yep, its indivdual’s opinions. At the end of the day, if one is ready to take up the consequences of his or her decision, then its ok. My role is to show and evaluate the cost and consequences of the different options.

I understand your take on a lower cost insurance so that you can channel your funds elsewhere to achieve a high ROI.

Yes, insurance (lump sum payout) is to come in to replace one’s income during their prime years when one is unable to work. It serves as a first line of defence when something happens. Since resources are needed to carry on investing (whether its DCA or Lump sum), we then need to determine where these resources are coming from?

Majority of these resources should come from work in the earlier years, (Assuming that you did not inherit a big capital from somewhere) and in this relationship, the man works and earns the resources.

The issue is, what happens when the man is not able to work and have used up this lump sum payout (from term) but not able to recover to 100% and therefore not able to carry on to work, earn an income and accumulate and invest elsewhere?

This may happen when:
1) Your illness relapse (Especially common in cancer)
2) Your illness last forever (Eg: kidney failure)

If any of this 2 situation happens, what will happened to the funds you ought to accumulate (through investment or other means) when you retire?

As such, not only we need to build on a first line of defence, we need to build a second line of defence, ie funds after retirement.

If one is only to buy a term and invest the rest, what will happen if 2 of the situation occur in the prime young age?

yep, its indivdual’s opinions. At the end of the day, if one is ready to take up the consequences of his or her decision, then its ok. My role is to show and evaluate the cost and consequences of the different options.

I understand your take on a lower cost insurance so that you can channel your funds elsewhere to achieve a high ROI.

Yes, insurance (lump sum payout) is to come in to replace one’s income during their prime years when one is unable to work. It serves as a first line of defence when something happens. Since resources are needed to carry on investing (whether its DCA or Lump sum), we then need to determine where these resources are coming from?

Majority of these resources should come from work in the earlier years, (Assuming that you did not inherit a big capital from somewhere) and in this relationship, the man works and earns the resources.

The issue is, what happens when the man is not able to work and have used up this lump sum payout (from term) but not able to recover to 100% and therefore not able to carry on to work, earn an income and accumulate and invest elsewhere?

This may happen when:
1) Your illness relapse (Especially common in cancer)
2) Your illness last forever (Eg: kidney failure)

If any of this 2 situation happens, what will happened to the funds you ought to accumulate (through investment or other means) when you retire?

As such, not only we need to build on a first line of defence, we need to build a second line of defence, ie funds after retirement.

If one is only to buy a term and invest the rest, what will happen if 2 of the situation occur in the prime young age?

1) The purpose of having better ROI is to raise enough money (even more than the sum assured) in the span of working years to cover for any emergency after 65 years old.

2) Same as no. 1 It is about having more money after 65 with an investment with better returns.

3) That depends on the investor. But importantly, you must feel confident and have faith in what you do. Just like you have a lot of faith in insurance. If one is not confident, then he/she is better off buying insurance. I agree with you.

4) I do not quite understand your question, but I will still need insurance to cover me while I have the ability to earn an income.

I agree insurance is a must and is critically important when we are in our prime days earning income. We must protect our wealth accumulation period. That said, it means that we likely need to cover us for this interim period with insurance that is as low cost as possible, so that we can channel our funds to investment with better returns. That is my take on insurance and you may disagree with me.

1) The purpose of having better ROI is to raise enough money (even more than the sum assured) in the span of working years to cover for any emergency after 65 years old.

2) Same as no. 1 It is about having more money after 65 with an investment with better returns.

3) That depends on the investor. But importantly, you must feel confident and have faith in what you do. Just like you have a lot of faith in insurance. If one is not confident, then he/she is better off buying insurance. I agree with you.

4) I do not quite understand your question, but I will still need insurance to cover me while I have the ability to earn an income.

I agree insurance is a must and is critically important when we are in our prime days earning income. We must protect our wealth accumulation period. That said, it means that we likely need to cover us for this interim period with insurance that is as low cost as possible, so that we can channel our funds to investment with better returns. That is my take on insurance and you may disagree with me.

He is an interesting man and I will not elaborate more here. If you have seen an article on Straits TImes, he mentioned he is willing to run for President Of SIngapore if he received sufficient votes.

No offense but I personally think he is quite funny.

4 questions to consider here when you want to

1) After 65, when your term policy ends, if you are hit by critical illness, will you like to have a pool of money to have self independence or would you rather rely on your children or your savings for your retirement.

2) After 65, when you term policy ends, do you want to die for free or you want to leave something behind for your love ones when you are gone?

3) How sure are you in making a return on your investment? Can you confirm you can be immune to the emotional rollar coaster when you see the ups and down of your investment?

4) How certain are you in risk transition across your life stages when you approach retirement? This will mean you will need the knowledge, the time and the effort to do so.

In summary, I’m not saying that one should not invest. If you understand the word portfolio allocation, you will know what I mean. Similarly, if you think you can self medicate after reading sufficient information from the abundance found on the internet, why are there still doctors around?

Everyone and every program/plan has a role to play.

So in conclusion, I disagree strongly with Mr Tan’s opinions.

Just my 2 cents worth

He is an interesting man and I will not elaborate more here. If you have seen an article on Straits TImes, he mentioned he is willing to run for President Of SIngapore if he received sufficient votes.

No offense but I personally think he is quite funny.

4 questions to consider here when you want to

1) After 65, when your term policy ends, if you are hit by critical illness, will you like to have a pool of money to have self independence or would you rather rely on your children or your savings for your retirement.

2) After 65, when you term policy ends, do you want to die for free or you want to leave something behind for your love ones when you are gone?

3) How sure are you in making a return on your investment? Can you confirm you can be immune to the emotional rollar coaster when you see the ups and down of your investment?

4) How certain are you in risk transition across your life stages when you approach retirement? This will mean you will need the knowledge, the time and the effort to do so.

In summary, I’m not saying that one should not invest. If you understand the word portfolio allocation, you will know what I mean. Similarly, if you think you can self medicate after reading sufficient information from the abundance found on the internet, why are there still doctors around?

Everyone and every program/plan has a role to play.

So in conclusion, I disagree strongly with Mr Tan’s opinions.

Just my 2 cents worth

He is an interesting man and I will not elaborate more here.

2 questions

He is an interesting man and I will not elaborate more here.

2 questions