QUOTE(dreamer101 @ Oct 6 2007, 04:01 AM)
Zarth,
Can you guarantee what would happen to a person is precisely the same event that protected by the insurance that you buy?? No too.
If you buy life insurance, you only protect against life.
If you buy medical insurance, you are only protect medical condition.
And, so on.........
You can use the money in the bank for any kind of emergency. For insurance, it only works if that particular kind of event happen to you and you buy that kind of insurance.
So, a person should only buy insurance if
A) That event is very likely to happen.
B) That event cause a significant financial impact that cannot cover by emergency fund.
C) That cost of that insurance is low enough.
Dreamer
Dear Dreamer,
Nope there is no 100% guarantee, but I'd say up to 90% of daily occurences can be covered. I can also tell you that for every 17 minutes, someone who buys life insurance will not live to pay the second premium.
Exactly the main reason why insurance exists in the first place. Because there's no 100% guarantee to life. But if you can cover up to 90%, would you prefer 70%? 50%? Your choice. Can you imagine if insurance does not exists at all and everyone has to fend for thier ownself against financial distresses that happen daily?
Hence its important to cover all the possible loopholes, you can never cover 100% but 90% is still better than 0%.
Again, I would like to stress on what are the possible "out of the blue" or "any kind of" emergencies scenarios that could occur in my earlier post. Do contribute if there is any other possible important scenarios?
What are the bigger emergencies? How much money do you require for those smaller emergencies? Does it make sense to allow insurance to cover the 90%, while you can still set aside money into FD to cover the balance 10%?
A) The problem is Accidents/Deaths/TPDs/Critical Illness/Hospitalization can come at any one time in our lives, be it young/old/boy/girl/rich/poor.
There is no way to show the exact future predictability table that it is more likely to happen to someone compared to the other.
Hence, the only thing you can rely on is past history, statistics, which is exactly what actuarist used to determine the premiums.
But as we all know past history does not always indicate the future. Therefore, premiums are constantly revised based on the latest statistics & trends.
So the very likely to happen factor is already reflected in differences in the premium you're paying.
B) Yes exactly.
What events? Can't think of more than 5? No worries, let me show you, and I'll tell you as many significant events leading to financial ruins as I have experienced, heard and seen others go through. Most significant ones being similar to point A.
C) How low can you price your product to make sure there's enough profitability and still be able to keep the stakeholders happy while having to survive the ups and downs of the economy?
Which business runs at a constant lost?
What matters more when point A actually occurs?
The lowest priced product out there in the market?
Or the actual slighly higher prices policy which you bought last 2 years because someone actually took the time to explain and show you the features and benefits.
What you want in life, is your decison and yours alone to make. We're only here to be the planners/advisors.
If you don't feel comfortable then don't buy, but for the each 3700 over new policy holders each day, you can be sure to trust us that we're here to deliver you the cheque should the 90% of significant events befall you.
Added on October 6, 2007, 5:47 pmQUOTE(b00n @ Oct 6 2007, 11:03 AM)
Jordy, you buy insurance if there's "something" for you to protect.
Investment and savings are different. Do not mix.
zarth,
We're talking about insurance as a need and not over insure. Savings and investment can be elsewhere which gives better returns (if you know how) and also the flexibility.
You're talking about flexibility in withdrawing the "cash value" of your policy; but how long does it take to reach that stage when "cash value" is withdrawable? If there's no cash value, how much percentage can one get from his "savings" with insurance company?
Why not just dump it in FD when one can withdraw the money when he is in dire need. So even if he doesn't earn profit, he still gets back the capital.
If we're talking about investment, there's more investment vehicle out there that gives better return and the flexibility instead of "forced" to pay/invest. Noticed I didn't use save, as saving and investment is another different term.
In your previous post you talked about human nature and discipline. So you're suggesting this type of "force savings" with instill the discipline in one to commit himself to pay.
But if it's all about human nature, the guy if he doesn't have the discipline would also lapse his insurance payment; don't you think so?
Newer plans comes with cash value in the first year itself.
If you buy Term, hence no cash value, hence no 'savings' for you to withdraw from.
Again "out of the blue", "any kind of emergencies", " in dire needs" what are those scenarios? List them all down. PM me and I'll be glad to share it with you personally.
How much would you require? Eg. Would RM100 a month into FD for the next 10 years be enough to cover a RM30k hospital bill? Can you predict when it would happen? 1 month, 6 months after you put in FD? or during the middle, say 5 years or right just when the FD reach RM30k, Ding! You hit jackpot! Back to RM0 again.
With insurance, you will get your cash value on top of the coverage.
You will get back your capital + dividend earned, just that the lock period is longer.
Are we talking about investment now? Yes, there is ample investment products out there in the market, just post up a thread saying you have RM100k, where should I invest? and I'm sure fellow forumers will give you all thier input from Props to UT to Shares to Forex to Genting to 4D to now they have Mega 6/52 etc etc...
Human behaviour is very simple, say if you put RM100 monthly into your FD and there is no penalty at all should you stop saving or they might just wanna take it all out, other than losing that bit of interest, they would not hesitate to do it. Nothing much to lose what? Capital still there.
But on the other hand, if they put it in insurance, and you tell them oh, sorry but you'll be losing money if you stop saving or if you surrender early, how would you think they would react? Har? Lose capital ar? Nvm le, try continue lo, my new Sony Ericsson K850i can wait I guess.
Discipline or no dicipline, when there is a force stronger than your desire holding you back, especially fear of losing money. You would think twice.

Added on October 6, 2007, 6:12 pmQUOTE(Jordy @ Oct 6 2007, 07:10 AM)
I am actually hated by insurance agents..
I view insurance as a luxury item, because:
One should only buy insurance if one is rich;
It's wiser if you invest the same amount of money as the premium regularly in a liqiud investment, which in the long run would be more than what insurance companies can pay..
These are my opinion, so you might have different views from me..
Dear Jordy,
That's actually the opposite, if you're filthy rich, you don't even actually need much insurance, just self insure yourself.
But for some rich folks it all about wealth preservation, they buy all the possible insurance with emphasis that if nothing happens to them they get back all returns + dividend.
Should they not survive and decide to go Happy Land early, they can still pass on the proceeds to thier heirs making them even more filthier and richer. This is thier way of leaving a legacy so that thier great grandchildren can say, "I dont really know my great grandfather at all, but I can remember his name clearly, because its written in big bold letters on a piece of paper, together along with the cheque starting with a 1 figure and followed by a long number of 0s he left me when I attained age 21. He must be a Really Cool Great Grandpa!".
This post has been edited by Zarth: Oct 6 2007, 06:12 PM