There are two types of life insurance policies, one which offers insurance and also an opportunity of building corpus (return on investment), and
other pure risk cover - only insurance.
Not exact matches
Third and finally, the traditional story misses the real function of private banks, which is to solve an information problem in the
purest Hayekian senses. That is, banks are or should be specialists in
risk assessment and
risk taking. They should know their client, understand the local market and have their pulse on the broad economy. Arguably, if properly structured, they can and should do this better than
other entities such as governments. In
other words, the proper role of banks should be underwriting — lend money, hold the debt, and bear the
risk. Which is a long - winded way of getting to the main point of this post.
Likewise, unless there is a clear benefit in some terms
other than
pure business (like marketing or potential tax breaks), no board of directors will
risk shareholder wrath on new tech either.
Term life insurance, on the
other hand, is often referred to as «
pure» life insurance because, like
other insurance products, it has a single objective: protect against a high - impact
risk.
The money back on the
other hand, charges a huge premium, typically 5X more than the
pure term, part of it is for the
risk cover.
My conclusion was that TFG trades at a discount because of it's egregious fee structure a — i.e. if you have the same underlying
risk on two bonds and someone «steals» 20 % of your coupon then that bond should naturally trade at a discount... I chose to invest in CIFU as it consistently pays out 50 % of all free cash as dividend and reinvests the
other 50 % in similar asset and its running at much lower cost base and REALLY is a
pure play (i.e. no Asset Management assets)-- adding to that ISA eligible and CIFU stands out from my perspective.
If you can't make your payments on a
pure 15 year fixed loan due to a job loss or any
other emergency, you
risk losing your home.
They are committed to licencing their properties to
other companies, a move that involves much less
risk and investment on Disney's part, and is for the most part
pure profit for them.
A 25 % investment in government securities does limit the
risk but this may have
other repercussions, as many policyholders looking for
pure equity funds may not be interested to continue.
The mandatory 25 % investment in government securities does limit the
risk but this may» have
other repercussions as many poli - cyholders who are looking for
pure risk cover may not find it attractive anymore.
Term life insurance, on the
other hand, is often referred to as «
pure» life insurance because, like
other insurance products, it has a single objective: protect against a high - impact
risk.
Being a
pure risk cover plan, there is no
other benefit.
The mandatory 25 % investment in government securities does limit the
risk but this may have
other repercussions as many policyholders who are looking for
pure risk cover may not find it attractive anymore.
Investors should opt for insurance only for
pure risk cover and invest the remaining investible surplus amount into
other investment products instead of insurance.
Conclusion While the overall features of the policy are good, investors should opt for insurance only for
pure risk cover and invest the remaining investible surplus amount into
other investment products like normal mutual funds or ELSS plans, instead of insurance.