Advice on policy loan

BBCWatcher

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
24,518
Reaction score
5,554
No doubt. I agree 5.75% loan interest is not low.
If coverage needed yet facing cash flow issues, may be can keep.
Insurance coverage is needed, but insurance coverage is available through other policies that don't have embedded, high cost loans. This particular policy is sinking under a 5.75%/year embedded loan. This particular policy isn't even much insurance, actually -- and the insurance is fading fast with this high cost loan in the mix.

I don't think there's any way it makes sense to keep this particular policy in these circumstances. The solution is to go buy alternative, more relevant and effective insurance policies first, then put this particular encumbered policy out of its misery, before it causes even more misery.
 
Last edited:

Fishdim

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
158
Reaction score
49
No doubt. I agree 5.75% loan interest is not low.
If coverage needed yet facing cash flow issues, may be can keep. Really need to evaluate against option of term, and needs.
Surrendering would be good if the coverage is no longer required.

Actually I did think of keeping it and just let it run. But if there's a claim in the future, whatever loan amt will be deducted from the claim.

Base on the latest benefit illustration:
By age 65: outstanding loan is $104844, NET death benefit is $131825, Net surrender value is $36971, paying a premium of $25740 ($165/mth x 13yrs).

On top of that, the guaranteed gross surrender (currently is at about $30k) of my policy is less than total amt of the outstanding loan, my policy run a risk of being terminated if there is a bonus revision.

I did a check on compare first, the cheapest term plan from GE cost less than $700/year for sum assured of $100K for 13 yrs. (I couldn't decide whether to add CI, any thoughts?)

So I think it make sense to pull the plug now, take the $12k to pay off my other debts and start afresh.
 

ikilledbarbie

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
13,705
Reaction score
0
Slightly out of topic but -

When is then a whole life plan favourable over term life?

I have a term life plan with coverage up till an age (65 iirc?) where I think my future dependents may not even be dependents any longer so I think I am sufficiently covered
 

Mecisteus

Great Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
55,751
Reaction score
12,229
No doubt. I agree 5.75% loan interest is not low.
If coverage needed yet facing cash flow issues, may be can keep. Really need to evaluate against option of term, and needs.
Surrendering would be good if the coverage is no longer required.

You can still keep the coverage without the policy loan.

There are other lower rate loan options.
 

Mecisteus

Great Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
55,751
Reaction score
12,229
Slightly out of topic but -

When is then a whole life plan favourable over term life?

I have a term life plan with coverage up till an age (65 iirc?) where I think my future dependents may not even be dependents any longer so I think I am sufficiently covered

When you live till 120 years and you still have dependents at that age. :s13:

On a serious note, WL policy is just a term insurance + savings plan.

It is just a money making machine for the agents and insurance companies.
 

BBCWatcher

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
24,518
Reaction score
5,554
When is then a whole life plan favourable over term life?

On a serious note, WL policy is just a term insurance + savings plan.
I fundamentally agree with Mike here, but I can think of a small number of reasons why a whole life insurance policy might make some financial sense (in no particular order):

1. In some jurisdictions there may be tax-related reasons favoring a whole life insurance policy. It might be a way to pay executives higher compensation in a more tax efficient way, for example. As another example, it might be useful to pay estate or inheritance tax. I don't think tax-related reasons apply much in Singapore, though.

2. Whole life insurance might be a type of asset that's better protected against creditors and court judgments in certain jurisdictions.

3. In low life expectancy countries whole life insurance might be virtually indistinguishable from term life insurance in terms of premium, and whole life insurance ends up being the more competitive market segment.

4. When there's a predictably permanent (or near permanent) dependency. For example, if you provide valuable volunteer service to a charity that would be hard or impossible to replace except with paid help, and if you want the charity to endure, then you might get whole life insurance with the charity named as the beneficiary. (However, I think the generally better way to handle this is to get enough longevity insurance then endow the charity with all the rest of your wealth as soon as you can.)

5. You either don't save without the "threat" of a premium bill, or you don't know how to invest prudently, or both. In that case, even a very high cost savings vehicle (a whole life insurance policy) might be better than nothing.

6. You've got a family member who sells insurance, the family member isn't doing well financially, you want to help that family member out, and either or both of you have some issues helping each other out straightforwardly. In that case you might buy a whole life insurance policy you wouldn't and shouldn't ordinarily buy that ends up generating a commission for your family member. It's a very inefficient way to deliver needed help (the insurance company gets a big cut), but maybe it's the best you can do.

7. You want to transfer wealth to a child, grandchild, or other younger person, but you want to do it in a way that maintains the illusion your gift recipient is less wealthy than he/she actually is. You want to do this so that your gift recipient still qualifies for need-based university scholarships, housing grants, and other benefits. A whole life insurance policy might work in this situation depending on how the financial need calculation works.
 

Mecisteus

Great Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
55,751
Reaction score
12,229
5. You either don't save without the "threat" of a premium bill, or you don't know how to invest prudently, or both. In that case, even a very high cost savings vehicle (a whole life insurance policy) might be better than nothing.

6. You've got a family member who sells insurance, the family member isn't doing well financially, you want to help that family member out, and either or both of you have some issues helping each other out straightforwardly. In that case you might buy a whole life insurance policy you wouldn't and shouldn't ordinarily buy that ends up generating a commission for your family member. It's a very inefficient way to deliver needed help (the insurance company gets a big cut), but maybe it's the best you can do.

In SG, (5) and (6) which includes friends are the common reasons.
 

BBCWatcher

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
24,518
Reaction score
5,554
In SG, (5) and (6) which includes friends are the common reasons.
Yes, it's sad that it happens, but it happens. There are so many people afraid to ask for help, and so often when they don't ask for help early enough they and their friends and family end up deeply harmed.

Please try to avoid these perverse behaviors.
 

ikilledbarbie

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
13,705
Reaction score
0
I fundamentally agree with Mike here, but I can think of a small number of reasons why a whole life insurance policy might make some financial sense (in no particular order):

1. In some jurisdictions there may be tax-related reasons favoring a whole life insurance policy. It might be a way to pay executives higher compensation in a more tax efficient way, for example. As another example, it might be useful to pay estate or inheritance tax. I don't think tax-related reasons apply much in Singapore, though.

2. Whole life insurance might be a type of asset that's better protected against creditors and court judgments in certain jurisdictions.

3. In low life expectancy countries whole life insurance might be virtually indistinguishable from term life insurance in terms of premium, and whole life insurance ends up being the more competitive market segment.

4. When there's a predictably permanent (or near permanent) dependency. For example, if you provide valuable volunteer service to a charity that would be hard or impossible to replace except with paid help, and if you want the charity to endure, then you might get whole life insurance with the charity named as the beneficiary. (However, I think the generally better way to handle this is to get enough longevity insurance then endow the charity with all the rest of your wealth as soon as you can.)

5. You either don't save without the "threat" of a premium bill, or you don't know how to invest prudently, or both. In that case, even a very high cost savings vehicle (a whole life insurance policy) might be better than nothing.

6. You've got a family member who sells insurance, the family member isn't doing well financially, you want to help that family member out, and either or both of you have some issues helping each other out straightforwardly. In that case you might buy a whole life insurance policy you wouldn't and shouldn't ordinarily buy that ends up generating a commission for your family member. It's a very inefficient way to deliver needed help (the insurance company gets a big cut), but maybe it's the best you can do.

7. You want to transfer wealth to a child, grandchild, or other younger person, but you want to do it in a way that maintains the illusion your gift recipient is less wealthy than he/she actually is. You want to do this so that your gift recipient still qualifies for need-based university scholarships, housing grants, and other benefits. A whole life insurance policy might work in this situation depending on how the financial need calculation works.

Oohh thanks for the breakdown. Just thought of one more, fully paid whole life or universal life can even be provided to the bank for equity release purposes too I believe!
 

BBCWatcher

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
24,518
Reaction score
5,554
Just thought of one more, fully paid whole life or universal life can even be provided to the bank for equity release purposes too I believe!
Maybe, but that's not a great or unique reason to buy whole or universal life insurance. It's something of an anti-reason, actually. Many other assets can serve as collateral and are more liquid in more granular ways, and you'll end up with more/bigger other assets when you save and invest rather than pay higher premiums.
 

skyfpdotcom

Junior Member
Joined
May 30, 2016
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Actually I did think of keeping it and just let it run. But if there's a claim in the future, whatever loan amt will be deducted from the claim.

Base on the latest benefit illustration:
By age 65: outstanding loan is $104844, NET death benefit is $131825, Net surrender value is $36971, paying a premium of $25740 ($165/mth x 13yrs).

On top of that, the guaranteed gross surrender (currently is at about $30k) of my policy is less than total amt of the outstanding loan, my policy run a risk of being terminated if there is a bonus revision.

I did a check on compare first, the cheapest term plan from GE cost less than $700/year for sum assured of $100K for 13 yrs. (I couldn't decide whether to add CI, any thoughts?)

So I think it make sense to pull the plug now, take the $12k to pay off my other debts and start afresh.
13 years is too long to keep, especially since the loan amount actually doubles.
Previously, I assume you are not able to continue servicing the monthly premium of 165.

Now that I better understand the scenario, assuming you want to continue paying 165/mth, it is not cost effective, paying $25740 ($165/mth x 13yrs), to increase net surrender value from 12k (now) to 36k (age 65).

As a reference, 52yo, F, non smoker, 100k sum assured for till age 65 only cost ~300 per year.

The priority for the 12k should be used to repay the 5k balance transfer. Also you may want to consider a valuation to see if able to obtain a higher price.
 
Last edited:

Fishdim

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
158
Reaction score
49
13 years is too long to keep, especially since the loan amount actually doubles.
Previously, I assume you are not able to continue servicing the monthly premium of 165.

Now that I better understand the scenario, assuming you want to continue paying 165/mth, it is not cost effective, paying $25740 ($165/mth x 13yrs), to increase net surrender value from 12k (now) to 36k (age 65).

As a reference, 52yo, F, non smoker, 100k sum assured for till age 65 only cost ~300 per year.

The priority for the 12k should be used to repay the 5k balance transfer. Also you may want to consider a valuation to see if able to obtain a higher price.

I have also considered getting a valuation but change my mind. It feels kind of weird that other not related person benefits from my death.
 

Fishdim

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
158
Reaction score
49
I've checked that my AIA Max B plan does not have a rider. I think I did not purchase the rider previously is because I have to pay cash for it. Is it advisable to purchase a rider?
 

BBCWatcher

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
24,518
Reaction score
5,554
I've checked that my AIA Max B plan does not have a rider. I think I did not purchase the rider previously is because I have to pay cash for it. Is it advisable to purchase a rider?
It’s not as important as the term life insurance and DII you need, but I think there’s a reasonable argument in favor of it after that.
 
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ Forums. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts. Please refer to our Community Guidelines and Standards and Terms and Conditions for more information.
Top