PRUDENTIAL SAVINGS SAGA

[Lewis.T]

If you want answer regarding why it's trollish, kindly go feedback.

If you want answer for $200/month. That's fair.

The fact that it's trollish and I've received one warning and a certain someone has been doing it for ages but no red card yet? Warning got 100 times before red card or what?

Anyway, in all honesty put your personal grievances aside. You tell me to see things from a neutral standpoint but have you? Recently that has not been the case as far as I can tell.

The views here are extremely pro BTIR with given solutions ES3/G3B and SSB.

Is it not healthy to have an agent's POV without instantly dismissing arguments? I rather you break down my argument and show that your specific solution is better.

Doing so will prove beyond a doubt that there is no need for stuff like endowments, and we can use that template every time someone asks the question should he get an endowment.

I typically don't present arguments when certain people post because I know I won't get the kind of discussion I'm looking for. I am thoroughly disappointed in your conduct; of allowing one sided views to build up to this point where dismissal of arguments and mockery of agents can be the norm.

But whatever, I'm not your boss. I'm only here in my free time to share with people who are willing to see from a different perspective.


Edit: http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/107347926-post33.html
An example.

 

[Perisher]

The fact that it's trollish and I've received one warning and a certain someone has been doing it for ages but no red card yet? Warning got 100 times before red card or what?

Anyway, in all honesty put your personal grievances aside. You tell me to see things from a neutral standpoint but have you? Recently that has not been the case as far as I can tell.

Any such issues should be posted in feedback as mentioned.

The views here are extremely pro BTIR with given solutions ES3/G3B and SSB.

Is it not healthy to have an agent's POV without instantly dismissing arguments? I rather you break down my argument and show that your specific solution is better.

Doing so will prove beyond a doubt that there is no need for stuff like endowments, and we can use that template every time someone asks the question should he get an endowment.

To break it down or not, or even if it's already done or not, is up to the person replying you.

I typically don't present arguments when certain people post because I know I won't get the kind of discussion I'm looking for. I am thoroughly disappointed in your conduct; of allowing one sided views to build up to this point where dismissal of arguments and mockery of agents can be the norm.

Again, bring it to feedback if you think the conduct of the mod is questionable.

 

[havetheveryfun]

Is it not healthy to have an agent's POV without instantly dismissing arguments? I rather you break down my argument and show that your specific solution is better.

Please help us understand why then agents choose to push sub-par products where the capital is non-guaranteed when there are better products like PruWealth around where the capital is guaranteed.

I looked at the product summary for PruWealth and they also use the same 4.75% projected returns, same as a lot of other plans where the guaranteed sum is lesser than the amount of capital put in . http://www.comparefirst.sg/wap/prodSummaryPdf/199002477Z/PRUwealth product summary.pdf

Since PruWealth or other policies project the same returns (4.75%), then obviously the one which guarantees the capital will win hands down everytime right if they are just looking for purely a savings or endowment plan ?

 

[Lewis.T]

Please help us understand why then agents choose to push sub-par products where the capital is non-guaranteed when there are better products like PruWealth around where the capital is guaranteed.

I looked at the product summary for PruWealth and they also use the same 4.75% projected returns, same as a lot of other plans where the guaranteed sum is lesser than the amount of capital put in . http://www.comparefirst.sg/wap/prodSummaryPdf/199002477Z/PRUwealth product summary.pdf

Since PruWealth or other policies project the same returns (4.75%), then obviously the one which guarantees the capital will win hands down everytime right if they are just looking for purely a savings or endowment plan ?

Plans without capital guarantees have a separate function, mostly in the form of flexibility through cashback.

If the person wants to save over the longer term but at the same time wishes to be able to use that money for certain events in life such as childbirth, it is possible. You wouldn't be able to do that with a plan like PruWealth unless it matures.

Personally I present the one with flexibility first, and state that if flexibility is not needed there is one with higher returns and a capital guarantee.

Other agents may differ, I can't speak for all of them.

Also they are not sub par by any means, they are just structured for a different purpose. If the agent sells you something not suited for you it's the agent's fault, not the plan's fault.

 

[havetheveryfun]

Such plans generally has lower commissions compared to those plans commonly pushed around by agents, and it is also tougher to sell to noobcakes like students and army boys since they all like savings plans that can withdraw money one. It's easy to sell to them because they don't know what's guaranteed and non-guaranteed, they only know BI 4.75%

same question to u as in my previous post...

if it is like what you say, pruwealth is hands down the winner everytime and "easy to sell to them" is not a good reason for pushing other sub-par products.. after all as an advisor aren't you supposed to think the best for your client and explain to them properly if they don't understand?

in this case, the guy signed up for riders and he didn't understand what are riders and riders don't go into the policy's value.. why have riders for a purely savings or endowment plan ? just sell them separately, wouldn't it better, less confusion and lesser of these "Sagas"

 

[eboy]

Please help us understand why then agents choose to push sub-par products where the capital is non-guaranteed when there are better products like PruWealth around where the capital is guaranteed.

I looked at the product summary for PruWealth and they also use the same 4.75% projected returns, same as a lot of other plans where the guaranteed sum is lesser than the amount of capital put in . http://www.comparefirst.sg/wap/prodSummaryPdf/199002477Z/PRUwealth product summary.pdf

Since PruWealth or other policies project the same returns (4.75%), then obviously the one which guarantees the capital will win hands down everytime right if they are just looking for purely a savings or endowment plan ?

Wrong overall yield is what you should look for instead of capital guarantee - if u want 100% capital preservation put in FD

And yield is a function of maturity period and the bond/equity mix of the underlying par fund

 

[Bigoya]

The projected values are quite misleading itself. The after reduction in yield is actually the more accurate picture.

Misleading or not depends on your understanding.
Beause I understand what it means, it didn't mislead me.

I was clueless before joining the industry, holding onto ILP and WL myself sold by a chio friend.

But end up after I look through various websites and policies, I slowly figured out on my own what those figures truly meant.

You think my agency taught me this kind of stuff? I thought they would teach me too, but nah. no way.

 

[Bigoya]

Ya, right. Assumptions or reality? Why not you ask him yourself how many cards have I given him so far.
While you are at it, ask how many cards have I gave lewis?

Don't bring in this kind of talk here. If you believe there is something wrong about the moderator, bring it direct to admin or feedback.

hahah okok my bad
But it's a norm ar. People who have bad impressions about insurance also assume all insurance are bad, all agents are bad.
Human nature, but I apologise.

Thank you admin Perisher!

 

[Lewis.T]

hahah okok my bad
But it's a norm ar. People who have bad impressions about insurance also assume all insurance are bad, all agents are bad.
Human nature, but I apologise.

Thank you admin Perisher!

There is a very gross amount of misunderstanding and agent bashing going on, which makes it even harder for genuine people who want clarifications.

This is a forum to gain financial literacy, if you want to bash agents they should be in edmw, I don't give two hoots about what they post there, but when misinformation and negative posts come here we need to take it seriously, lest we become another edmw where misinformation and spreading fear is the norm on hot topics like insurance.

 

[Bigoya]

Please help us understand why then agents choose to push sub-par products where the capital is non-guaranteed when there are better products like PruWealth around where the capital is guaranteed.

I looked at the product summary for PruWealth and they also use the same 4.75% projected returns, same as a lot of other plans where the guaranteed sum is lesser than the amount of capital put in . http://www.comparefirst.sg/wap/prodSummaryPdf/199002477Z/PRUwealth product summary.pdf

Since PruWealth or other policies project the same returns (4.75%), then obviously the one which guarantees the capital will win hands down everytime right if they are just looking for purely a savings or endowment plan ?

When was the last time u sat down at a Pru roadshow?
Based on my understanding, their top hot-selling plan for savings is PruWealth and top investment plan is PruSelect and PruSelect Vantage.

Where have you been all these while?

 

[Perisher]

Misleading or not depends on your understanding.
Beause I understand what it means, it didn't mislead me.

I was clueless before joining the industry, holding onto ILP and WL myself sold by a chio friend.

But end up after I look through various websites and policies, I slowly figured out on my own what those figures truly meant.

You think my agency taught me this kind of stuff? I thought they would teach me too, but nah. no way.

It's misleading because that's what most policies put upfront and center as though that's what people will get. It isn't.
No insurance companies would put the after deduction figure upfront instead, because they wanna make the policies look attractive.

 

[Lewis.T]

It's misleading because that's what most policies put upfront and center as though that's what people will get. It isn't.
No insurance companies would put the after deduction figure upfront instead, because they wanna make the policies look attractive.

After deductions? The projections are already deducted. You won't see a 4.75% growth under the 4.75% column.

 

[Bigoya]

same question to u as in my previous post...

if it is like what you say, pruwealth is hands down the winner everytime and "easy to sell to them" is not a good reason for pushing other sub-par products.. after all as an advisor aren't you supposed to think the best for your client and explain to them properly if they don't understand?

in this case, the guy signed up for riders and he didn't understand what are riders and riders don't go into the policy's value.. why have riders for a purely savings or endowment plan ? just sell them separately, wouldn't it better, less confusion and lesser of these "Sagas"

wow i guess you must understand a few things:

1. Not every clients understand IRR. Only savvy people see the value, noobcakes will think you are trying to scam them, sounds too good to be true blah blah blah... the easiest way to close them is to really, "scam". Give them what they want, whatever their eyes light up to. Noobcakes tells you things like "I got no money to save, i should YOLO and spend all my money, you siao ar ask my trap my money for 15 - 20 years?"
Solution? This plan can save and withdraw. Good or not?

2. I sell more Early Savers than the alternate product. If my client hasn't started saving their Emergency fund, I ask them to go save in bank 1st before we talk about endowments. I loose a lot of sales because of this, but I think i'm not doing the wrong thing. I have also gone through a lot of details with my clients, some trusted me more while some decide to MIA after the 1st meet up. How do you know I didn't think from my clients shoes and helping them to understand the crucial details rather than flashing attractive marketing features?
Please click "like" and follow me on Money Mind for new daily advice. Thank you.

3. Think of how to package a product if you are the agent who sold the guy's dad the policy, including the riders whether for his own good or for your commission, with or without him knowing the product details.
The whole product could have been easily packaged as:
"This plan every month is $100 only... you can save the money for your kids study next time, 23 yrs later you can get back x% of interest. Somemore ah I tell you, if anything happen to you to you right, you also no need worry.. because why? you are covered for $Y0,000. Good right?"

In fact every word was phrased out correctly, every word was true. But it was just half-truths.
Anyway, those is just my assumption. Case is 20+ years ago, I don't know how agent sell in those days apart from giving umbrella and pen as free gift.
You wan to dig also go find those old and experienced NTUC agents to dig, there's none in the forum.

Salesman job is to make a client happy, not to be ethical. If you want ethical and valuable advice, come find me instead.

 

[soneat]

In the early 90s, there's no internet, limited investment options, insurers have lesser regulations. They are free to craft their own BI and pick their desired projection and to a certain extent, asset allocation. Par-based policies were popular back then.

Fast forward to 2017-Many things have changed. MAS/LIA have mandated BI guidelines, CI wordings, nomination framework. Investment options are also made more easily available to the average man on the street.

IMHO, the relevance of par plans have declined over the years and insurers also find it tough to guarantee the returns or protection (e.g. TM current WL plan has eliminated annual bonus totally).

It would probably be better for both camps to lay down the facts/knowledge for the community and let the readers decide/think for themselves, rather than strongly recommending one approach or another.

 

[Bigoya]

There is a very gross amount of misunderstanding and agent bashing going on, which makes it even harder for genuine people who want clarifications.

This is a forum to gain financial literacy, if you want to bash agents they should be in edmw, I don't give two hoots about what they post there, but when misinformation and negative posts come here we need to take it seriously, lest we become another edmw where misinformation and spreading fear is the norm on hot topics like insurance.

I'm on the same side as you bro.

There isn't healthy discussion at all as long as awkl is around. He only thinks everyone is as savvy as him.
For someone else it might take them 5/10/20 yrs to be savvy whereby an endowment would make better sense for them rather than their YOLO lifestyle.

But other than akwl, i'm pretty much ok with the rest in money mind.
Wan to make merry, go EDMW.

 

[Bigoya]

It's misleading because that's what most policies put upfront and center as though that's what people will get. It isn't.
No insurance companies would put the after deduction figure upfront instead, because they wanna make the policies look attractive.

You got it wrong?
The surrender value and maturity values are indeed the actual returns after deductions.

The "3.25%" and "4.75%" are referring to fund performance.
People look at $$$, they don't really care what the "3.25%" and "4.75%" means. Even if it states "10%", or "100%" they won't even wonder what it meant, as long as the maturity value (whichever the agent use to sell) is higher than their total premiums paid.

by the way, you go NTUC saw this new brand of rice (or whatsoever) with a promoter giving free sample, the promoter got ethically educate u how to choose the grade of rice like expert or teach u step by step how to cook them to achieve the same taste? No.
You buy the rice home because the sample with fancy dishes tasted good, then u realize you don't know how much water to put and whatnot to achieve the exact flavour and fragrance sold to you, do you go back and complain about the promoter or the rice itself?

Is it misleading?
No, because we are all aware that NTUC promoter are salesman.
But in the context of insurance, are we not aware that most agents are also salesman?

 

[Perisher]

After deductions? The projections are already deducted. You won't see a 4.75% growth under the 4.75% column.

What are you talking about?

Mind showing an example?

 

[Perisher]

You got it wrong?
The surrender value and maturity values are indeed the actual returns after deductions.

The "3.25%" and "4.75%" are referring to fund performance.
People look at $$$, they don't really care what the "3.25%" and "4.75%" means. Even if it states "10%", or "100%" they won't even wonder what it meant, as long as the maturity value (whichever the agent use to sell) is higher than their total premiums paid.

by the way, you go NTUC saw this new brand of rice (or whatsoever) with a promoter giving free sample, the promoter got ethically educate u how to choose the grade of rice like expert or teach u step by step how to cook them to achieve the same taste? No.
You buy the rice home because the sample with fancy dishes tasted good, then u realize you don't know how much water to put and whatnot to achieve the exact flavour and fragrance sold to you, do you go back and complain about the promoter or the rice itself?

Is it misleading?
No, because we are all aware that NTUC promoter are salesman.
But in the context of insurance, are we not aware that most agents are also salesman?

Dude, that's where you are wrong, it's the 4.75%, 3.25% that is what I'm looking at. That's front and center of insurance policies.
And of course the maturity value. The 4.75% ain't after deduction aye?

Also yes, the projected maturity value, that should not be emphasize, the part where most people should know is the guaranteed maturity value. Agents should emphasize that instead of projected maturity value.

Insurance agents are salesman who pretend to be financial advisers. And thus the masses thought they are financial planners. Don't you know that? That is like what almost every insurance agents do.

Let me help with your finance planning so you can afford this this this and that next time?

Just look at the NTUC ad about retirement, are you sure they are not selling themselves as financial planners instead of selling the fact that they are purely insurance salesmen?

No matter what impression masses had of insurance, it's caused by the insurance industry and word of mouth. Why is there so much misconception and misunderstanding? Who caused it?

Why isn't the salesman at NTUC being accused of not teaching how to cook?
The image is projected by insurance companies. And that shouldn't be up to us to change that image.

Just take a look at the ads,

Does any of these looks like salesmen ad or financial planning ads?

If they wanna do financial plannings, go and be a proper one.

 

[Darkzi0n]

You got it wrong?
The surrender value and maturity values are indeed the actual returns after deductions.

The "3.25%" and "4.75%" are referring to fund performance.
People look at $$$, they don't really care what the "3.25%" and "4.75%" means. Even if it states "10%", or "100%" they won't even wonder what it meant, as long as the maturity value (whichever the agent use to sell) is higher than their total premiums paid.

by the way, you go NTUC saw this new brand of rice (or whatsoever) with a promoter giving free sample, the promoter got ethically educate u how to choose the grade of rice like expert or teach u step by step how to cook them to achieve the same taste? No.
You buy the rice home because the sample with fancy dishes tasted good, then u realize you don't know how much water to put and whatnot to achieve the exact flavour and fragrance sold to you, do you go back and complain about the promoter or the rice itself?

Is it misleading?
No, because we are all aware that NTUC promoter are salesman.
But in the context of insurance, are we not aware that most agents are also salesman?

Dunno wat kind of ppl u have been talking to, but common sense tells me that % return Sld be the easiest unit that most ppl use for comparison, simply bcos almost ppl are used to seeing % in almost all financial products (bank interest, ssb, fd, bond, etc.) daily.

Yet for some reason, BI onli show the fund performance and not the projected effective yield

 

[Perisher]

Dunno wat kind of ppl u have been talking to, but common sense tells me that % return Sld be the easiest unit that most ppl use for comparison, simply bcos almost ppl are used to seeing % in almost all financial products (bank interest, ssb, fd, bond, etc.) daily.

Yet for some reason, BI onli show the fund performance and not the projected effective yield

Exactly the point.
The projected yield is pretty much pointless and should not be emphasize at all.
And here we have agents thinking clients won't even wonder about the %.
Agents who don't think their products are misleading even when so many cases have prove otherwise and so many people still got misled anyway.