The ultimate question is can you afford to pay for it?
The premium can be up to 5 digit per pa at later age.

ILP or not doesn't make a different, as cost of insurance goes up with age.
Current ILP premium is not guaranteed to be sufficient to cover the cost of insurance on later age.

It depends on the cash/investment portion able to generate a good return (at current situation, it is tough to generate return like in the past). While if financial situation is unfavourable, it can result a loss as well if/when the investment is investing UT).

While cost of insurance may be going up due to inflation in medical cost, as well as potential incremental in total claims against insurance company.

So there is no certainty in any amount that we can assured how much is needed for future coverage.

This post has been edited by cherroy: Aug 18 2016, 03:59 PM

Insurance is not an "investment".

It is a liability instead.

You need to justify the need of insurance and affordability at this age in term of
1. what is the use of commit into an xyz insurance?
2. can you afford it? aka income to support the insurance premium.

You are wasting your money when over-insured.

Insurance will only compensate based on the market price of insured property.

But if one wants to insure 1.5 mil, and paying the premium based on 1.5 mil, I don't think insurance company will reject though.

Forumer asked about people's opinion on certain xyz insurance plan, but you as AIA agent, instead of answering or giving opinion on the specific plan, you just post your own company plan.
This is not answering the question asked in the first place.

Just like people asked how A brand car performance, but you tell B car is an option.

It is not the like people asked for any recommendation in the first place.

We do not want this insurance thread which serve as informative place, becoming a place for vested people to spam on it.
We don't want post by vested party that keep on posting, A is a good, then tell other to click the link to find out,
While another forumer, posted B is a good option, by then, this thread will be spammed by many vested parties, and whole thread started to deteriorate into spam type of posting only.
This is not a place to advertise your plan in the first place.
Thank you.

While in the process, you lodged a report on the forumer who asking the opinion as spam after your post was gone.
This is abuse of report button already.
This is not the first time you are abusing report button,with some bad history lodging report to retaliate on certain forumers on disagreement in mortgage thread as well.

Summary, the post was deleted basically because of
1. It is not related to the question asked.
2. Posting other plan with link is also not related to question asked for opinion on the specific plan.


This post has been edited by cherroy: Oct 16 2016, 01:36 AM

If people asked whether P is good or not, common sense tells us we are discussing about P.
If no idea about P, we don't give opinion, as simple as that.
But instead you give link to A (with vested interest), if this kind of situation appear in exam, we are pretty sure the answer will get zero mark, due to out of topic and unrelated.

As said, the question is not asking for recommendation.

There is nothing wrong to explain your represented company plan.
But informative posts should contain explanatory content to discuss about the plan specifically.
As I mentioned in the early post, your post was deleted because, forumer asked opinion about the P plan, but you just post A company plan, without any explanatory and potential with vested interest as you are A agent.

There is a fine line between merely posting with vested interest vs genuine informative post.
If you are comparing P plan with A plan by posting details like putting out a table to show A plan has more or less offer than P plan, or show which plan has more advantage etc, then it is good.

But merely putting up a link on your represent the company website is not a discussion already.

We need everyone cooperation to make this thread a informative one, we don't want the thread being ruined by vested interest.
Thank you.

You can PM moderators or staff by providing the quote of the PM spam.

Thank you.

Promoting strongly may break the "rice bowl" of its own agents, which they do not want also.
After all, agents are the one bringing in business for the insurance company.

There is no incentive for insurance company to offer directly, if BNM doesn't take initiative or forcefully insurance company to do so. As whether selling through agent or directly, insurance company may be getting the same amount.

Agent - Cost of insurance calculated by insurance company + agent commission = Premium payable by client
Direct - Cost of insurance without agent commission = cheaper premium payable by client.

Those saving plan, life insurance, ILP commission can be quite lucrative and a lot is the area where consumer can save a lot.

While for general insurance, generally the commission is much lesser as compared.

The beneficiary will be consumer.

In developed countries, there is a fee on consultation service offered by certified financial planner.

That's where agent can earn a living on.

This is a better way to eliminate vested interest of agent that keep on promoting own product, and pushing client to buy insurance for the sake on getting commission, instead giving out genuine financial advice.

Some people may actually cannot afford those insurance plan or not suitable to have those insurance plan, yet vested agent keep on pushing the plan and a small portion (some agent do give good advice as well) may even "mislead" client to sign up.

Typically, I saw how agent pushing a saving plan to a retired person who is 60+ already, what's for the person getting those saving plan in the first place? It serves little purpose.
Some even until saying xyz saving plan give 10% interest each year, which in actual fact the 10% is cash back amount, not interest. <--- Personally encountered in the mall.

So if agent role become an advisor and financial planner, then it can get rid of vested interest in the first place.
In theory it sounds good, but I know in practical, it is hard to implement, as generally people are not willing to pay a fee on pure on advice and planning.

a). Lump sum premium of one invoice of RM1000 (which Rm200 may be going to agent commission withou),
b). 2 invoices with RM 800 premium, and Rm200 chargeable by agent advisory.

Although both are same amount, people generally won't "satisfy" with (b) one.

Insurance company is not "handling" the investment.

The portion of investment in the ILP will go to one of client selected fund, aka the investment is managed by a fund house, not insurance company.

Investment linked = Insurance + UT combo.

When the investment portion/value is not enough time to cover the shortage of cost of insurance, premium of ILP will be raised as well.
There is no guaranteed the investment will or must able to cover the cost of insurance for the whole tenure.

UT can make a loss or having poor return as well if market condition is not favourable.

It is not much different with getting an standalone insurance while invest yourself in UT yourself, except insurance company may able to offer a more competitive package with ILP due to more money can be made through ILP as compared to standalone policy

ILP is just a crafted combo product of insurance + UT.

Don't get me wrong.
ILP may suit to one needs as well, it is not entire a bad choice, just there is nothing fancy about it.

GIP is especially good for those have no discipline in saving and spending.

By getting this plan, you are "forced" to save the money (premium paid), and you get certain amount of money each year which you can spend/use or whatever.

It also can be useful tool to distribute wealth to children or next in kin, by distributing certain amount of money each year, instead of giving big lump sum in one shot, that may not good for them if suddenly big lump sum amount which they can spend on.

It is a financial planning tool, the purpose is not primary for wealth creation.

Please be reminded, there is no guarantee that the Rm9,600 is certain can maintain for 10 years.

It is projection made based on some historical performance of fund on certain period.
Future performance can be better or worst one, as you can actually make a loss in the investment portion if economy and financial market becoming not favourable.

Premium of investment link can be raised if the cash portion of investment become insufficient to maintain the policy.

So it is hard to conclude which is a better option.
It depends on individual choice then.

For normal sickness that we normally seek medical from clinic, it is not covered in medical card.
For dental problem, one needs to fork out own money as well.

Medical insurance for children shouldn't be RM250 per month, normally won't more than hundred.

Medical insurance come with a cost, it is not "free" or must be "worthwhile".

Insurance concept is taking those "fortunate" one to compensate over the "unfortunate" one, while in the process insurance company can make a profit out of it.
If you belonged to "fortunate" one, money will always be burned to compensate on those "unfortunate" one.

A reminder, as well as to all forumers

It is a misleading statement to label final projection figure as "definitely higher than FD" when the investment projection final figure has non-guaranteed portion of return.

Apart from the guaranteed portion of return, other non-guaranteed will remain as non-guaranteed, nobody can say those return is "definite" better than FD.