Seedly Community God God of Personal Finance Highlander Warren Buffet Wannabe Seedly Walkingpedia

I have done comparison before. Effectively locking the liquidity for 20-25 years, and getting 2.43% of growth seems very inefficient to me. Why not consider putting into your CPF SA for 4% returns to hit FRS, (since if you are about 25 years old, by 55 you can get your excess amount on top of FRS, out), tax relief of up to $7,000 for cash topup, or even topup your medisave to BHS (which also has tax relief)? If you require the money to be in cold, hard cash, you may even consider some universal life like Save3 TIQ which has a 6 years lock in period, at 3% interest, and can look for better deals after that? I would expect interest rate for banks to increase anyway for such a long time. For even for citibank maxi-gain account (which you may require $75,0000) but earns 70% of Sibor + 1.2%. Do review why you want to save so long, and earn a paltry interest in this case... (even DBS multiplier seems to have 2.2% which is so much flexible than the savings plan imho).

1) All Whole Life plans mature after Age 99 (at 100), so you are covered till 100. 2) If you strongly believe that you can manage your finances, and WILL invest the rest of the premiums, BTIR is good especially if you can hit more than 4% year on year (6% for ECI). 3) Whole Life Plans (especially limited pay plans) negate the rising cost of the ECI/CI plans by a 20 year limited. So it helps you to resolve the cost issue, though, it will definitely cost more than a term ECI/CI earlier on. In terms of time value of money, as mentioned, you need 4% (CI) or 6% (ECI) to beat the premiums paid when you BTIR, vs Term life. 4) Its never Term or Whole, but rather, how much you really need. If you do not need any insurance protection after 65, then just buy term.

Basically it means 1) There have been some "complains" that is related to investment, but they are not licensed by MAS 2) There are promises of returns, but they are not financial advice 3) There is no recourse for you (much) from MAS. 4) The products are touted as "investment" mostly, yet does not have a formal structure for reporting of FY, etc etc that is governed and required in MAS rulings.

Why not do a cost benefit analysis to cancelling and putting into another investment instrument to make a better decision? What's it the yearly yield? How much did it deviate from the benefit illustration? Have you requested for a new BI? Most life plans yield sweet spot is around 70 years old to 80 years old, and the incentive to hold onto the plan is less attractive. But still, DYODD. Or hire my services.

It really depends on your needs. But please do not just take our advice since we are unsure of your unique situation. Generally, IF you are below age 30, whole life and term does not matter that much. If you are above 30, you will need to calculate the premiums and see which suits you better. Most likely a term, but you will need to do your own diligence. Also, it depends on whether you have existing cover that is inflation protected (whole life). If you already have a whole life, you likely should not require another whole life, but rather a term life instead.

Every question that you ask, really depends on a lot of factors. I will need to list them down for easier reference. 1) What is your age? The older you are, the higher the premium cost will be. For Life Plans, the sweet spot for a cheap insurance will be about age 30 or below. For Critial illness, its should be below age 35. Whole life Plans (to be tagged with Critical Illness) with limited pay are better in general for longevity (as long as you have no claim). Term CI is 100% better if you have a claim. 2) Mindef Aviva has Group Term Life, Group Accident, and Group CI / ECI. They are term plans, so naturally they have no cash value. Previouly, I remember they give rebate when the claim experience is a lot lower. 3) For self protection after 65, it will all fall onto your hospitalisation plan, and also your investment (to self-insure). Since you have no income, you should not need to have a CI (except for alternative medicine/treatment), since CI is for income replacement. Though, some people bought whole life to insure the CI event. There are some intangibles like cab fare and better food that is not factored into the hospitalisation plans.

I shall list out the factors for you to consider over here. 1) Is there a need for this insurance? 2) If you replace the policy, could you get the same coverage 3) Would you be in a better position (in terms finance) if you surrender compared to the amount already paid? 4) Are you able to service it? 5) If there is no need, could you see it as an additional annuity that will serve you after 65? 6) Are there any exclusions, which may affect you getting a other policy? Surrendering a policy is no small matter. You really need to see why or why not you should continue with the policy.

Any coverage you have paid should have served you a reason. However, if you really genuinely require to surrender the policy, you may wish to approach me so I can help you to get the best value out of the policy.