Unless she is doing it for free, a significant chunk of your profits would have gone into her commission(s).

Leaving not much for you, but you feeling great because you don't know any better.

Question is: is she doing it for free?

Understood your point, but not strange at all.

If the profits are GUARANTEED to be better returns, I have nothing to say.

In the case of shares, commodities etc, that falls into the high-returns, high-risk categories.

Did your agent discuss about GUARANTEES? Or did she talk about high-risk, high-returns (and high-losses accordingly)

Or are we still comparing to FD? What exactly would you like to discuss about?

PS: Or you don't care, because when some agent tells about BEST ROI on paper and you fall for it?

This post has been edited by howszat: Sep 7 2016, 11:02 PM

Why do you even need to ask whether have to ask point blank?

What about the points you forgot to ask?

Nope.

Just put your emergency funds into FD, instead of introducing it into a pointless thread.

Like HLA is good or not? Everyone have already told you it's not good, so what the heck are you trying to prove?

This thread is about the plan, so, yes, I'm referring to the plan. No, no one actually said it's bad, yes.

Assuming you are not an agent in disguise, this is my point -- what people have been questioning is what guarantees are there, and with the restrictions, do you end up better than FD?

I can't conclude for you of course, but I am pointing out the points for other readers. You, you do what you like with your money, thanks.

Yes, it is crap.

What have you posted in this thread that provides evidence that's it's not?

The point is for all the restrictions, you end up no better or even worse than FD.

Given that you can withdraw FD anytime for the same amount you put in, unlike HLA plans, and there are penalties with HLA plans, it is a BAD plan, fullstop.

The only positive for such plans is forced-savings, and that's it.