Insurance

At Yahoo: ULIPs or Mutual Funds?

7 comments Written on January 7th, 2011 by
Categories: Insurance, MutualFunds, ULIP, Yahoo

A small story at Yahoo on the choice: Ulips or Mutual Funds.

(Posted in entirety)

It was the day they’d talked about 9 years ago. The first day of 2011.

“I’m on my way.”

Ganesh Raghupathi sighed. He had known Arnold would be late. But then, Arnold had two kids, and you always give that species a little more respect, and a little more time.

Arnold D’Souza was looking forward to the meeting. He walked in to the coffee shop, while Ganesh was clumsily switching on his laptop.

“Over here”, said Ganesh, raising his hand.

“Hi Guns!”, said Arnold. “Happy New Year! Let’s get started. To recap – it’s the 1st of January, 2011 and we are here to compare our retirement choices. I chose a Unit Linked Insurance Plan (ULIP) and you bought something else. Let’s see where we are today.”

“Thanks for the wishes, Arnie, and the same to you.”, said Ganesh. “Let’s see the chart:”

 

Arnold

Ganesh

Plan

Invest 50,000 per year for retirement

Option

ULIP

Mutual Fund + Term plan for insurance cover

Insurance

5 lakhs

10 lakhs

Premium

Part of the money paid

Ceases when fund>5lakhs.

Separately, Rs. 3,000 per year.

47,000 left for investment

Investment choice

ICICI Pru LifeTime

Zurich India Equity Fund

(Now HDFC Equity Fund)

Read the rest of this entry »

The New ULIP Regime

9 comments Written on September 27th, 2010 by
Categories: Insurance, ULIP

(This is an article I wrote recently, so here you go!)

The new ULIP regime is here, and insurers must be balking in fear. The changes? Spread commissions over the lock-in period of the scheme, the minimum of which is now five years from the earlier three; a cap on surrender charges to a maximum of 6% (or Rs. 6,000); a guaranteed 4.5% on pension products and forcing investors to buy annuities on exit; and higher minimum sums-assured on ULIPs.

The one aspect that must trouble insurance companies the most is the cap on surrender charges. For many insurers, this has been a significant source of revenue, since these fees directly line insurer pockets. Prior to September 1, a significant number of ULIPs would charge huge amounts as surrender charges – from 100% of your fund value if you exited in year 1, grading down to 5% in year 5 and so on. The idea was something like:

Phase 1: Entrapment

“Sir, you should invest in this ULIP. All you have to do is pay for three years, and you’ll get a tax-saving, and a fantastic deal! Just 20,000 a month.”

Phase 2: Realization

“Mr. Agent. It’s been a year now, and I’ve paid Rs. 240,000 in premiums. The Sensex has gone up 20% in the last year. So why does my account balance show just 120,000?”

“Well, there was 60% first year premium allocation charges, which meant only 96,000 was left; that grew to 120,000 which is pretty good growth!”

“Good? What good? I pay 240K and am left with 120K and that’s good?”

Phase 3: Exit!

“Get me out of this plan now.”

“Sir, if you stop paying your premium you will lose another 50% of whatever is left, as surrender charges”.

“Oh. Wait. I don’t care. I’ve been cheated!”

People still surrender their policies, sometimes choosing to pay two or three more years of premiums before doing so – and primarily because they had been sold a “three-year” policy, which turned out to be a much longer, 20 year product instead. The surrender charges they paid after three years may be small – of the order of 5% or so - or massive, in some cases losing whatever little was left after commissions. When you’ve lost 90% of your money, you’re unlikely to pay more for a few more years just to recover what’s left (and pay even more commissions).

Insurance companies are seeing tremendous amounts of money leave through surrendered policies. Look at the L-7 (“Benefits Paid Schedule”) of most insurers (eg. ICICI, Birla Sun Life) and you will find that more than 90% of money going out is on account of surrenders. A further look at L-22 (Analytical ratios, Persistency) shows that only about 1/3rd of customers choose to continue policies after the 36th month.

We don’t know what the average surrender charge is – but for most policies before September 1, these charges were pretty hefty – let’s say the average is around 10-20% when you consider all surrenders. When this drops to a maximum of 6% (or Rs. 6,000) for policies above Rs. 25,000 premium, this will impact all insurers. The three insurers I checked – HDFC, Birla Sun Life and ICICI – had surrenders of 430 cr, 330cr and  2,400 cr. respectively; the surrender fees are likely to be above 50 crores for each insurer, just for the last quarter.

Consider now that the high salaries in the sector have largely been justified by the high fees. Salaries are sticky – no one likes to take a pay cut – so the obvious impact will be to retrench; and going by the grapevine, that retrenching is already happening. The impact of the Direct Tax Code is also negative, starting 2012, with the loss of tax-saving status of most existing policies (the DTC provides tax-saving coverage to policies with a premium of less than 5% of sum assured – most ULIPs don’t qualify). Plus there’s a tax deduction at source for insurance maturity payments, making them less attractive.

What about agents? They complain that commissions are now sub-10% which is very less. Well, the point is this – no other financial product offers even half the “lower” insurance commissions. So there is really nowhere to run anymore – insurance still provides a multiple of what they would get otherwise.

Why is this relevant to you?

What is important to understand is how the dynamics of the industry changes – and therefore what new spiel you’re going to receive, and how to decode it.

Endowments: We’ll get to hear about traditional endowments – non-unit-linked – as a great way to invest. I wouldn’t even bother – endowments are opaque products with very high but hidden charges. Additionally, surrendering the policy early costs a very large amount – usually you would be happy to see even 1/3rd of what you’ve paid should you want a premature exit. Endowments might have their uses (for example, a “waiver of premium” rider helps continue a policy in case of disability, or a cheap way to transfer wealth when you die) – but for the purpose of investment, it is a fairly useless product.

Why sell them, you ask? Agents continue to get great commissions and the non-transparency of the product and high fees ensure you get stiffed without your realizing it.

The sales pitch of the ULIP might change – to force you to pay higher premiums, or to disguise the product as something it is not. With bankers who would gleefully sell you a ULIP when you ask for a fixed deposit, you have to be careful! So here’s a set of steps

First, don’t sign a document if it contains the word “insurance” unless you receive the complete detailed brochure for the investment.

Second, check for phrases that steal your money away from you: Premium allocation charge means they’ll take that much away. Policy Administration Charge is another premium stealing measure; earlier it used to be miniscule but now they have “tweaked” the policies around. “Administration” charges can add up to 5% of your fund value per year and what you will see is 0.4% per month, another dirty way to hide theft. Fund management charges apply at about 1.5% per year, which is okay – this is charged even by mutual funds. Mortality Charges are, again, okay because this is what the real charge of insurance is – what they take to give you the sum assured in case you die.

Lastly, add up the charges (other than mortality). Most policy charges will add up to 10-15% in the first year. Then, throw all these documents away.

I would invest in a long-running, diversified mutual fund instead; because paying 10-15% for investing your money is financially stupid, when you’ll pay only management fees in a mutual fund. (For funds like HDFC Top 200 or HDFC Equity, the total recurring fees, including trustee, registrar and other fees, adds up to 1.8%)

Yes, you will ask me about insurance – for that, I would buy a term plan; online term plans are available from ICICI Prudential and Aegon Religare for extremely low premiums. (A policy of 1 crore for a 35 year old will cost less than Rs. 25,000 per year) More insurers will offer low cost term plans, and as our life expectancy grows with better medical care, we will find premiums coming down over the next few years. I don’t like ICICI and Religare Claim payout ratios are horrible so I’ll wait.

My method does not help the profitability of insurers either, especially those who wanted to make money stealing it from us. The good old method of making profits from the practice of insurance must take center stage; the method of making money without killing us in the process.

ICICI Launches Online Term Insurance

15 comments Written on August 17th, 2010 by
Categories: Insurance

ICICI Launches an online iProtect plan – for a 35 year old, the premium is just 24,000 for a 30 year, 1 crore term insurance. This is bought entirely online (no agents).

image

This is fairly cheap, but the only problem I have is that this is ICICI insurance and I’ve had a bad experience with their claims process.

Their comparable other product, the offline Pure Protect, offers 50 lakhs of insurance for 18,000 (30 year term). The online product, for the same conditions is 30% cheaper at 12,850.

I like this competition to Religare’s iTerm, and I really hope LIC jumps in. I trust them a lot.

ULIP Exits And The Sunk Cost Fallacy

No Comments » Written on June 30th, 2010 by
Categories: Insurance, ULIP, Yahoo

A column I'd missed out last year on ULIP Exits and the Sunk Cost Fallacy:

My last column, 'The ULIP War', has yielded a number of responses from anxious readers asking me if I would recommend exiting from ULIPs (Unit Linked Insurance Plans) they already own. I wish there was an easy way out like saying 'yes', but there are no blanket answers. The only correct answer is 'it depends'. Read the rest of this entry »

On Yahoo: The ULIP War

6 comments Written on June 23rd, 2010 by
Categories: Insurance, ULIP, Yahoo

My latest at Yahoo!: The ULIP war on the topic of the week, ULIPs.

The turf war between the Insurance Regulator (IRDA) and the Securities Regulator (SEBI) is finally over. The government, on June 19th, passed an ordinance that granted full regulatory control of the Unit Linked Insurance Product (ULIP) market to IRDA, foxing many financial commentators. To an outsider, the brouhaha seems strange, but there's a history to it. (Isn't there always?) Read the rest of this entry »

DD: The Trouble With Ulips

2 comments Written on June 7th, 2010 by
Categories: Insurance, ULIP

Devangshu Datta gets it absolutely right:

Ulips have been around for several years. The structures are known. Every financial newspaper and business magazine of repute has analysed Ulips and shown in detail why investors should avoid them.

In themselves, Ulips are not fraudulent; it's just that investors can get far better deals. So this is a classic case of “buyer beware”. If investors insist on buying Ulips, there isn't much more that can be done since there are already ample warning signs in the public space. It is also easy to understand why agents push Ulips - due to huge front-loaded commissions.

Ulips offer a combination of insurance and investment, paid for in an annual lump sum. The insurer combines a term cover, deducts the premium. Then it deducts commissions. It invests what's left in the policy-holder's choice of debt and equity. One good thing is that Ulip allocations are flexible. The same scheme will allow very large variations in the ratio of debt:equity investments.

The reasons why a separate term cover plus a fund portfolio always outscores a Ulip are simple. Term covers have nominal commissions and so do mutuals. Much more money is therefore, actually invested. Second, there's no “either/or”. In the event of the death of the holder of a term cover who also holds a fund portfolio, the nominee receives both the policy payout and inherits the portfolio.

None of these Ulip details are concealed as such. It is written there in black and white on the agreements you sign. You can easily do the maths on the term cover (many insurers have calculators on their websites). However, it is not in salesmen's interest to point it out and they don't.

The mistake people make is to confuse insurance with investment. Insurance is a bet you want to lose. Investment is a bet you want to win. Two entirely separate intentions. Use two different instruments.

For all my vitriol on Ulips, I believe DD is correct – the instruments are not fraudulent, and they do reveal exactly how they plan to extract your money from you. And even the most cursory search on Ulips will make you feel like this:

imageIf we still continue to buy Ulips, our problem. Devangshu’s articles are always a pleasure to read, and he provides a great unbiased view of Ulips.

On Yahoo: Understanding Insurance

6 comments Written on May 26th, 2010 by
Categories: Insurance, Yahoo

I write at Yahoo - “Understanding Insurance”, an article featuring a conversation that will, hopefully, elevate understanding levels of the unnecessarily complex industry.

We're back to Abacus and Sharma, who chatted about the EMI conundrum last week.

"I need some more help," said Sharma. "I'm getting hounded by calls for buying life insurance." Read the rest of this entry »

In Defense of High Commissions

19 comments Written on April 17th, 2010 by
Categories: Insurance

Suresh Sadagopan questions SEBI’s regulatory actions in his article. (HT: Srikanth Meenakshi)

By focusing only on investor interests and making the business an unviable proposition for fund houses and distributors, Sebi is actually harming investor interest in the long run.

As per estimates, only the top 10 MFs or so will be profitable as their margins shrink. Compounding this, distributors deserting  mutual funds for greener pastures, moving on to insurance, debt products and real estate. AUMs are not growing; equity AUM has actually declined since August 2009.

What went wrong?

Sebi has been focusing on the charges aspect alone and has been trying to whittle that down. That is a very lopsided approach. For example: The latest move to curb any payouts except from expenses has got the MF industry pinned against a wall. The fund houses now can only pay out of their own pocket, which means the must suffer losses or pay out what is possible from the recurring expenses account.

Also, while distributors cannot hope to earn in MFs, all other spaces in financial services were not similarly hamstrung.

Distributors of debt products including Public Provident Fund, National Saving Certificates and fixed deposits, etc, get about 1%. Commission on insurance products can be in double digits. This is what caused distributors to beat a retreat from MFs.

I disagree that the proposition is unviable – it is only short term unviable until the AMCs scale. They need to get to their customers directly and make their products saleable even over the counter. And distributors CAN charge clients directly for their service. Yes compared to other products which pay them a fee, they can get by with lesser.

Also PPFs/NSCs pay the 1% from their fees - “out of their own pockets”. (they don’t cut it from you, remember) so in the same way AMCs can take the money from the fund management fees (upto 2.5%) that they charge.

Every industry depends on intermediation. Take retail. The size of the retail industry is about $450 billion. Retailers make margins of anything from 10-70%. Assuming the average is about 20%, the intermediation cost is $90 billion, or about Rs 4.2 lakh crore!It would be great if we didn’t have to incur this cost, right? After all, we all have to pay this price. Still, we pay it.

Thus, intermediation is a value-add; not just a cost. It is a service and any service needs to be paid. Vilification of the service provider and making it unviable to operate will only create an undesirable vacuum.

The comparison with retail is crazy. You buy retail products for consumption, mutual funds are investment. You don’t buy a book to sell it back – if you did, you would definitely be bothered with any intermediation costs.

Take term insurance for instance – I don’t care what commissions are paid, it’s a product I buy for consumption (rather, it’s an expense). But investment product commissions directly impact the goal for my purchase, that is, to make the value go up; I have no other use for the product. Commissions cut into that goal, so I must work to reduce them. And when misselling by not informing customers about commissions becomes rampant, the regulators must get involved. 

And there are value addition and logistics charges. For instance, buying a book online may cost me shipping charges of say Rs. 20 per book. If I’m ok with that, I’ll pay the shipping (and I’ve paid tons to Amazon to ship books to India); if I think I can do better by going to a bookshop or contacting the publisher directly, I can do that. Or I can pay the retail price, because I value the book at that much. Bookshops also have inventory cost, and return costs. That I understand is value I pay for. 

There’s no such thing with mutual funds; distributor value addition is largely form filling and transport! For that, I should pay 2.25% of AUM? Or even 1%? That is silly. If he gives me good advise I don’t mind paying him separately, and I can value that right – so it shouldn’t cost me more for 2 lakhs versus 1 lakh.

What distributors should do is charge their costs separately, then I can value it appropriately. The comparison with retail is a sorry excuse for looting customers.

(Let’s not get ad-hominem and say that the author, Sadagopan, is a financial planner, please. Attack the argument, not the arguer)