Financial: The useless ILP,& how to go about terminating it

[garlic]

Looks like sinkies are indeed stupid to believe in whatever people say as long as professionals without thinking whether it is true or not. Graduate or not doesn't matter.

I agree...

 

[Engeng]

The ignorance is shocking it must be nice to live in your world where quoting sources in a healthy debate is not a requirement..Tomorrow, go out and speak to your friends, tell them that living policies are illiquid. You brought the property argument in yourself and not once i say able to take loan = liquid. I meant the ability to take a loan against your policy, makes terminating one (liquidating) for cash unnecessary since you say terminating yours loses money, terminating mine certainly does not! Not every terminated policy loses money.

Go ahead, talk and convince people without quoting sources and expect people to take your words at face value, tell them wikipedia is wrong and you right. Still waiting for quoted sources and published articles that say "living policies are NOT liquid assets".. till then, i rest my case.

Hey the only thing I quoted to you is this phrase from your quoted text in your own post and I already told you that. So what other source do I owe you?

"Liquid assets are assets that can be converted quickly and easily to cash without losing value. "

Your stupidity is shocking indeed. No wonder sinkies lost money in Lehman brothers or whatever shit scam. All with very professional accounting and legal terms what. You can seek comfort in whatever accounting or legal definition but the fact remains your living policies were not liquid assets for at least ten years or more before they break even and you were able to sell them without losing money.

 

[garlic]

Hey the only thing I quoted to you is this phrase from your quoted text in your own post and I already told you that. So what other source do I owe you?

"Liquid assets are assets that can be converted quickly and easily to cash without losing value. "

Your stupidity is shocking indeed. No wonder sinkies lost money in Lehman brothers or whatever shit scam. All with very professional accounting and legal terms what. You can seek comfort in whatever accounting or legal definition but the fact remains your living policies were not liquid assets for at least ten years or more before they break even and you were able to sell them without losing money.

And what do the other three sources say?

"Liquid assets are assets that can be converted quickly and easily to cash without losing value. " -- This simply means that if you buy a policy, for example $10,000 worth of policy and terminate it so early that the entire $10,000 is gone. That of course qualifies it a written-off asset when the whole value of it is gone as expenses and fees. That said, after two years, whatever cash value is built-up can and will be able to convert to cash and even if not profitable, it is liquid, even if you are able to get back only $5,000.

Same goes for index funds, if that $10,000 funds you bought suddenly drops to zero in value, that is illiquid (nothing for you to dispose of, whole value is gone) as the whole asset is written off already. But even if you able to get back $3,000 at a moment's notice, selling it at a loss, it is still liquid.

Does losing money on index funds automatically qualifies them as illiquid? Some no need to take 10 years to lose money, people can lose money in hours.

There is no need to launch personal attacks, calling people stupid, if you want, present your argument and start a poll and see whether you are alone or not in your thinking. Quoting sources is the right way to present an argument, as much as you dislike them, you are only making yourself look bad by denying such.

 

[Engeng]

And what do the other three sources say?

Does losing money on index funds automatically qualifies them as illiquid? Some no need to take 10 years to lose money, people can lose money in hours.

There is no need to launch personal attacks, calling people stupid, if you want, present your argument and start a poll and see whether you are alone or not in your thinking. Quoting sources is the right way to present an argument, as much as you dislike them, you are only making yourself look bad by denying such.

Hey you are obviously twisting here. Living policies are not liquid assets that can be sold without losing value for at least 10 years. Whereas shares are liquid assets that you can sell anytime with possibility of making gains. I am not familiar with index funds and shan't comment on that.

Didn't you call me ignorant so why complain I call you stupid in return? I said right from my first reply to you that I have living policies and that's why I know they are not liquid assets that you can sell without making a loss for at least 10 years or more. Did I say that is accounting or legal definition? But you came back with such definition and I told you that's not what I was coming from. So why must I quote sources for giving my own views - based on my actual experience - since my first reply to you that living policies are not liquid assets?

You can seek comfort in whatever definition, you cannot deny the fact that living policies are not liquid assets and you definitely were not able to sell them for ten years without making a loss.

 

[garlic]

Hey you are obviously twisting here. Living policies are not liquid assets that can be sold without losing value for at least 10 years. Whereas shares are liquid assets that you can sell anytime with possibility of making gains. I am not familiar with index funds and shan't comment on that.

Didn't you call me ignorant so why complain I call you stupid in return? I said right from my first reply to you that I have living policies and that's why I know they are not liquid assets that you can sell without making a loss for at least 10 years or more. Did I say that is accounting or legal definition? But you came back with such definition and I told you that's not what I was coming from. So why must I quote sources for giving my own views - based on my actual experience - since my first reply to you that living policies are not liquid assets?

You can seek comfort in whatever definition, you cannot deny the fact that living policies are not liquid assets and you definitely were not able to sell them for ten years without making a loss.

Making a loss does not qualify them as illiquid. Prove otherwise.... ditto for shares..

 

[Engeng]

Making a loss does not qualify them as illiquid. Prove otherwise.... ditto for shares..

You are still twisting. You buy shares you can sell them within ten years with possibility of profit. It is liquid asset. You buy living policies you can't sell them within ten years with possibility of profit at all. Confirmed loss. It is not liquid asset until they break even after ten years or more.

And can take loan does not change the fact it is liquid or not liquid. Shares also can take loan. Property also can take loan.

 

[scroobal]

Bro, if you consider Insurance as savings even forced, an asset or worse still liquid asset, you are out of the ball park by miles.

Insurance has an vital role but it has nothing to do with savings or returns. It meant for uncle and aunties who no better if they think they it’s savings. Note the characters selling life Insurance. The concept of surrender value is a power bait.

It reminds of people here who advise each other about stock picks.

I personally know a guy who will collect $$200k next year from Insurance. In the last 15 years he has lost close to $2m.

Once I know if someone has a whole life policy indexed or not, I won’t even bother talking about returns or investment.

Years ago at an SDU event on investment planning for Public Sector Engineers ave age 28/30 we were pleasantly surprised to find out by a show hands that none had a life insurance policy. It gave immense hope that we had a good education system. At one stage PSC contemplated putting this as question for recruitment interview but it was considered mischievous as the young might be too young to see thru it.

Buy a term insurance, a couple of participating fund living policies and invest the rest in index funds. This strategy forces you to save, be flexible with investments and best of all, covered and liquid.. most people often forget about being liquid.

 

[Engeng]

Bro, if you consider Insurance as savings even forced, an asset or worse still liquid asset, you are out of the ball park by miles.

Insurance has an vital role but it has nothing to do with savings or returns. It meant for uncle and aunties who no better if they think they it’s savings. Note the characters selling life Insurance. The concept of surrender value is a power bait.

It reminds of people here who advise each other about stock picks.

I personally know a guy who will collect $$200k next year from Insurance. In the last 15 years he has lost close to $2m.

Once I know if someone has a whole life policy indexed or not, I won’t even bother talking about returns or investment.

Years ago at an SDU event on investment planning for Public Sector Engineers ave age 28/30 we were pleasantly surprised to find out by a show hands that none had a life insurance policy. It gave immense hope that we had a good education system. At one stage PSC contemplated putting this as question for recruitment interview but it was considered mischievous as the young might be too young to see thru it.

Oh whole life policies are not that bad. Like the living policies annualised return around 4%. Don't forget it comes with free critical illness insurance. I remember getting a quote of term insurance with critical illness coverage before and it was not that cheap too. So your investment return would have to be alot higher than 4% to beat the living policies.

 

[Leongsam]

Bro, if you consider Insurance as savings even forced, an asset or worse still liquid asset, you are out of the ball park by miles.

Insurance has an vital role but it has nothing to do with savings or returns. It meant for uncle and aunties who no better if they think they it’s savings. Note the characters selling life Insurance. The concept of surrender value is a power bait.

It reminds of people here who advise each other about stock picks.

I personally know a guy who will collect $$200k next year from Insurance. In the last 15 years he has lost close to $2m.

Once I know if someone has a whole life policy indexed or not, I won’t even bother talking about returns or investment.

Years ago at an SDU event on investment planning for Public Sector Engineers ave age 28/30 we were pleasantly surprised to find out by a show hands that none had a life insurance policy. It gave immense hope that we had a good education system. At one stage PSC contemplated putting this as question for recruitment interview but it was considered mischievous as the young might be too young to see thru it.

I used to sell life Insurance. It helped a lot of people accumulate sufficient funds to make a deposit for their first home when the banks would not come to the party.

I never had a client accuse me of ripping him/her off. All those I kept in touch with acknowledged that if they had not purchased their ILPs they would have spent the money.

 

[scroobal]

I advise people to buy a bigger house, flat etc. That's forced savings. Happy to hear that when the time came they could downgrade from a 5 room to a 4 room and fund their kid's studies for medicine in Oz to the tune of $500K. The rate of return is double digit.

In fact I have spent years advising colleagues and staff how to upgrade in their early years. The single biggest fear for most people is finding and talking to a conveyancing lawyer when they can actually Freebie afford private property. They typically end up with HDB.

I won't bother on explaining about critical illness freebies. They fall in the same category as guaranteed rental return of 2 years for investment property returns when the 2 year rentals are baked into the sale price.

Oh whole life policies are not that bad. Like the living policies annualised return around 4%. Don't forget it comes with free critical illness insurance. I remember getting a quote of term insurance with critical illness coverage before and it was not that cheap too. So your investment return would have to be alot higher than 4% to beat the living policies.

 

[scroobal]

I will fail miserably selling people life insurance. Within 5 mins I will probably end up telling them about investing in a bigger HDB flat and will gladly explain why for the next 2 hours. The term insurance with critical illness cover is a given. Notice when you ask about Term insurance, the Insurance sales guy will suddenly have a memory loss about the product.

In the early years, housing cooperatives were common and it helped people put down deposits for home. Civil `servants, Telecoms employees and Teachers Union all had it and that generation made a fortune from their investment in private properties. They sent their kids overseas for their education. Teachers estate in Sembawang was a real success.

The rest I guess ended up buying life insurance.

I used to sell life Insurance. It helped a lot of people accumulate sufficient funds to make a deposit for their first home when the banks would not come to the party.

I never had a client accuse me of ripping him/her off. All those I kept in touch with acknowledged that if they had not purchased their ILPs they would have spent the money.

 

[garlic]

You are still twisting. You buy shares you can sell them within ten years with possibility of profit. It is liquid asset. You buy living policies you can't sell them within ten years with possibility of profit at all. Confirmed loss. It is not liquid asset until they break even after ten years or more.

And can take loan does not change the fact it is liquid or not liquid. Shares also can take loan. Property also can take loan.

Wikipedia: "Living policies are liquid assets"
Investopeida: "Living policies are liquid assets".
Encyclopedia.com: "Living policies are liquid assets".

Engeng: "Living policies are non-liquid assets"

Definition of liquidity: Ease of converting to cash.

As i said, loans is not the barometer of liquidity, in this context, it is just a way for one to not have to liquidate his/her life policy to get cash.
It might not be one's preferred asset class to liquidate due to the high fees and commissions that must be paid, but it is the ease of being able to convert such policies to cash that make it liquid. Plain and simple, no twisting of words of any kind, regardless of whether you like it or not, even you must agree the ease of converting it to cash is high and takes no longer to reach your bank account than when you sell shares.

Brothers here who have sold or are selling can attest the speed at which money reaches clients' bank accounts from Insurance companies when clients liquidate policies.

 

[Engeng]

Wikipedia: "Living policies are liquid assets"
Investopeida: "Living policies are liquid assets".
Encyclopedia.com: "Living policies are liquid assets".

Engeng: "Living policies are non-liquid assets"

Definition of liquidity: Ease of converting to cash.

As i said, loans is not the barometer of liquidity, in this context, it is just a way for one to not have to liquidate his/her life policy to get cash.
It might not be one's preferred asset class to liquidate due to the high fees and commissions that must be paid, but it is the ease of being able to convert such policies to cash that make it liquid. Plain and simple, no twisting of words of any kind, regardless of whether you like it or not, even you must agree the ease of converting it to cash is high and takes no longer to reach your bank account than when you sell shares.

Brothers here who have sold or are selling can attest the speed at which money reaches clients' bank accounts from Insurance companies when clients liquidate policies.

Yeah right I am sure you sell your property at 50% or 80% loss you can sell it at lightning speed too just like the way you are twisting can sell living policies easily and quickly at a loss means liquid assets. So you should consider your property as liquid assets too.

 

[Engeng]

I advise people to buy a bigger house, flat etc. That's forced savings. Happy to hear that when the time came they could downgrade from a 5 room to a 4 room and fund their kid's studies for medicine in Oz to the tune of $500K. The rate of return is double digit.

In fact I have spent years advising colleagues and staff how to upgrade in their early years. The single biggest fear for most people is finding and talking to a conveyancing lawyer when they can actually Freebie afford private property. They typically end up with HDB.

I won't bother on explaining about critical illness freebies. They fall in the same category as guaranteed rental return of 2 years for investment property returns when the 2 year rentals are baked into the sale price.

Oh I am a big believer in property too. Best asset class. Yes you are right about people being very conservative and end up buy HDB when they can afford condo easily. They are usually very worried about paying conservancy fees when actually it's not that expensive if they have a car.

I remember telling my friends then 99 year brand new condo only half a million - even though in outlying estate - come fully renovated is very worth to buy Vs 300k or 400k resale HDB at that time.

 

[garlic]

Yeah right I am sure you sell your property at 50% or 80% loss you can sell it at lightning speed too just like the way you are twisting can sell living policies easily and quickly at a loss means liquid assets. So you should consider your property as liquid assets too.

For your info, i do not sell my property at a loss, there is no need to, since it is fully paid up and collecting rental, and yes, i have the title deed. It is a fact that living policies can be liquidated easily and your own insurance agent can tell you that. I will ask for your financial advice if there ever is a need, thank you.

Whether a person choose to liquidate his policy at a loss three years into his policy or at a profit 30 years later, it makes no difference to that policy's inherent liquidity, it can be surrendered and converted to cash at bank very fast, that is binding in the terms and conditions and on every insurer's homepage and policy. A person's reluctance to liquidate his policy at a loss or inclination at a profit, does not alter the policy's characterestics one bit.

Tokiomarine:
https://www.tokiomarine.com/sg/en/personal/resources/faq/life-insurance/surrender.html

How long does it take to surrender my policy and get the proceeds?
For cash policies:
If you visit our Customer Service Centre at 20 McCallum Street #07-01 Tokio Marine Centre, you will be able to get the surrender proceeds within the same day.

 

[Engeng]

For your info, i do not sell my property at a loss, there is no need to, since it is fully paid up and collecting rental, and yes, i have the title deed. It is a fact that living policies can be liquidated easily and your own insurance agent can tell you that. I will ask for your financial advice if there ever is a need, thank you.

Whether a person choose to liquidate his policy at a loss three years into his policy or at a profit 30 years later, it makes no difference to that policy's inherent liquidity, it can be surrendered and converted to cash at bank very fast, that is binding in the terms and conditions and on every insurer's homepage and policy. A person's reluctance to liquidate his policy at a loss or inclination at a profit, does not alter the policy's characterestics one bit.

Tokiomarine:
https://www.tokiomarine.com/sg/en/personal/resources/faq/life-insurance/surrender.html

How long does it take to surrender my policy and get the proceeds?
For cash policies:
If you visit our Customer Service Centre at 20 McCallum Street #07-01 Tokio Marine Centre, you will be able to get the surrender proceeds within the same day.

I am not giving financial advice to you, just applying your definition of living policies can sell quickly to property. Anything can be sold quickly and easily at a cheap and big loss making price. Getting cash within one day is also not the crux of the matter.

The inherent nature of living policies is you can't sell them easily without making a big loss for 10 years or so. Which means normally people would not sell it - the way people buy and sell shares that are liquid assets - and that's precisely why you will not sell your fully paid collecting rental property at a big loss unless you are desperate.

 

[scroobal]

I am glad you mentioned conservancy charges. My very first boss who lived in landed property told me that private conservancy charges if you include carpark is way cheaper than any HDB flat. Conservancy charges goes to pay for looking after everything in the estate from trees, common areas etc.

Oh I am a big believer in property too. Best asset class. Yes you are right about people being very conservative and end up buy HDB when they can afford condo easily. They are usually very worried about paying conservancy fees when actually it's not that expensive if they have a car.

I remember telling my friends then 99 year brand new condo only half a million - even though in outlying estate - come fully renovated is very worth to buy Vs 300k or 400k resale HDB at that time.

 

[eatshitndie]

I am glad you mentioned conservancy charges. My very first boss who lived in landed property told me that private conservancy charges if you include carpark is way cheaper than any HDB flat. Conservancy charges goes to pay for looking after everything in the estate from trees, common areas etc.

don’t know what kind of bs you spew this time. hdb has service and conservancy charges, private properties that are managed as a block or community have maintenance fees. while conservancy charges for a hdb flat can range from $55 per month for a 1-room flat to $95 for an executive flat, maintenance fees for private properties can range from $200 a month for a small property to $1000 a month and beyond for a large property. moreover with private properties there are some communities that charge sinking fund fees, for future upgrades, capital expense, re-doing the landscape, etc. of course, with landed property you can always leave your lawn unattended, do not repaint, do not fix, trash and clutter all over, and or pave entire ground with concrete....just like refugee vietnamese peasants behave with their first landed homes.

 

[Engeng]

don’t know what kind of bs you spew this time. hdb has service and conservancy charges, private properties that are managed as a block or community have maintenance fees. while conservancy charges for a hdb flat can range from $55 per month for a 1-room flat to $95 for an executive flat, maintenance fees for private properties can range from $200 a month for a small property to $1000 a month and beyond for a large property. moreover with private properties there are some communities that charge sinking fund fees, for future upgrades, capital expense, re-doing the landscape, etc. of course, with landed property you can always leave your lawn unattended, do not repaint, do not fix, trash and clutter all over, and or pave entire ground with concrete....just like refugee vietnamese peasants behave with their first landed homes.

Yes that's the jiuhukia standard too. If you have a nice garden, you will be the one and only obviously Sporean around for them to target theft, slander, bully and more. Shameful jiuhukia do not deserve the good greenery and air provided by good considerate neighbours so it's best to cement everything indeed.

 

[Johnrambo]

rule of thumb: siam all insurance agents like vermin, and your money will be safe.