to take the risk of not having a criticial illness cover.
Avoid complex financial product
Dear Mr. Tan,
I purchased a Secure Retirement Plus (SRP) plan last year. This is a variable aunity which buys into one of the insurer's unit trust and offers lock-in of the unit trust value every 5 years (up to 85 years old). I have the option to top up my deposit within 1 year. This is a rather complex scheme, with 50% "virtual" bonus after 10 years, and 'virtual' lock-in of the account value of the unit trsut every 5 years.
'Virtual' means that the insurer is committed to honour the payout based on the 'virtual' account amount, but if client wishes to close the account, he/she will get back only the actual value of the unit trust. It sounded like a good deal since the downside risk is the survivability of the insurance company itself (which I think is finanically sound) and the upside is growth of value of the unit trust that the funds is invested in, thereby indirectly assure that the payout grows with inflation (inflation likely to flollow market growth).
I have the following question.
1) Is this SRP annunity better than the annuity offered by other insurance companies?
2) I wish to invest 40% of my retirement fund in this scheme (remaining money in unit trust, stocks and cash) Is this a good proportion?
3) Does MAS mandate that insurance company in Singapore must maintain a certain amount of capital to honor the annuity payout?
REPLY
I avoid complex financial products that are designed with features that are not clear to the consumer. This allows the product issuer to interpret the features to its advantage, and take a large share of the investment gains from the consumer. The product that you described falls in this category.
If you wish to invest in a variable annuity, you should just buy into the STI ETF and make a monthly withdrawal to meet your needs. If you withdrawal is modest, relative to the amount that you have invested, it is likely to last for your lifetime, and leave some balance remaining for your children. You will get the average market return, which is likely to be around 6% per annum. I am not sure how much you can get from this complex product after deducting the charges.
I purchased a Secure Retirement Plus (SRP) plan last year. This is a variable aunity which buys into one of the insurer's unit trust and offers lock-in of the unit trust value every 5 years (up to 85 years old). I have the option to top up my deposit within 1 year. This is a rather complex scheme, with 50% "virtual" bonus after 10 years, and 'virtual' lock-in of the account value of the unit trsut every 5 years.
'Virtual' means that the insurer is committed to honour the payout based on the 'virtual' account amount, but if client wishes to close the account, he/she will get back only the actual value of the unit trust. It sounded like a good deal since the downside risk is the survivability of the insurance company itself (which I think is finanically sound) and the upside is growth of value of the unit trust that the funds is invested in, thereby indirectly assure that the payout grows with inflation (inflation likely to flollow market growth).
I have the following question.
1) Is this SRP annunity better than the annuity offered by other insurance companies?
2) I wish to invest 40% of my retirement fund in this scheme (remaining money in unit trust, stocks and cash) Is this a good proportion?
3) Does MAS mandate that insurance company in Singapore must maintain a certain amount of capital to honor the annuity payout?
REPLY
I avoid complex financial products that are designed with features that are not clear to the consumer. This allows the product issuer to interpret the features to its advantage, and take a large share of the investment gains from the consumer. The product that you described falls in this category.
If you wish to invest in a variable annuity, you should just buy into the STI ETF and make a monthly withdrawal to meet your needs. If you withdrawal is modest, relative to the amount that you have invested, it is likely to last for your lifetime, and leave some balance remaining for your children. You will get the average market return, which is likely to be around 6% per annum. I am not sure how much you can get from this complex product after deducting the charges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)