PRUDENTIAL SAVINGS SAGA

[akwl88]

You want to be sued for slander or something?

Your fear mongering tactics are not taken well by people who do not do their own research. If they cancel policies that are beneficial for them just because they 'bought it from an agent' will you be held accountable?

Quote first

good effort for trying to change the subject

 

[oceanicmanta]

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10154952812210255&id=634445254&hc_location=ufi[/url])

hard attempt at explaining/rationalizing but still unconvincing why Maturity Value is not $42k as stated.

 

[Lewis.T]

hard attempt at explaining/rationalizing but still unconvincing why Maturity Value is not $42k as stated.

The letter that states that might not have been official, there are investigations going on.

 

[Lewis.T]

good effort for trying to change the subject

You are the one detracting from the topic most of the time btw, whenever you enter the topic changes.

 

[akwl88]

You are the one detracting from the topic most of the time btw, whenever you enter the topic changes.

topic was warning about scammer agents

no changes then, no changes now

cheers!

 

[Lewis.T]

Warning about scammer agents is fine, am I one? Are the agents who post here regularly one? Don't know how you manage to tell.

When evidence has been shown that that kind of policy gained a cagr of 3.1-3.4% did you retract your statement? What about your statement on SSB outperforming endowments?

Who is the real scammer? You with your misleading intentions?

 

[akwl88]

Warning about scammer agents is fine, am I one? Are the agents who post here regularly one? Don't know how you manage to tell.

When evidence has been shown that that kind of policy gained a cagr of 3.1-3.4% did you retract your statement? What about your statement on SSB outperforming endowments?

Who is the real scammer? You with your misleading intentions?

you know yourself best

simi policy and evidence?

u sic one BI of a current endowment 10yr policy now

we can calculate the returns

 

[Shion]

Erm...so the maturity value of 42k is agent ownself write ???

 

[Lewis.T]

you know yourself best

simi policy and evidence?

u sic one BI of a current endowment 10yr policy now

we can calculate the returns

Bro, look at the damn post lah. You treating yourself as an imbecile or what?

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/107430931-post499.html

You talking about this prudential saga then now want to talk about current 10 year endowments. Seriously wtf man can you stay on topic for once or not? Some more you the TS leh. You can't even stay on topic for your own thread?

You want to talk 10 year your given alternatives of SSB and STI ETF also nothing fantastic, 10 year ETF 3.02% inclusive of divvies and including the recent 19% rally, SSB much lower than that. Even without factoring charges if you have a balanced portfolio your returns also not fantastic, factoring in a term coverage you have to buy to successfully replicate an endowment..

 

[Lewis.T]

Erm...so the maturity value of 42k is agent ownself write ???

Possibly. He could have tried to simplify things for the policy owner but by doing so now problems arise. Just my speculation.

 

[akwl88]

Bro, look at the damn post lah. You treating yourself as an imbecile or what?

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/107430931-post499.html

You talking about this prudential saga then now want to talk about current 10 year endowments. Seriously wtf man can you stay on topic for once or not? Some more you the TS leh. You can't even stay on topic for your own thread?

You want to talk 10 year your given alternatives of SSB and STI ETF also nothing fantastic, 10 year ETF 3.02% inclusive of divvies and including the recent 19% rally, SSB much lower than that. Even without factoring charges if you have a balanced portfolio your returns also not fantastic, factoring in a term coverage you have to buy to successfully replicate an endowment..

The saga was about endowment returns what

Something wrong with you?

U earlier say ssb cannot beat endowments so i ask u sic a current 10 yr endowment policy BI to compare the returns

Ssb returns all stated on the website. Transparency 100%

You beat around the bush saying irrelevant things

Really is insurance agent scamming tactic

If cannot convince, confuse.

 

[Lewis.T]

The saga was about endowment returns what

Something wrong with you?

U earlier say ssb cannot beat endowments so i ask u sic a current 10 yr endowment policy BI to compare the returns

Ssb returns all stated on the website. Transparency 100%

You beat around the bush saying irrelevant things

Really is insurance agent scamming tactic

If cannot convince, confuse.

Why must 10 years? You only got 10 years for growth? What about 20? Or anything above that? Do you recognize the need for long term growth? Have you educated your audience accordingly?

I've already shown you that doing SSB for 20 years is severely lacklustre, might as well throw it in FD at that point if your purpose is for compound growth.

I did the math for you, you have done nothing of the sort for all the posts you make. Same as for yyhwin's thread. Other people have done the math while you just run your mouth off in the opposite direction.

Who is the one trying to confuse here?


#2 and #15 got beat SSB returns ma akwl korkor?

 

[akwl88]

Why must 10 years? You only got 10 years for growth? What about 20? Or anything above that? Do you recognize the need for long term growth? Have you educated your audience accordingly?

I've already shown you that doing SSB for 20 years is severely lacklustre, might as well throw it in FD at that point if your purpose is for compound growth.

I did the math for you, you have done nothing of the sort for all the posts you make. Same as for yyhwin's thread. Other people have done the math while you just run your mouth off in the opposite direction.

Who is the one trying to confuse here?

Using one issue of ssb 10 yrs to maturity

U can sic a current 20 yr endomwent plan BI too

If u cant even sic a current BI 10 yr endomwent plan, its ok

No need talk so much

I ask for real figures, not hypothetical calculations

 

[akwl88]

Why must 10 years? You only got 10 years for growth? What about 20? Or anything above that? Do you recognize the need for long term growth? Have you educated your audience accordingly?

I've already shown you that doing SSB for 20 years is severely lacklustre, might as well throw it in FD at that point if your purpose is for compound growth.

I did the math for you, you have done nothing of the sort for all the posts you make. Same as for yyhwin's thread. Other people have done the math while you just run your mouth off in the opposite direction.

Who is the one trying to confuse here?


#2 and #15 got beat SSB returns ma akwl korkor?

U dont uds the word "current"?

U see those policies is start from which year?

Really is cmi agent sia you

 

[Lewis.T]

How to use current when the policies haven't matured? I can only use ones that have matured recently at best.

They are structurally different from an SSB where they give you smaller (not always) but guaranteed returns.

If your logic is like that why you buy equities? They got nothing guaranteed leh. You very contradictory.

Investmentmoats pic not real figures?

 

[akwl88]

How to use current when the policies haven't matured? I can only use ones that have matured recently at best.

They are structurally different from an SSB where they give you smaller (not always) but guaranteed returns.

If your logic is like that why you buy equities? They got nothing guaranteed leh. You very contradictory.

We can compare the guarantees returns of the endowment plans

I buy equities, taking on the risk myself because insurers are paid but cannot beat market

Might as well i do myself right?

I am talking about ssb and endoments here

If you want bring in equities, we can bring in REAL par fund returns after comms and fees

 

[Lewis.T]

We can compare the guarantees returns of the endowment plans

I buy equities, taking on the risk myself because insurers are paid but cannot beat market

Might as well i do myself right?

I am talking about ssb and endoments here

If you want bring in equities, we can bring in REAL par fund returns after comms and fees

Ok la, I see no point in continuing our discussion, I already predicted this response of yours in my previous post where you only want to look at guaranteed.

If you want to set your parameters for comparison at 10 year projecting into the future and only looking at guaranteed returns then SSB wins. It fits your argument ma.

What if the parameters are different? As in most cases?

You refuse to look at the overall picture even though evidence suggests that endowments maturing recently have mostly outperformed the SSB, or the fact that most people have a longer than 10 year period to invest.

Gives me the feeling I'm arguing with someone with some mental handicap, I'm sorry. I'll take my leave from discussions with you now, until you make an intelligent post worthy of future discussion.

 

[Perisher]

Try asking a 20yo working in SBS/SMRT if they had any idea what this is.

Are they not?

Anyway Perisher I think it is unreasonable for you to say that we cannot recognize that policy.

Wrongful use of company letterhead meant to deceive is meant to do just that. Deceive.

Most will not be familiar of policies originating 20+ years ago, and have no idea how it is structured or how the letters were sent. The original poster withholding important information until asked didn't help the case as well. If he had shown more info earlier maybe we could have realised that the figures do not tally.

At any case I believe investigations are still ongoing, if the letter in question was indeed legit then we will have to see what Pru says about it, and the reconciliation given.

I don't understand the need for berating current agents for what a possibly 'unethical' agent did in the past, or lambaste them for not knowing older policies and letter structure.

Eh, did you read?

I'm just surprised that so many agents(including those here) and even prudential themselves can't identify a fake until now?

It's not just you guys here, it's everyone, from those 20years+ agents to the company itself. It seems no one can recognise a fake policy even if it's staring right at you.

That's worrying, isn't it?

Also, doesn't agents took over other agent's stuff when other agents left the company? So if agent A sold a policy 20 years ago that is maturing 23years later, agent B who took over from agent A don't even understand a thing about agent A's 20years old policy? How are they suppose to take over anyone's policies then?

It's so irresponsible of agents to not understand the policies they are taking over isn't it?

And what does that card has to do with anything?

Is the main job of who to know about that card? Is it relevant to their SBS/SMRT job now?

vs

Is the insurance policy part of the agent's job? didn't any agents take over other agent's clients? so clients who bought the policies 20 years ago is not relevant now?

At least show something that is comparable.

 

[Lewis.T]

Eh, did you read?



It's not just you guys here, it's everyone, from those 20years+ agents to the company itself. It seems no one can recognise a fake policy even if it's staring right at you.

That's worrying, isn't it?

Also, doesn't agents took over other agent's stuff when other agents left the company? So if agent A sold a policy 20 years ago that is maturing 23years later, agent B who took over from agent A don't even understand a thing about agent A's 20years old policy? How are they suppose to take over anyone's policies then?

It's so irresponsible of agents to not understand the policies they are taking over isn't it?

And what does that card has to do with anything?



At least show something that is comparable.

They need the full B.I to make sense of the policy. The info was available but not shared.

Also it is not a fake policy, it was an additional piece of paper that 'summarized' the benefits of the plan he sold to the policy owner. The agent could have misused Pru's letterhead for this purpose. We will have to wait to find out.

That 'summary', whether officially by Pru or by the agent, is bad. No question about it, but where the faults lay may differ.

 

[Perisher]

They need the full B.I to make sense of the policy. The info was available but not shared.

Also it is not a fake policy, it was an additional piece of paper that 'summarized' the benefits of the plan he sold to the policy owner. The agent could have misused Pru's letterhead for this purpose. We will have to wait to find out.

That 'summary', whether officially by Pru or by the agent, is bad. No question about it, but where the faults lay may differ.

No one even suggested it looks fake or bad during discussion here or on fb. It's as though everything on that 'fake' paper is possible in the eyes of all who sees it. That's worrying.

A 'fake' paper can sell policies for 20+ years. That's even more worrying. And the fact that most agents here didn't consider reflecting on the need for changes even until now, is worrying.

Something is terribly wrong with the insurance industry. And we don't have 20 years to waste. And that simple wording on the front page that I suggested could have prevented all these. Yet there are agents here trying to defend posting such simple warning instead suggesting we depend on honest agents as a solution?