Insurance review

lyndonmaxewell

Master Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
2,731
Reaction score
8
Male non-smoker ANB 36. 1 dependent 1 outstanding $600k housing loan. The below is what I have. Am I adequately covered or what should I improve on?. No endownment, no whole life, no annunity and such.


AVIVA MyShield Plan 1 + MyHealth Plus Optionc A
AVIVA IdealIncome $4k till 65
AVIVA My MultiPay Critical Illness Plan III $100k till 75
AVIVA MyFamilyCover Plan 1 till 65
Sompo PA Star Standard till 85
AVIVA GTL Insurance $250,000 till 65
DIRECT - Etiqa Term Life $400,000 till 65

Thanks!
 

babyjyo

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
310
Reaction score
50
Male non-smoker ANB 36. 1 dependent 1 outstanding $600k housing loan. The below is what I have. Am I adequately covered or what should I improve on?. No endownment, no whole life, no annunity and such.


AVIVA MyShield Plan 1 + MyHealth Plus Optionc A
AVIVA IdealIncome $4k till 65
AVIVA My MultiPay Critical Illness Plan III $100k till 75
AVIVA MyFamilyCover Plan 1 till 65
Sompo PA Star Standard till 85
AVIVA GTL Insurance $250,000 till 65
DIRECT - Etiqa Term Life $400,000 till 65

Thanks!

On whether it is sufficient, it would also depends on the current situation, current needs and future plans/objectives. However, in general, you have you seem to have already covered the key areas of life, TPD, critical illness, hospitalization, and personal accident.

in general, may I know the reason for taking the 2 term life insurances? You seem to have quite high coverage. And any reasons in not taking whole life insurance plans?
 

BBCWatcher

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
24,510
Reaction score
5,551
And any reasons in not taking whole life insurance plans?
Do you really have to ask that question? ;)

To answer the original poster's question, if anything you're over-insured as a generalization, but a couple comments from me....

AVIVA MyShield Plan 1 + MyHealth Plus Optionc A
This is quite lavish coverage, and you should expect medical inflation plus age rating to spike these premiums rather aggressively. Plan 2 (public hospital A ward coverage) and Plan 3 (public hospital B1 ward coverage) are available options that are more affordable now and that should experience more moderate medical inflation going forward. They're not the best such Integrated Shield plans in their categories (Prudential wins for public hospital A ward coverage, and Great Eastern wins for public hospital B1 ward coverage, in my view), but they're available and without any new pre-existing condition coverage exclusions when you switch. (If you want to make a carrier switch and have no pre-existing condition limitations, now's the time to do it, I'd say.) There are corresponding riders available for Plan 2 and Plan 3 as well. When the new riders come out (that are not "zero dollar" riders), I would certainly consider them for their premium savings.

AVIVA IdealIncome $4k till 65
Bravo. Just keep tabs on this coverage to make sure that $4K/month is enough. It might not be in the future as inflation decreases the real value of that $4K, although Aviva's 3%/year escalating payout option helps address that problem to some extent (although not the starting payout amount) and your own wealth accumulation should help, too. Choose (or change to) the longest deferment period available for premium efficiency. (Your emergency reserve fund should be more than enough to tide you over.)

If you are ever considering a stint working outside Singapore, pay close attention to whether Aviva will continue to cover you under IdealIncome.

AVIVA My MultiPay Critical Illness Plan III $100k till 75
"Eh." A $100K payment for "winning" the cancer lottery isn't so exciting.

AVIVA MyFamilyCover Plan 1 till 65
This one is a bit weird. It's basically term life insurance combined with term critical illness insurance, but with the payouts structured as monthly for a maximum of 10 years (or to the end of the term, whichever is shorter). It answers the question "What if I don't trust my survivors to manage a lump sum payout in the event of my untimely demise? (Or what if I don't trust myself to manage a lump sum if I get a 'lottery' critical illness that happens to be listed in the policy?") But 10 years (or less) is weird. The coverage itself is redundant to your life insurance and critical illness insurance. So basically you've added this policy to add monthly payouts for up to 10 years in the event one or more of the named risks befalls you. It's a little weird, but OK, if you or your survivor is really awful at managing money (and cannot even follow your careful instructions to buy her/himself a life annuity with insurance proceeds, for example), then OK I guess. Or maybe the premium works out to be more powerful/effective if you structure payouts this way (lump sum plus monthly), although the immediate cessation of payouts at age 65 is still weird. Even if you decide to keep this one that feature alone means you should drop this policy as you get closer to age 65. You probably wouldn't want to hang onto this policy (if you're paying premiums) as long as age 64, for example.

Sompo PA Star Standard till 85
"Eh." The most this policy could ever pay is $100,000, and you've got to be dead for that to happen, meaning your life insurance is going to pay out anyway. Unless you're thinking of the age 65 to age 85 part? ("My dear husband is dead! Oh no! By the way, how'd he die? You say he got run over by a bus? Hooray!") It's really ridiculous. There are far better ways to spend that $101.65/year (or higher) premium.

It looks like bad/defective term life insurance, mostly. I cannot figure out why you'd buy such a policy, or why anyone would, really. Let me take a quick look here.... Yes, you can buy $100,000 of additional term life insurance coverage with a 20 year term for less than this policy costs, and that pays out no matter why you die (not just for "accident" reasons), with only the usual/typical exclusions such as suicide. Unless you so highly value the $50/day of hospitalization benefit? But, come on, and your Integrated Shield rider does better than that if you voluntary downgrade one hospital ward class.

I don't understand this one at all. It looks dreadful to me.

AVIVA GTL Insurance $250,000 till 65
DIRECT - Etiqa Term Life $400,000 till 65
That's $650,000 of term life insurance, and that's rather good. It's more than enough to retire your outstanding mortgage if your survivor wants to do that, plus your survivor inherits your CPF savings and other assets (I assume).

Conceivably, probably, you could drop one or the other as your wealth accumulates. For example, if at age 50 your outstanding mortgage is $300,000 and your non-housing wealth has grown by $200,000, then maybe you drop the (likely more expensive) Etiqa coverage and just hang onto the Aviva group coverage. So this helps to answer the question why you'd have two policies from two different carriers. Another reason is that $400,000 is the maximum available under direct purchase, and the group policy is likely a great value, so you ended up with both. Nothing wrong with that at all -- very well played, I'd say.

How is your dependent (spouse or partner, I assume) insured? Is she/he working?

If you venture outside Singapore, then travel medical insurance is important. I presently like Bupa's "basic" annual plan which puts locally issued policies to shame, at least if you venture outside Singapore more than once or twice a year. You can buy it online, and the lowest cost is direct from their Web site, in British pounds, and with a coupon code (easy to find if you search). Includes unlimited emergency medical, medical evacuation, and medical repatriation coverage worldwide for trips of up to 45 days, and with very few activity exclusions. Good stuff.
 
Last edited:

dexboi

Supremacy Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
5,514
Reaction score
1,850
in general, may I know the reason for taking the 2 term life insurances? You seem to have quite high coverage. And any reasons in not taking whole life insurance plans?

I LOLed when i read this. I suppose TS bought another Term to supplement SAF GTL - which is good & just right, but you consider HIGH? :s22::s22::s22:
 

BBCWatcher

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
24,510
Reaction score
5,551
I suppose TS bought another Term to supplement SAF GTL - which is good & just right....
It's very, very common to have a couple term life insurance policies, especially in this sort of combination.

As yet another reason, there's a limit to Policy Owners' Protection Scheme coverage in Singapore, and so many people will prudently split their insurance coverages such that they fit within, or at least get closer to fitting within, the Scheme coverage limits. It is possible for insurers to become insolvent. Unlikely, but possible. So, that's yet another reason to split coverage.
 

BBCWatcher

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
24,510
Reaction score
5,551
Conceivably, probably, you could drop one or the other as your wealth accumulates. For example, if at age 50 your outstanding mortgage is $300,000 and your non-housing wealth has grown by $200,000, then maybe you drop the (likely more expensive) Etiqa coverage and just hang onto the Aviva group coverage.
If you like this idea -- and it does make logical sense -- then one possibility is to change your Etiqa coverage from $400,000 term to age 65 to $400,000 with a 20 year term (to age 56). Let me take a quick look at the current premium difference....

....Yes, it looks like that approach would save roughly $180/year in premiums. You could do that, if you wish -- to ratchet down your life insurance coverage automatically as you age and, presumably, build up wealth and pay down your mortgage along the way such that your life insurance needs are reduced. You have to be a little careful about that, to be well defended during a "linger" phase if you develop a disability, but your disability income insurance coverage is quite helpful on that point. Also, if you're planning a family (children), then ordinarily your life insurance needs increase for about 20 to 25 years, so you'd toss that consideration into your overall calculus.
 

lyndonmaxewell

Master Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
2,731
Reaction score
8
On whether it is sufficient, it would also depends on the current situation, current needs and future plans/objectives. However, in general, you have you seem to have already covered the key areas of life, TPD, critical illness, hospitalization, and personal accident.

in general, may I know the reason for taking the 2 term life insurances? You seem to have quite high coverage. And any reasons in not taking whole life insurance plans?

2 term plans are to effectively cover my $600,000 mortgage loan. I don't think it is high nor unreasonable? Whole life is not cost-effective at my age. Moreover, it sapps too much premiums out of monthly salary.
 

lyndonmaxewell

Master Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
2,731
Reaction score
8
This is quite lavish coverage, and you should expect medical inflation plus age rating to spike these premiums rather aggressively. Plan 2 (public hospital A ward coverage) and Plan 3 (public hospital B1 ward coverage) are available options that are more affordable now and that should experience more moderate medical inflation going forward. They're not the best such Integrated Shield plans in their categories (Prudential wins for public hospital A ward coverage, and Great Eastern wins for public hospital B1 ward coverage, in my view), but they're available and without any new pre-existing condition coverage exclusions when you switch. (If you want to make a carrier switch and have no pre-existing condition limitations, now's the time to do it, I'd say.) There are corresponding riders available for Plan 2 and Plan 3 as well. When the new riders come out (that are not "zero dollar" riders), I would certainly consider them for their premium savings.

You are right. But I have pre-existing before I signed up for Aviva Memortorium writing. I didn't have a Shield plan for a good 35 years of my life. Will keep Plan 2 in consideration for downgrade as I do note the large increase once hit >60 years.


"Eh." A $100K payment for "winning" the cancer lottery isn't so exciting.
This is the only ECI/CI plan that I had included after covering my bases. Would it be advised to lower the cover to $50K (to half the premiums) or to remove the standalone policy?


This one is a bit weird. It's basically term life insurance combined with term critical illness insurance, but with the payouts structured as monthly for a maximum of 10 years (or to the end of the term, whichever is shorter). It answers the question "What if I don't trust my survivors to manage a lump sum payout in the event of my untimely demise? (Or what if I don't trust myself to manage a lump sum if I get a 'lottery' critical illness that happens to be listed in the policy?") But 10 years (or less) is weird. The coverage itself is redundant to your life insurance and critical illness insurance. So basically you've added this policy to add monthly payouts for up to 10 years in the event one or more of the named risks befalls you. It's a little weird, but OK, if you or your survivor is really awful at managing money (and cannot even follow your careful instructions to buy her/himself a life annuity with insurance proceeds, for example), then OK I guess. Or maybe the premium works out to be more powerful/effective if you structure payouts this way (lump sum plus monthly), although the immediate cessation of payouts at age 65 is still weird. Even if you decide to keep this one that feature alone means you should drop this policy as you get closer to age 65. You probably wouldn't want to hang onto this policy (if you're paying premiums) as long as age 64, for example.

In a way that is true. Sometimes its true that people find it harder to handle lump sum lottery as compared to regular dished-out income. This plan came about to complement DII should I be unable to work for far worst reasons.


"Eh." The most this policy could ever pay is $100,000, and you've got to be dead for that to happen, meaning your life insurance is going to pay out anyway. Unless you're thinking of the age 65 to age 85 part? ("My dear husband is dead! Oh no! By the way, how'd he die? You say he got run over by a bus? Hooray!") It's really ridiculous. There are far better ways to spend that $101.65/year (or higher) premium.

It looks like bad/defective term life insurance, mostly. I cannot figure out why you'd buy such a policy, or why anyone would, really. Let me take a quick look here.... Yes, you can buy $100,000 of additional term life insurance coverage with a 20 year term for less than this policy costs, and that pays out no matter why you die (not just for "accident" reasons), with only the usual/typical exclusions such as suicide. Unless you so highly value the $50/day of hospitalization benefit? But, come on, and your Integrated Shield rider does better than that if you voluntary downgrade one hospital ward class.

I don't understand this one at all. It looks dreadful to me.


The accident plan was such that if me and my spouse was covered, child was covered till age 25 (full time tertiary). Less about the death benefits but more on the coverage for outpatient accident, Infectious Disease, food poisoning, HFMD, TCM treatment.


Appreciated your inputs!
 

lyndonmaxewell

Master Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
2,731
Reaction score
8
I LOLed when i read this. I suppose TS bought another Term to supplement SAF GTL - which is good & just right, but you consider HIGH? :s22::s22::s22:

Yup I did careful consideration that SAF GTL first $250k covers pre-existing claims after (12 months), and moreover not that good to take on much more than $200,000 as it will take several years to distribute the rest of the monies. (e.g. $800k out of your $1M Sum Assured dished out over a few years).

400k dpi was the cheapest and best term coverage that suits me just nice.
 

lyndonmaxewell

Master Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
2,731
Reaction score
8
It's very, very common to have a couple term life insurance policies, especially in this sort of combination.

As yet another reason, there's a limit to Policy Owners' Protection Scheme coverage in Singapore, and so many people will prudently split their insurance coverages such that they fit within, or at least get closer to fitting within, the Scheme coverage limits. It is possible for insurers to become insolvent. Unlikely, but possible. So, that's yet another reason to split coverage.

That is correct. Which is why I will not trust to put up say $1M on just one provider.
 

lyndonmaxewell

Master Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
2,731
Reaction score
8
If you like this idea -- and it does make logical sense -- then one possibility is to change your Etiqa coverage from $400,000 term to age 65 to $400,000 with a 20 year term (to age 56). Let me take a quick look at the current premium difference....

....Yes, it looks like that approach would save roughly $180/year in premiums. You could do that, if you wish -- to ratchet down your life insurance coverage automatically as you age and, presumably, build up wealth and pay down your mortgage along the way such that your life insurance needs are reduced. You have to be a little careful about that, to be well defended during a "linger" phase if you develop a disability, but your disability income insurance coverage is quite helpful on that point. Also, if you're planning a family (children), then ordinarily your life insurance needs increase for about 20 to 25 years, so you'd toss that consideration into your overall calculus.

You have a point. I only know it is possible to reduce Sum Assured. Is it possible to change the term under the same policy number? Would need to find out if it is without cost.
 

BBCWatcher

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
24,510
Reaction score
5,551
But I have pre-existing before I signed up for Aviva Memortorium writing. I didn't have a Shield plan for a good 35 years of my life. Will keep Plan 2 in consideration for downgrade as I do note the large increase once hit >60 years.
If you're thinking of "downgrading" in the future, why not downgrade now and put the premium dollars you save to better, more productive use? Let me take a quick look here....

OK, Plan 1 is currently $380.00/year at age 36 plus another $129.00/year for the Option A Plan 1 rider. Plan 2 drops those figures to $162.21 and $63.00, respectively, for a premium savings of $283.79/year per person. That's not nothing. It seems kind of weird to me to ride along with private hospital coverage for 20+ years (or whatever), and pay for it, then drop to public hospital coverage in the years when you might actually check into a hospital. Plow the premium savings into Medisave and/or other forms of savings/investment, and you've got that much more financial means to afford maintaining public hospital A ward (single bed ward) coverage for the rest of your lives.

There are some caveats here, though. If you think you might need a lot of outpatient care (particularly private), and if you think you can cope with private medical provider inflation (and associated blowback into insurance premiums), then Aviva seems to have slightly better outpatient coverage in Plan 1 for pre-/post-hospitalization related care, in certain conditions. But that's a mighty tough needle to thread, and those premium savings would support an awful lot of outpatient care, especially over time.

If the other members of your household don't have pre-existing condition issues, then they could be switched. Although I'm guessing you find the "free kid" coverage from Aviva at least somewhat interesting. (I think Aviva is the one that offers that.) But do the math and see what makes sense both from a premium and coverage point of view. As I mentioned, I currently like Prudential's public hospital A ward plan, with one caveat: they don't offer an "as charged" public hospital B1 ward plan as a downgrade option, only a Standard Plan. Great Eastern's public hospital "as charged" B1 ward plan is my current favorite in that category, and their public hospital A ward plan is probably second best to Prudential's.

The accident plan was such that if me and my spouse was covered, child was covered till age 25 (full time tertiary). Less about the death benefits but more on the coverage for outpatient accident, Infectious Disease, food poisoning, HFMD, TCM treatment.
That's a motley assortment of random limited coverages, isn't it? [And HFMD, seriously? ;)]

There's a "rule of thumb" that if an insurance policy spends a huge amount of time and text to tell you what it does cover, then it really doesn't cover much. It's the difference between "named risks" and "all risks," if boiled down to its essence. As an insurance consumer you generally want to lean heaviest on the "all risks" stuff (though still prudently) and lightest (or not at all) on the "named risks" stuff. Insurance carriers often try to steer you in the opposite direction, of course.

That said, DII coverage isn't really available to non-workers, so that makes covering your other family members' genuine risks (that you cannot reasonably handle yourself) in a reasonable, prudent way a tougher problem to solve since they don't have that particular excellent tool available. The forthcoming (~2019) CareShield Life, plus likely supplements, should help a little but still doesn't help insure those under age 30.
 

lyndonmaxewell

Master Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
2,731
Reaction score
8
Awesome. Thanks for the coverage as we had gone beyond the pros and cons of the products which agents keep focusing on.
 
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