Skip to main content

Keep insurance and investments separate

Keep insurance and investments separate
A N Shanbhag

We have often pointed out and will do so once more - we are not in favour of any plan from whichever insurance company that seeks to combine insurance and investment. Such a blend, without exception, tends to be sub-optimal. It is always better to keep insurance and investments separate. All endowment, whole life policies and ULIPs are examples of combination insurance plans.

On the other hand, a term insurance plan has no cash payout at the end of the term. This means if the policyholder were to pass away during the term of the policy, his family will get the sum assured. However, were he to survive he will not get a single rupee. In other words, term cover is pure life insurance and has no cash or surrender value. If this is indeed the case, why do we favour term insurance as against a traditional endowment or whole life policy which, at least pays, at the end of the day, no matter what, either the sum assured or the maturity value?

Basically insurance is a cost. It is a contract (policy) in which you purchase financial protection or reimbursement against a loss or an unanticipated expense.
The price paid to purchase such protection is also called premium in insurance parlance. Such premium is payable, year-in-year-out, till you desire protection from the loss. Now, take for instance car insurance. You pay the insurance premium, year-in-year-out, to protect yourself against the financial damage that an accident can cause.

If you are a safe driver and manage not to bang your car during the year, the premium paid is wasted - you don't get anything out of it. And you are perfectly happy to have done so, so long as you and your car are safe.

Take medical insurance. Again, premium is paid to defray any costs of medical emergencies or hospitalisation. However, if you remain fit and healthy the premium paid on buying the medical insurance is lost. But then again, you do not mind this do you? Then why should life insurance be any different? But it is. It always has been.The reason for this is mainly because life insurance premiums come bundled with the pure premium part combined with the part that gets invested on your behalf. The policy is sold more as an investment where the insurance just comes along.
However, know that insurance never comes along, it always has to be paid for. In the case of life insurance, the premium is known as morality premium. Such mortality premium is applicable for all polices, year after year, without any exception, till such time that the life is insured. Even in the case of single premium plans or policies where the premium is payable only for part of the policy term, nonetheless, the mortality premium keeps getting deducted every year from the fund value. So once gain, insurance never comes along, you actually buy it, year after year.
Let's take an example to further understand this concept. Take the case of a 30-year-old person who desires to buy an insurance cover of Rs 10 lakh. Were he to buy an endowment plan, the premium that he would pay is around Rs 39,000 per annum.

However, a term plan would just cost Rs 3,800 per annum for the same amount of risk cover of Rs 10 lakh. The difference between Rs 39,000 and the pure risk cover cost of Rs 3,800 is the investment premium.

Putting it differently, for a premium of Rs 23,000 per annum, one can either purchase an endowment plan where the sum assured is Rs 6 lakh or on can buy a term plan where the sum assured is Rs 60 lakh. Your choice.

Of course, brokers earn a far greater commission if they sell you whole life policies than if they sell you term cover. And the logical sounding argument given against buying a term cover is why opt for the same when you don't get anything back in the end? But now hopefully you know better.

And before we end, to answer all those who wrote in. We do actually have a favourite policy. It's called "Buy term and invest the difference"

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Winning your boss

As I was observing on the Process of Appraisals that were going on in my new Organisation, it brought about the subjectivity that is present in the system. The only way to come out in flying colors is, be a pet to your Boss and reap rich dividends. Though the companies claim about the various thought process that has been put forward in designing the appraisal system, it all boils down to the previous line you just read. I know a guy who always came out with the best score possible during the appraisal not because he did a great job but for his attitude to tasks given by his Boss. I do not claim that he is a person who just thrives because of the "pet" tag , though he does pretty decent job. But if you consider his peers who do the same "decent" job, they somehow end up lower than him. WHY ? Again it is how he presents himself to the boss...Watch below some of his action. Never disputes the idea told by the Boss. Can always spot some think good in the Worst of ...

33% reservation

33% reservation for women - It is being said as a breakthrough in the history of Indian parliement for having this passed in Rajya sabha, which had the blessing of Sonia Gandhi(the holder of the remote control of Indian goverment) Some want a reservation within this reservation for Muslims and (so called)lower caste women as they feel upper caste women would crush lower caste women. My question is Will these politicians ever change ? A party can decide which women candidate  can contest and if these members are so concerned about the particular sect , let them field all the 33% with their favourites!! who on earth is stopping them. Second(Actually this is should be first) question is does each party have some many ABLE(note this is bold) women candidates to field. I am not sure if this is really necessary. My opinion is India should be reservation free and the competant should make it for any post -any gender or caste...Way to go.

Infosys under bad light ?

The company which was a darling to its employees has become suddenly a villan or atleast show cased by the papers that way. My point is its not all that bad as reported. Ofcourse some policies require tweaking. Companies which have copied these from Infosys now should also revisit the same I guess. In the recent past some new thought provoking moves have led to the wrath of the employees. A framework change is being brought about which may take time to settledown and these reactions are as a result of the same,also because of the serious gaps which were left unnoticed during its implementation. Some serious introspection is currently underway...Waiting for things to change positively !!