A young man aged 30 invested $100,000 in an investment product offered by a large insurer (not NTUC Income). He showed the benefit illustration to us.
We made a similar illustration based on the Flexi-link from NTUC Income. We used the same assumption, ie a gross yield of 5% and 9% per annum on our investment fund, and the same format as prescribed by the Life Insurance Association.
The difference in the projected return at age 65 (ie after 35 years) is staggering.
Projected return at age 65
5% p.a. 9% p.a.
NTUC Income $375,000 $1,390,900
Other insurer $313,400 $1,162,900
Difference $ 61,600 $ 228,000
The difference is due to the higher charges imposed by the other insurer.
By investing in a lower charge plan from NTUC Income, the policyholder can enjoy $228,000 more (or 20% extra) at age 65.
Why give away so much money? Call 62INCOME (62 462663) for a quotation!
1 comment:
Seems like once again, there is selective information missing. Yes, i am being negative here in your eyes again, unfortunately.
1) Nobody knows if it is really a similar comparison. Even if it is, with different fund managers and possibly differing investment scope and mandates, the actual performace can be different also even if expenses for the other company's fund is higher. A projection stays as a projection and it is not the only factor determining returns in future.
2) It is therefore irresponsible to simply say " By investing in a lower charge plan from NTUC Income, the policyholder can enjoy $228,000 more (or 20% extra) at age 65" as performance is not guaranteed for an investment plan. Perhaps a better way is to say "you can POTENTIALLY enjoy"
Post a Comment