alo alo... best is public transport accidental death as some life insurance pays 3 times to 4 times the "normal death".

Sorry boss, out of topic - couldn't resist the mental masturbation though

er.. why label yr friend's GF as ignorant ar?
She may not have anyone who is economically dependent on her, thus she doesn't need death & disease insurance.
She's right if she meant to buy death insurance on herself to payout to her child's guardian(s) to care for her child - her child when she has one, is economically dependent on her.

Just a thought

This post has been edited by wongmunkeong: Aug 17 2013, 10:23 AM

U found a good sifu - especially if U are new to the insurance field.

Roy's the 2nd insurance advisor (i refuse to call him a consultant - the 99% others get the rights to that title ) i've met that called a spade, a spade AND has enough knowledge to advise on executable options.
The bad news is - in my "hobby/interest", i meet a lot of risk & wealth consultants AND i've been at it for 20 years - shows how many % boleh pakai

This post has been edited by wongmunkeong: Aug 17 2013, 10:28 AM

Just to share - since i've gone through several hospitalization insurances for my new born recently.

Findings (based on $200K/yr in-patient coverage + $200K/life out-patient coverage, with total life time limit of $1.25M):
1. holy cow.. if i keep paying the yearly premium, i'd have paid $750K+ to $780K+ for age 0 to 99 years old.

2. Premiums jump HUGE at age 64-66 onwards

3. Age 0 to 5 is the most expensive,
then it goes down
and up again till 40s+ when the premium goes back up to similar to 0 to 5 years old cost.
Cost here is in simple terms, not inflated pa%.

Thus, bottom line - whoever that says insurance is a MUST, U may want to think again on achieving enough or more than enough to self insure. Insurance is just risk transference AT A COST
Think lar - insurance companies are profit oriented - U transfer risk to them, U think they dont add admin cost + profits before charging back to U?

Mind U - IMHO, insurance is needed to manage risk until one can manage / self insure. I'm not saying insurance is a bad thing or not needed at all.
Ahem.. to arguers stating we need insurance to drive a car, alo use brain lar - i'm talking about optional insurance lar, not Gov required ones.
Yes yes - i can read your minds <U know who U are>

This post has been edited by wongmunkeong: Aug 17 2013, 10:42 AM

Bro - imho, best to use insurance for coverage and invest the difference (ie. ILP what not), unless one is totally deficient in common sense and simple maths.

Reason:
In the real world, hitting 5%pa to 6%pa is quite do-able with a mixed approach of asset allocation in FD, Bond funds, stocks or equity funds, REITs or properties or REIT funds. The long term average should be around 7%pa to 8%pa if done systematically for a common person.
Do those ILPs promise at least 5%pa? hell, 3%pa to 4%pa?
No? Promise as in written guarantee in the policy wor.
No right? Ada ka?
Why not? Shock - horrors... may be so that they can wriggle their way out of it neh

FYI - my AIA insurance, from 1991/1992 to 2005/2006
Can't even hit 6%pa and this was during the time when FD was 10%pa+/- AND with the KLSE on a golden bull run (buy anything and it flies)
Why?
When i called AIA & asked whether i still needed to pay monthly coz way past "critical year" liao, they said yes - gotta keep paying
When i asked how much longer before auto-self funded? They said about 5 years.
When i asked whether this is FOR SURE? They said no.
Alo - based on my calculations, they didnt even hit 4%pa on average long term returns + i bought the donkey thing when i was 19/20 years old.

Final opinion to share using "cars" to relate:
When U want a reliable & safe car, U go & buy a reliable & safe car like say Volvo right?
Do U expect it to perform like a Ferarri (speed like mad & handles like whoa..) and a Pajero (off road & mountain climbing) and be fuel efficient like a Kanchill?
If U buy a car that has all 4 vehicles' features - how much U think it'll cost? AND how U think it'll perform its main criteria of being a reliable & safe car VS a Volvo?

Just a thought

This post has been edited by wongmunkeong: Aug 23 2013, 05:16 PM

Thanks for hooking me up with Pru SG bro

er.. Alex, no need to declare something which can "impact" the underwriter's assessment of the risks and whether to accept the case or not?

Based on what reasoning / legally needn't declare?
7 years? Other than 7 years for keeping records for tax & legal purposes, there are legal conditions for insurance where one doesn't have to declare?

Clarifying coz it's a contract between customer & Insurer and certain withholding of information (non-declaration) which has impact on the risk assessment or cost of coverage may come back to bite the customer. Worried neh

So.. based on what both ExpZero + Roy is saying.. Sithbuster/Alex is giving dangerous advise ka?

dang tot there was some loophole or something.

Personally, i'd wont just listen but think in terms of contracts.

Insurance is a legal contract between insurer & U.
In a legal contract, if one party does not follow the agreed then one is in breach.
When one is in breach, it then usually falls to the clauses of termination due to breach of contract.
That's when kaka usually happens in most contracts (ie. not just insurance contracts).

Just applying cow-sense & work/biz to personal life - may not work for everyoe