PRUDENTIAL SAVINGS SAGA

[Bigoya]

How much does it cost the company to print additional 1 or 2 pages of risk clauses? I think these 1 or 2 pages is definitely more important than 4-5 pages of BI which may or may not materialize. And these 1 or 2 pages of black and white agreement can lessen alot of unnecessary disputes and resources. I don't think any insurers will want to incur additional expenses on legal cases as well as repair their tarnished image because of black sheeps in their company.

Perhaps you can carry out a street survey with door gifts to ask the general public (those who own endowment plan) if they know their endowment policy may results in no gain at all or losses because of the participating fund. And also ask them if they know what the protection riders can have impact on their policy returns. The answer is pretty straightforward.

Just a thought then randomly flash through my mind:

We all know (most likely) how big insurers like to sell their projected returns.
P for eg, they will go "Mr Client, it is important and I have the obligation to hi-light these risk to you big big that this is a long term policy which requires you to commit for 20 years, the returns could result in no profit or even a loss at the end of the 20 year period.
We are the only company that have achieved AA rating, this comparison chart is done by wen consulting u can see we have the most reserved funds to sooth out bonuses compared to the other players. since we are so strong, most of the time the company have no problem paying out the projected bonuses. We are a big and reliable company for a reason, would you agree Mr Client?"
Now all u need is a chio agent to smile smile a bit and we could sail on to the next page with small small normal sized wordings.

A good salesmen can cover big big words like this really easily. If they can sell, even if it's an outright scam, they will be able to sell too. They say the best salesmen are scamers.

Anyway, back to the pointn, now we have printed big big words as sugested by Perisher. Can the consumers still feel they have been taken for a ride? Absolutely.
Now they will argue what kind of good impression abt the big company they have been missold 20 yrs ago.
Next time we will still argue what's the point of printing big big words when a salesman could easily mask the effect of it.

Prsonally I don't think printing big words can solve the issue.
Words carry no weight on its own regardless its font size.
It is emotions that overrides everything.
Consumers should still do their own independant due deligience.

Instead of big big words, we still need someone honest and ethical to sell the product in a serious and proper manner rather than smiling pretty agents.

Feel free to disagree.

 

[bibu00]

How are you guys even able to tahan 10 pages x50threads of arguing with those insurance dogs and not get tired.
I'm getting tired after my endowment thread. There's no Way, no absolute way you can "win" or get your point across.

Why?

If you manage to get your point across to their heads, they will starve and die on the streets. Because inside their heart, they know they have no value to any productive industry. Deception is the way forward for them to keep themself alive.
They need to believe that the endowment works, the Ilp works, to convince and confuse potential clients that it works, so that they can keep their pathetic heart beating.

If they accept shiny things book, or all logical point brought across,they must convince them self that it's lies. Because it's their job, and they have a family and car to feed.

you are on the losing end, because the time you spend on arguing is time taken away from productive work, family, and social life. But the time they spend arguing and convincing people is money in their pocket.

Mod should just consolidate all the btitr thread and let the agents ownself lick ownself backsides. That's what dogs do in the wild too.

 

[Perisher]

Just a thought then randomly flash through my mind:

We all know (most likely) how big insurers like to sell their projected returns.
P for eg, they will go "Mr Client, it is important and I have the obligation to hi-light these risk to you big big that this is a long term policy which requires you to commit for 20 years, the returns could result in no profit or even a loss at the end of the 20 year period.
We are the only company that have achieved AA rating, this comparison chart is done by wen consulting u can see we have the most reserved funds to sooth out bonuses compared to the other players. since we are so strong, most of the time the company have no problem paying out the projected bonuses. We are a big and reliable company for a reason, would you agree Mr Client?"
Now all u need is a chio agent to smile smile a bit and we could sail on to the next page with small small normal sized wordings.

A good salesmen can cover big big words like this really easily. If they can sell, even if it's an outright scam, they will be able to sell too. They say the best salesmen are scamers.

Anyway, back to the pointn, now we have printed big big words as sugested by Perisher. Can the consumers still feel they have been taken for a ride? Absolutely.
Now they will argue what kind of good impression abt the big company they have been missold 20 yrs ago.
Next time we will still argue what's the point of printing big big words when a salesman could easily mask the effect of it.

Prsonally I don't think printing big words can solve the issue.
Words carry no weight on its own regardless its font size.
It is emotions that overrides everything.
Consumers should still do their own independant due deligience.

Instead of big big words, we still need someone honest and ethical to sell the product in a serious and proper manner rather than smiling pretty agents.

Feel free to disagree.

If you think it won't work but instead thinks that solely depending on someone honest and ethical can work, I can only roll eyes. We have been depending on these agents for decades, and still we see tons of such articles and news coming out about insurance policies issues. Don't you think somethings need to be changed?

Do you know those big big but simple words can prevent tons of controversies?

How to mask it when it's on the first page staring right at you?
Most people won't bring out a policy and argue they didn't get their promised returns when the first page already states it might be no gains at all.

It's just like in this case, people bring out that on maturity they would receive $42k. Don't you see it?

Simple words work. It's why you don't see lines of codes on screen which nobody understand but a UI that is understood at a glance.

 

[Perisher]

Totally not trolling although it seems pretty much like it.

Today we can hilight big big about the potential losses because this is the current concern. But it the future another saga come say agent told him can claim but end up insurer say cannot claim then how?

Then u will also come out with a 2nd paragraph of big big words which eventually wouldda look something like mine.

Don't trust agent's words alone, the entire policy have important stuff which no particular detail is more important than the otther, every point has its significance. You did recommand agent to go through every line of the product summary and BI to the client too instead of picking points.

Don't you see? This endowment policy is sold as a 'wealth accumulation' policy? Thus the most important point to get across is that we get some form of wealth returns? Thus the only thing that needs to be print big on the front first page is that.

How can a wealth accumulation policy has no particular detail more important than other details? Are you sure you understand your endowment policies? If everything is equally important, then the agent would need to go through every single word on the policy? How is that even possible?

There is always something more important than others on any policies to begin with.

 

[dendii]

I kind of lost track what is the discussion about now but I still don't understand what the argument is on.

If it is about better alternatives than endowment, it is fairly straightforward that there are so many other instruments to achieve better returns I am sure we all agree?

Keeping protection as protection, savings as savings, investments as investments.

Non-guaranteed capital endowments is definitely a no go. But capital guaranteed endowments till maturity still suits certain individuals who just cant save on their own. To them, forced saving is the only reason they get an endowment because at the end of the day, if they dont, they probably just won't have anything at all.

How are you guys even able to tahan 10 pages x50threads of arguing with those insurance dogs and not get tired.
I'm getting tired after my endowment thread. There's no Way, no absolute way you can "win" or get your point across.

Why?

If you manage to get your point across to their heads, they will starve and die on the streets. Because inside their heart, they know they have no value to any productive industry. Deception is the way forward for them to keep themself alive.
They need to believe that the endowment works, the Ilp works, to convince and confuse potential clients that it works, so that they can keep their pathetic heart beating.

If they accept shiny things book, or all logical point brought across,they must convince them self that it's lies. Because it's their job, and they have a family and car to feed.

you are on the losing end, because the time you spend on arguing is time taken away from productive work, family, and social life. But the time they spend arguing and convincing people is money in their pocket.

Mod should just consolidate all the btitr thread and let the agents ownself lick ownself backsides. That's what dogs do in the wild too.

 

[Perisher]

I still don't understand what the argument is about.

If it is about better alternatives than endowment, it is fairly straightforward that there are so many other instruments to achieve better returns I am sure we all agree?

Keeping protection as protection, savings as savings, investments as investments.

Non-guaranteed capital endowments is definitely a no go. But capital guaranteed endowments till maturity still suits certain individuals who just cant save on their own. To them, forced saving is the only reason they get an endowment because at the end of the day, if they dont, they probably just won't have anything at all.

Basically about how to avoid such sagas. Insurance are too complex a product. Adding riders complicate it even more. Not to mention that some of the agents here can't even seem to agree if endowment is about savings or protection or a little of everything.

 

[dendii]

Endowment plans aka Saving plans as the name depicts, is about savings.

I think to keep it at its best, no riders should be added but sometimes, people are unable to let go of the emotional idea that if something happens, they still need to put aside money to save.

Key thing here is that one needs to take note of the premium amount and what are the riders that are being added.

This Prudential saga is too much because one is essentially "saving" $1337.50 per year. But guess what, only $836 actually goes to the actual savings portion. That means a whooping 40% of your premium is going into protection elements. A $400-$500 premium difference can already get you a decent term protection.

Basically about how to avoid such sagas. Insurance are too complex a product. Adding riders complicate it even more. Not to mention that some of the agents here can't even seem to agree if endowment is about savings or protection or a little of everything.

 

[Perisher]

Endowment plans aka Saving plans as the name depicts, is about savings.

I think to keep it at its best, no riders should be added but sometimes, people are unable to let go of the emotional idea that if something happens, they still need to put aside money to save.

Key thing here is that one needs to take note of the premium amount and what are the riders that are being added.

This Prudential saga is too much because one is essentially "saving" $1337.50 per year. But guess what, only $836 actually goes to the actual savings portion. That means a whooping 40% of your premium is going into protection elements. A $400-$500 premium difference can already get you a decent term protection.

Ya, the thing is why that person got misled into thinking that way.
Some people, even if you explain a thousand times, they also can't understand such complex products. Over decades, they would think they should be getting something substantial back. At least more than they put in.

Savings+some form of returns is what most of them wants for putting in for 20+ years. It's simple enough to understand that right?

I agree those riders are taking out too much that deviate far away from the 'savings' this endowment is suppose to do.

 

[dendii]

Agree. Over the decades, whatever that was discussed has probably been long forgotten.

Maybe back then the agent did explained the use of the rider itself, although in this case I am pretty sure the agent didnt because the rider constitutes too huge a portion of the premium.

This is why yearly reviews of your insurance coverage is necessary.

1) To keep you informed of what you got
2) To review your coverage and any potential changes
3) To review your wealth accumulation strategy to see if it is working for you

You will be surprised that if one just does not have any interest in investment, even after being taught how to do it in a simple manner, 1-2 years later you still dont see anything that is being done despite being directed how to do so.

For such people as well, maybe an endowment actually works better but that is also why the reviews are necessary.

Ya, the thing is why that person got misled into thinking that way.
Some people, even if you explain a thousand times, they also can't understand such complex products. Over decades, they would think they should be getting something substantial back. At least more than they put in.

Savings+some form of returns is what most of them wants for putting in for 20+ years. It's simple enough to understand that right?

I agree those riders are taking out too much that deviate far away from the 'savings' this endowment is suppose to do.

 

[akwl88]

Agree. Over the decades, whatever that was discussed has probably been long forgotten.

Maybe back then the agent did explained the use of the rider itself, although in this case I am pretty sure the agent didnt because the rider constitutes too huge a portion of the premium.

This is why yearly reviews of your insurance coverage is necessary.

1) To keep you informed of what you got
2) To review your coverage and any potential changes
3) To review your wealth accumulation strategy to see if it is working for you

You will be surprised that if one just does not have any interest in investment, even after being taught how to do it in a simple manner, 1-2 years later you still dont see anything that is being done despite being directed how to do so.

For such people as well, maybe an endowment actually works better but that is also why the reviews are necessary.

Tiagong reviews are sales pitch

Anyway, the policy alr stated on maturity of the policy, the holder will receive 42k

No one seems to talk about this but beat ard the bushes with some calculations and wall of words

 

[dendii]

It is because of such mentality that is why overtime, any idea of what insurance and for what purpose is lost.

If the review really turns out to be a sales pitch, you can also have the right to reject.

That is also a black and white misrepresentation and by that itself, Prudential might really need to do something.

Tiagong reviews are sales pitch

Anyway, the policy alr stated on maturity of the policy, the holder will receive 42k

No one seems to talk about this but beat ard the bushes with some calculations and wall of words

 

[akwl88]

It is because of such mentality that is why overtime, any idea of what insurance and for what purpose is lost.

If the review really turns out to be a sales pitch, you can also have the right to reject.

That is also a black and white misrepresentation and by that itself, Prudential might really need to do something.

Not mentality

Is real life experience

 

[Perisher]

If every year need to spend hours meeting agent, might as well spend some time understanding investment. 2cent.

Then again, if every year need to spend time meeting an agent that misled, what's the point?

If the policy itself has some sort of clear warnings that is easily understood about the policy at hand in a glance, then that should clear up most controversies.

Like ILP/Endowment being sold as investing/savings, thus the most important part is the $$ one gets at the end. If possibility of losing or just pure break-even even after decades, then that should be made plain and direct upfront.
Not like this case where the fb post person obviously thought he was suppose to get more.

For protection/hospitalisation, what is important is another thing.

 

[dendii]

How many times did your agent do one with you?

And actually, you can just reject any potential sales pitches the person is giving you.

I feel if the whole meeting, the agent is only making pitches to you and nothing else, than yes it is a totally waste of time.

But if you gained something from it, or if the agent even becomes a friend, I think that is fine?

Not mentality

Is real life experience

 

[dendii]

That is true as well. Every year also get smoked back

If every year need to spend hours meeting agent, might as well spend some time understanding investment. 2cent.

Then again, if every year need to spend time meeting an agent that misled, what's the point?

If the policy itself has some sort of clear warnings that is easily understood about the policy at hand in a glance, then that should clear up most controversies.

Like ILP/Endowment being sold as investing/savings, thus the most important part is the $$ one gets at the end. If possibility of losing or just pure break-even even after decades, then that should be made plain and direct upfront.
Not like this case where the fb post person obviously thought he was suppose to get more.

For protection/hospitalisation, what is important is another thing.

 

[akwl88]

How many times did your agent do one with you?

And actually, you can just reject any potential sales pitches the person is giving you.

I review myself

 

[dendii]

Than where does your real life experience come from?

However, I think that is the mindset of every one of us though nothing on you. It is just a very natural way of thinking.

It is our job to prove our clients otherwise.

I review myself

 

[akwl88]

Than where does your real life experience come from?

However, I think that is the mindset of every one of us though nothing on you. It is just a very natural way of thinking.

It is our job to prove our clients otherwise.

Erm from my life?

 

[Lewis.T]

Btw has anyone read this post yet?

2) Effective yield of the policy
By taking his basic annual premium of $836 and multiplying it by his premium payment term of 23 years, his total basic premiums paid would be $19,228. Assuming his effective yield is 3.1%, his maturity value would be $28,200 (within the $20k maturity value range that the blog post indicated). Even if his effective yield is 3.4%, his maturity value would still be less than $30,000 (within the $20k maturity value range that the blog post indicated). Why am I using 3.1% or 3.4% as a point of reference? Because I have 7 clients who bought policies of the same name from the same company, between a similar time period of 1992 and 1997, and with similar premium payment and policy terms of 21 to 30 years (refer to the attached Benefit Details and Bonus/Maturity Notice). And their effective yield based on their actual maturity value, and based on their projected maturity value in their last received Bonus Notice in 2016, were in the range of 3.1% to 3.4%.
This means not only did this client not lose money on his $19,228 basic premiums paid, he actually made a profit. But whether this rate is considered high or low for an endowment policy, is open to individual interpretation. All I can say is that it is still higher than the 2.5% that I would receive for the bulk of my main account money in my mandatory pension scheme as a Singaporean.

 

[akwl88]

seems like some pple dont understand this sentence:

ON MATURITY OF THE POLICY YOU WILL RECEIVE $42,000