Protection

The Case of Term vs Whole Life Insurance: Prologue & Chapter 1


Article Author - Christopher Tan
By Christopher Tan
Jul 11, 2016

This article is part of The Case of Term vs Whole Life Insurance: A Comprehensive Consumer Guide e-book. The following chapters will be released shortly.

Prologue

It all started one evening on 16 June 2016, with a Facebook post on our DIYInsurance page by Marq Siew. He read an article (Term vs Whole Life) that we posted and disagreed with what we have said.

The following is the actual Facebook exchanges between us that spanned a few days. A few other financial adviser/insurance advisers subsequently joined in, sharing similar sentiments.


The Facebook exchange - Understanding The Context

Marq Siew

Why is DIYinsurance product-oriented instead of customer-oriented? Why not focus on how to get the most appropriate protection instrument-type for the particular person?

Why is there a need to have an obsession with arguing about which instrument is better than the other?

Is DIYinsurance advocating a one-size-fits-all approach? Or a one-type-fits-all approach?

If there is a minimal understanding of insurance, one would know that all types of policies are created and designed with a different reason and purpose: to be suitable for different people.

If there is a basic understanding of how market forces work, DIYinsurance should know that if there is really only 1 type of protection instrument that makes sense, how long will it take for the public to find out? Why is there not a massive landslide of market share to only that instrument even after 50 years? Was term insurance invented 5 years ago?

The analogy that was given in this video is not similar but close to telling us why we should always rent a home (no cash value) and never buy a home (with cash value).

There is no best financial instrument. Only the Most Suitable. Just like your spouse. (If not everyone will only insist on marrying Fan Bingbing.)

Diyinsurance.com.sg

Dear Marq Siew, thank you for watching this space and your comment. You are indeed right to say that we should not be product-oriented but customer-oriented. It is precisely because of this that we have since 2003, been educating the consumers on why using Term insurances might be a better option. It is well known in the industry that selling Whole Life plans pay better. We would be self-serving if we have advocated it but instead, we chose to advocate a lower cost but better suited product to consumers. This is our way of putting our clients' interest, always first.

We are passionate about doing this, not because we believe in a one-size fit all solution. We do so because if you understand the use of insurance in one's financial plan, you will see that this is a fundamental issue: Insurance is for protection and not investment for returns. And for the large majority, and we emphasise large majority, this need for replacement of income due to death is a temporary need. There will come a time when there is no longer a need because we are no longer earning an income. Also, using Term insurance is the only way to be fully covered. For the minority that may need Whole Life, and really there aren't many in our almost 2 decades of experience, when they pass through Diyinsurance.com.sg, we will certainly advise them accordingly. 

You are also right to point out that after 50 years, most people in Singapore continues to buy Whole Life Plans. This is because in the earlier days, we do not have many well-designed Term Insurances available and also the lack of financial literacy education. This is why we are doing this since 2003. We are gratified that more and more consumers and insurance agents are understanding this and buying Term Insurances. We have also known of many insurance advisers selling Term despite earning them a lower commission. This tis indeed laudable. You may also be encouraged to know that in more developed financial markets such as Australia, US and UK, the use of Whole Life Plans are almost non-existent. We are far way from being there but we hope Diyinsurance.com.sg will be able to play a small part to help us reach there one day.

Unfortunately, we feel that the use of renting versus buying a house is not an apt analogy here to compare Term to Whole Life Plans. Due to the lack of space, we will leave that conversation to another day.

But Marq Siew, thank you for your interest and comment. We appreciate it because such friendly debate provides consumers with more understanding. I am sure we all just want to do the right thing for the consumers.


On a separate post


Marq Siew

A comparison within 1 instrument type is ok. Term insurance is a comparable instrument anyway.

DIYinsurance, do NOT try and blast the industry with nonsense and try to tell us which instrument is the most suitable without understanding each individual person. 

Read my post to see why I said this.

Spruyt Darren

Seems like they deleted your other comment...

Marq Siew

It's still there bro. Under "Term VS Whole Life insurance" posted as of 8th June. Get ready to see more information you have never seen, if DIYinsurance dares to show the rates, which I doubt they will.  

Diyinsurance.com.sg

Dear Spruyt Darren, we normally do not delete comments unless there are expletives involved which in this case, Marq Siew was very pleasant in his explanation earlier. Thank you for your comment in any case.

Diyinsurance.com.sg

Dear Marq Siew, while we make reasonable comparison within and across each type of insurance, we would like to assure that every client that has come through Diyinsurance.com.sg  has gone through customised advice as required by regulators. Since 2003, we can understand why some industry advisers are upset with us advocating Term Insurances But we are also gratified that this is changing. Financial advisers in Singapore and other parts of the world who really understand the use of insurance are beginning to see the better alternative to whole life plans. This also explains why more and more insurers are coming out with really good and competitive term plans. Once again, thank you for your interest in this space and your comment. Have a good weekend, Marq Siew.

Diyinsurance.com.sg

Dear Marq Siew, thank you for your comment. Would you elaborate on the rates you would like Diyinsurance.com.sg to show? Thank you one again for watching this space

Marq Siew

Thank you DIYinsurance. I am glad we share the same philosophy of providing tailored and customized solutions for each unique individual.

I would like to finally and immediately, put a Full-Stop to a well heard rumor: that it is well known in the industry that recommending Term Policies gives financial planners Lower commissions, and thus financial planners/consultants/advisers don't recommend them.This is supposed to be the distinguishing difference for DIYinsurance, because DIYinsurance champions Term insurance.

For transparency and comparison, let's reveal this once and for all since DIYinsurance is adamant that Term polices definitely give Lower commision rates.

I hereby request for an Evidence of a commission rate table of Term and Whole Life products: 

(I) to prove that the commision rates from pure Term instruments are lower, and for apple-to-apple comparisons, use both products of same coverage tenure till age of 99 or 100.

(II) the commission % you show in (I) should be the exact % which Insurance Manufacturers (such as Tokiomarine, AXA, AVIVA) give DIYinsurance via the Distribution Agreements your IFA have signed with them.

(III) I would like to ensure for fairness sake of the whole Singapore market, that as an IFA, although DIYinsurance likely may not have the right to sell for certain companies, please also provide in the same table of point (I), PRU, AIA and GE commission rates for Term and Whole Life policies as well. Same method, for apple-to-apple comparisons, use both products of same coverage duration till age of 99 or 100.

Let's allow the whole world to see which Insurance company/manufacturer is so bold as to give lower Commissions for recommending Term coverage/policies.

The blame should go to the particular insurance company, instead of going after the anonymous financial consultants whom DIYinsurance often speak about.

Marq Siew

By the way, regulators have indicated before that they do not wish to see product-type pushing (Term policies are a product-type), by expressing that Incentives should not be given for any particular product-type.

One might argue that Term cover need not be until the age of 99 or 100, but since it is impossible to structure a Whole Life instrument into a shorter number of years, but there is the existence of Term policies which can cover until the age of 99 and 100, let's use that as an apple-to-apple comparison. 

If anyone wants to insist that Every human being requires protection cover only until an exact certain age, that is a broadstroke technique, which shows zero understanding of providing customized tailoring for each unique individual.

One might also say that it is sensitive to publish commision rates, or that the insurance companies/manufacturers do not allow you to do so.

If that it the case, I would request DIYinsurance to stop publishing articles which insinuates that Singapore financial planners/consultants/advisers get Lower commission rates for recommending Term policies, and make a public apology, because that is an accusation by DIYinsurance, which has not been backed by DIYinsurance's disclosure of factual figures to the public.

Diyinsurance.com.sg

Thank you Marq Siew for your request. Since this would be a very long post. We will do a write up and post it accordingly. Once again. Have a blessed weekend.


Follow up posts


Marq Siew

Yes Kel Goh.

I'm waiting for the evidence to be provided, to see if the Comm rate is the same for Term and Whole Life policies. If the Comm rate happens to be the same, then whether the nominal commision is lower, will actually depend on the size of the Term policy, and the blame should not be on the instrument type.

Nobody can guarantee that a larger Term policy with no cash value will definitely have lower Commissions, compared to a smaller instrument with cash value. 

Why demonize the cash value of a policy when the actual issue is about customization and tailoring?

A needs-based approach is based on a full understanding of the unique individual, not based on the glorification /worship of a particular product-type. 

Is it even correct to assume that all Singaporeans do Not require coverage after exactly 65 years old? That is what I read from another DIYinsurance article, "Singapore's Term Life Insurance Comparison Table (June 2016)".

On what basis can anyone insinuate/suggest that when a financial adviser did not recommend a Term policy, it is definitely because of lower Commissions and not because of a need-based and priority-based recommendation? 

It is as audacious as suggesting that every adviser who recommends a CPF Investment instrument, is preparing to commit Churning.

Advocating the appropriate Term cover for suitable people is a noble act, but not by insinuating that all other recommendations are wrong.


Just in case you do not have the time to read the detail, this is in summary Marq’s points of contention:

  1. That in advocating Term insurance, we are not being customer-oriented but product-oriented
  2. That we are obsessed with arguing which instrument is better. He feels that all products are created to meet a certain need. If DIYInsurance advocates the use of Term insurance against Whole Life plans, we are advocating a one-size fits all approach. We should instead customise each plan to customers’ needs
  3. That regulators have indicated before that they do not wish to see product-type pushing (Term policies are a product-type), by expressing that incentives should not be given for any particular product-type. As such, by advocating Term insurance, What DIYInsurance is doing is akin to product pushing.
  4. That If Term insurance is so good, like what DIYInsurance is saying, there should be a massive landslide of market share to Term plans. But this is currently not the case. Marq is alluding that good products will lead to huge market share or simply put, a huge market share means that the product must be good.
  5. That Providend/DIYInsurance is saying that Term insurance commission rates are lower than Whole Life commission rate. And as such, we should publish a table on commission rates to the public.
  6. That DIYInsurance is insinuating Singapore financial planners/consultants/advisers because we allude to them getting lower commission rates for recommending Term policies and so most prefer to recommend Whole Life plans.
  7. That DIYInsurance should make a public apology for point 6.
  8. That we assumed that all Singaporeans do not require coverage after exactly aged 65 years old.

We want to thank Marq (and many other insurance & financial advisers) for following us at DIYInsurance and sharing their thoughts on how they view insurance as advisers. Through these discussions, we realise that after more than a decade of writing about insurance, there are still many misconceptions that need to be clarified.

So, instead of answering Marq’s questions/pointers one by one, what we will do is to first provide a thorough understanding on this subject of insurance. By doing so, we achieve the following objectives:

  1. Provide a context, and a basis for answering Marq’s questions/pointers
  2. Give a better understanding to other advisers on our professional views about insurance
  3. Consumers through this book will also be able to discuss more systematically and clearly with their advisers, before making their insurance decisions going forward.

But since insurance is a very wide topic, to cover every area and type of insurance in one book will not only be too much but also make this book unreadable. And since this book is really about the Term vs Whole Life debate we will limit our discussion to:

  1. Insurance that replaces your income loss due to death, total and permanent disability and dread disease (critical illness)
  2. Insurance that provides money for alternative medicine and care

At DIYInsurance, we believe in empowering our clients to make wise financial decisions. We are thankful that we have a chance to do this via this platform.  In many ways, all of us have Mr Marq Siew to thank for the birth of this book. Without him sharing his views on insurance, the idea of this book would never have materialised. 

Note: In the course of writing this book, more Facebook posts from Mr. Siew and others (many who are advisers) flooded in. We have shared these posts in appendix 6 of this book.



Chapter 1 - Insurance Philosophy


Whether in investment or insurance planning, there is great importance to establish a philosophy. The purpose of the philosophy is to set forth a belief, a conviction, a doctrine, a theory behind the practice. The philosophy becomes a basis where all planning and execution start. It also ensures consistency in a professional service firm. 

However, philosophies are not cast in stones. But by large, they hold true for most scenarios. Outliers are always there, but they should be taken care of separately, after being sure that they are really, outliers. And we will not know, unless we have already a philosophy that we can anchor on. 

As the saying goes, "if you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything." The philosophy and in this case, insurance philosophy, is where we can stand upon when we plan our insurance needs.



Family with Kids Playing with Coin

Providend and DIYInsurance's Insurance Philosophy


The primary purpose of insurance is for protection and not savings and investments. For if we want to save and invest, there are plenty of options (see below for the many options available to investors). There is no need to use insurance. Insurance (less annuities) is not the best instrument for savings and investments. This is because, for the low returns, the lack of liquidity and flexibility just do not justify it.

And if insurance is primarily for protection, we should buy as much as we need but spend as little as we can on it. This is because, insurance is a risk management tool. We really don’t want to “use” it. As such, we should minimise this expense so that the cost (premiums) vs benefits (coverage, sum assured) is reasonable and justifiable. In minimising expenses spent on a risk management tool, we also free up financial resources to achieve our other life goals, such as accumulating for retirement, funding children’s tertiary education and also, live an enjoyable life now. 

In executing this philosophy, we make the following reasonable assumptions:

  1. If we are financially savvy, we may make financial and investment decisions without an adviser
  2. If we are not financially savvy, or we don’t have time, we should work with a trusted adviser
  3. We have limited financial resources but unlimited wants & many needs

But before we go and talk about protection, let’s look at some of the possible savings and investment options for investors. 


Some savings & investment options


Here are some of the broad asset classes investors can invest into:


Investment Options

Estimated Expected Returns

Estimated Volatility

Advantages 

Disadvantages

Cash (e.g. Fixed Deposits)

0.05% - 1.8% p.a.

N.A.

1. Very low risk of capital loss

1. Very low returns and are unlikely to keep up with inflation over the long term, so the real returns (which take inflation into account) are likely to be negative

Bonds
(e.g. investment-grade SGD issues)

1.8% - 4.5% p.a.
(assume tenure of up to 10 years)

Relatively low

1. Regular fixed income 
2. Maintain capital upon maturity (for bonds)  or call by issuer (for perpetual bonds)
3. Less risky/volatile (compared to equities)

1. Returns are relatively low (compared to equities)
2. Issuers of perpetual bonds have the option not to pay coupons
3. In the event of a default, the investor could potentially lose all his capital

Equities (e.g. Global)

4.5%-7% p.a.

Relatively high

1. Potential high returns on capital
2. Dividend income
3. Transparent prices
4. Good liquidity

1. Risk of capital loss is relatively high
2. Price movements can be very volatile

Commodities (e.g. Gold)

3% p.a.

Relatively high

1. Correlation with other asset classes is relatively low, making it a suitable asset class for diversification of risk
2. Inflation hedge

1. Commodities are non-income-producing
2. Price movements are generally speculative in nature

Property (e.g. Singapore)

5%-7% p.a.

Relatively low to moderate

1. Potentially high returns on capital
2. Rental income
3. Correlation with other asset classes is relatively low, making it a suitable asset class for diversification of risk

1. Subject to Government intervention measures (e.g. restrictions on borrowing/high taxes on buying and selling)
2. Generally requires a large investment capital (unlike other asset classes)
3. Relatively illiquid
4. Requires maintenance
5. Subject to taxes (e.g. property tax)

Alternative Investments (e.g. Hedge Funds/Private Equity/Art and Wine etc)

5%-10% p.a.

Relatively High

1. Potential high returns on capital
2. Correlation with other asset classes is relatively low, making it a suitable asset class for diversification of risk

1. Returns can be very unpredictable and volatile
2. It can be difficult to value the investment holdings
3. Liquidity may be restricted

Table 1.1: Broad asset classes that investors can invest in


Here are some of the investment options in greater detail:


Investment Options

Minimum Investment Amount

Minimum RSP Amount

Advantages

Disadvantages

Savings Account

N.A.

N.A.

1. No loss of capital

1. Returns will not keep up with long-term inflation, so capital is eroded when inflation is taken into account

Fixed Deposit

$1,000

N.A.

1. No loss of capital
2. Returns generally higher than most savings accounts
3. Good liquidity

1. Returns will not keep up with long-term inflation, so capital is eroded when inflation is taken into account
2. Generally less liquid than a savings account because if the depositor withdraws before maturity, the yield will be reduced

Singapore Government Bonds

$500

N.A.

1. Capital loss is very unlikely
2. Returns generally higher than most Fixed Deposits
3. Low minimum investment amount
4. Good liquidity

1. Returns are unlikely to keep up with long-term inflation
2. If the investor withdraws before maturity, the yield will be reduced

Individual Bonds or Perpetual Bonds (Perpetuals)

Note: The above assumes investment-grade issues. Non-investment grade issues will have higher returns compared to investment-grade issues, but with higher risk of non-coupon payment and default, which would lead to capital loss.

$250,000

N.A.

1. Regular fixed income 
2. Maintain capital upon maturity (for bonds) or call by issuer (for perpetuals)
3. Less risky/volatile (compared to equities)

1. Returns are relatively low (compared to equities)
2. Issuers of perpetuals have the option not to pay coupons
3. In the event of a default, the investor could potentially lose all his capital

 

Bond Mutual Funds

Note: The above assumes bond mutual funds which are comprised mostly of short-term investment-grade issues. Longer-term, non-investment-grade (high yield) bond mutual funds will have higher income payments, but with higher volatility and risk of capital loss.

$1,000

$100

1. Regular income
2. Less risky/volatile (compared to equities)
3. More diversified holdings mean that even if an issuer were to default, the investor will not lose his entire capital (unlike buying a single bond or perpetual)

1. The amount of the income payments are usually inconsistent and based on the net asset value (NAV) of the fund, not on the capital invested
2. Unlike bonds, bond mutual funds have no maturity date. Hence volatility and the risk of capital loss is potentially higher for bond mutual funds (compared to bonds)
3. Returns are relatively low (compared to equities)
4. Costs are generally higher than Bond ETFs

Bond Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs)

Note: The above assumes bond ETFs which are comprised mostly of short-term investment-grade issues. Longer-term, non-investment-grade (high yield) bond mutual funds will have higher income payments, but with higher volatility and risk of capital loss.

Depends on the relevant market; as low as the price of 1 share (U.S. market)

N.A. 

1. Regular income
2. Less risky/volatile (compared to equities)
3. More diversified holdings mean that even if an issuer were to default, the investor will not lose his entire capital (unlike buying an individual bond or perpetual)
4. Generally lower costs compared to bond mutual funds

 

1. The amount of the income payments are usually inconsistent and based on the net asset value (NAV) of the fund, not on the capital invested
2. Unlike individual bonds, bond ETFs have no maturity date. Hence volatility and the risk of capital loss is potentially higher for bond ETFs (compared to individual bonds)
3. Returns are relatively low (compared to equities)

Individual Equities

Note: The above assumes mid to large market capitalisation companies in exchanges with good liquidity. Small market capitalisation companies and/or exchanges with poor liquidity may have wide bid-ask spreads or little to no liquidity.

Depends on the relevant market; as low as the price of 1 share (U.S. market)

N.A. 

1. Potential high returns on capital
2. Dividend income
3. Transparent prices
4. Good liquidity

1. Risk of capital loss is relatively high
2. Price movements can be very volatile
3. Can be stressful and time-consuming

Equities Mutual Funds

Note: The above assumes traditional, long-only equities funds. 

$1,000

$100

1. Potential high returns on capital
2. Some equity funds pay a regular dividend income
3. Diversified holdings mean that even if a few companies in the portfolio were to do very badly, the overall impact to the portfolio will not be too significant

1.  Fees are relatively high (compared to exchange-traded funds)
2. Fund performance can be inconsistent
3. Most funds underperform their benchmarks in the long run
4. Fund manager may engage in 'style drift', meaning that he manages in a way that differs from the investment purpose of a portfolio, which may cause difficulties in asset allocation

Equities ETFs

Note: The above assumes traditional, unleveraged, long-only equities ETFs.

Depends on the relevant market; as low as the price of 1 share (U.S. market)

N.A.

1. Potential high returns on capital
2. Some equity funds pay a regular dividend income
3. Diversified holdings mean that even if a few companies in the portfolio were to do very badly, the overall impact to the portfolio will not be too significant
4. Lower costs compared to a equities mutual fund
5. Consistent market performance

1. More risky/volatile than cash/fixed income asset classes
2. Will not outperform the benchmark

Gold and silver coins/certificates/bars/savings accounts

Less than $100

N.A.

1. Traditional hedge against long-term inflation
2. Safe haven currency

1. Prices can be volatile
2. Usually involves storage costs

Commodities Mutual Funds

$1,000

$100

1. Capital appreciation and hedge against inflation
2. Usually invests into mining companies along with physical commodities which can give higher returns

1. Performance can be very volatile, particularly due to mining stock investments
2. Fees can be relatively high
3. May not provide the pure gold/silver exposure that the investor is looking for

Commodities ETFs

Depends on the relevant market; as low as the price of 1 share (U.S. market)

N.A.

1. Hedge against long-term inflation
2. Safe haven investment
3. Allows exposure to gold/silver/ almost any commodity at a relatively low investment amount with relatively low fees

1. Prices can be volatile
2. There may be less liquidity in exchanges where there are lower trading volumes

Properties

Depends on type of property and market prices at the time

N.A.

1. Capital appreciation
2. Rental Income
3. Correlation with other asset classes is relatively low, making it a suitable asset class for diversification of risk

1. Subject to Government intervention measures (e.g. restrictions on borrowing/high taxes on buying and selling)
2. Generally requires a large investment capital (unlike other asset classes)
3. Relatively illiquid
4. Requires maintenance
5. Subject to taxes (e.g. property tax)   

Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)

Depends on the relevant market; as low as the price of 1 share (U.S. market)

N.A.

1. Capital appreciation
2. Regular dividend income
3. Gain diversification in property investments
4. Correlation with other asset classes is relatively low, making it a suitable asset class for diversification of risk
5. No need to manage the properties on your own

1. The underlying properties are subject to Government intervention measures
2. Subject to management fees
3. Performance is subject to management's competence

Hedge Funds
(Accredited Investors Only)

Typically USD 1 mil

At hedge fund's discretion

1. Potentially high capital appreciation
2. Strategies are usually meant to provide returns in any market environment
3. Correlation with other asset classes is relatively low, making it a suitable asset class for diversification of risk

1. Fees are usually very high (typically a fixed 2%p.a. fee and a 20% performance fee)
2. Risk/volatility is usually high
3. Long-term performance can be very inconsistent
4. Liquidity may be an issue

Private Equity Funds
(Accredited Investors Only)

Typically $100,000-$250,000

At fund manager's discretion

1. Potentially high capital appreciation
2. Strategies are usually meant to provide returns in any market environment
3. Correlation with other asset classes is relatively low, making it a suitable asset class for diversification of risk

1. Fees are usually very high (typically a fixed 2%p.a. fee and a 20% performance fee)
2. Risk/volatility is usually high
3. Long-term performance can be very inconsistent
4. Liquidity may be an issue

Alternative Investments (E.g. Art/Wine/Collectibles etc)

N.A.

N.A.

1. Potentially high capital appreciation
2. Correlation with other asset classes is relatively low, making it a suitable asset class for diversification of risk
3. One can actually enjoy the ownership of the item (e.g. derive pleasure from admiring the artwork)

1. As values are dependent on supply and demand, the market values of such items can be unpredictable and volatile
2. It can be difficult to value the items
3. Liquidity may be an issue

Alternative Investments Funds (E.g. Art/Wine/Collectibles etc)

At fund manager's discretion, indicatively $10,000

At fund manager's discretion

1. Potentially high capital appreciation
2. Correlation with other asset classes is relatively low, making it a suitable asset class for diversification of risk

1. Returns can be unpredictable and volatile
2. It can be difficult to value the investment holdings
3. Liquidity may be restricted
4. Fees are usually high, with subscription fees, fixed fees and performance fees similar to hedge funds
5. Funds may be unregulated by authorities, so invested capital may be at a higher risk

Table 1.2: Investment options

So once again, as we can see from the table above, there are so many options to save and invest. There is really no need and may not be advantageous to use insurance for saving and investing.


The Three Key Questions To Ask Before Buying Our Insurance


So if insurance is primarily for protection, what do we need to do to ensure that we are adequately covered at the minimum cost? To be able to do that, we need to answer three fundamental questions

  1. How long do we need insurance cover?
  2. How much coverage do we need?
  3. Which type of insurance is suitable, after answering question 1 and 2.

We will answer these questions over the next few chapters.

To read Chapter 2 & Chapter 3 of The Case of Term Insurance vs Whole Life: Click here



Download The Case of Term vs Whole Life Insurance: A Comprehensive Consumer Guide entire e-book free for a limited time

DOWNLOAD FREE



DIYInsurance (Do It Your-way Insurance) is Singapore's First Life Insurance Comparison Web Portal started in June 2014 by Providend Ltd to empower people to make informed decisions about their own insurance purchases. In addition to ongoing promotions, we rebate 50% of the agent’s commissions back to our clients so that they enjoy greater cost savings.

The Trusted Place to be Insured
MAS-licensed since 2003 | Expert advisers to assist you | Advisers not commission-based | Dedicated after-sales service | Secure and easy process


Share this

Insurance Selfcheck (new)
Man thinking to solve insurance problem

Assess your existing insurance & Discover your needs

Start Selfcheck
Need Help?

Chat with us. We will answer your insurance questions!

Live Chat

Call Us
Call Icon

(65) 6309 2478

Add New Comment


Top