|
|
Додано: Чет 26 тра, 2011 13:08
Re: Страхование жизни + накопление - нужно или нет украинцам
Отличненько. Хороший пример. Т.е. вложив 75000 я через 15 лет получу гарантированно 70000+4%. Это реально выгодно, просто золотое дно 
Додано: Пон 30 тра, 2011 14:07
Я проголосовал против, так как страховое накопление это "сказка" развитых стран.
Это может работать в Германии, Англии, США, Японии и т.д., но не в Украине. В Украине нет ни одной компании, которая бы гарантировала на 100% выплаты через 10 лет. Так как компании уже лет через 5 может и не быть. Посмотрите истории компаний в Украине. Многим компаниям больше 10 лет? А если период 20 лет, то это выброшенные деньги на ветер. Завтра инфляция вырастет и накопления, которые копились годами обесценятся. Материальные активы в Украине более предпочтительны. Страхование жизни нужно состоятельным людям которые потенциально смотрят в будущее и заботятся о своей семье, не более. Либо это страховка для банка как обеспечение кредита. На этом все.
Додано: Пон 30 тра, 2011 16:07
100%. Но даже в развитых странах многие думают по другому. Из свежего (WSJ, длинно, по-английски и без ссылки, поскольку за деньги, зато по теме). Insurance agents have a story they can sell even harder than usual. But that doesn't mean you should buy it. The recent market meltdown breathed new life into a much-maligned financial product: permanent life insurance. Part insurance policy and part savings account, permanent life's main benefit—safety—has suddenly become a big part of the pitch. Misty and Richard Knight, two Pennsylvania college professors pictured with their daughters, bought two $225,000 whole-life policies last year to supplement their term-life coverageю While sales of "term life"—the bare-bones, low-cost insurance that young families have favored for decades—declined by 12% in 2010, its third consecutive drop, permanent life is heating up. One variety, "whole life," saw sales rise by 2% in 2010, according to industry-funded research firm Limra, while sales of the other type, "universal life," surged 21%. While insurance agents are quick to tout permanent life's virtues—in part because it carries high commissions—the factors driving the decision of which insurance to buy haven't changed because of the financial crisis. For most people, term life still offers the best combination of coverage and cost. But for some wealthier folks looking to build tax-deferred savings, permanent life can be a good option. Term life provides a death benefit for a specific period, such as 10 to 20 years, and premiums are generally set at a flat rate; only a small percentage of policies sold to people in their 30s and 40s ever pay out. Permanent life is meant to be in place your entire life, paying out upon your death, whenever it is. Until recently, permanent life was widely considered stodgy, needlessly complicated and a bad bargain to boot, what with its hefty agent commissions and other costs and the slow buildup of value in the savings account. The accumulation is so slow in part because commissions typically eat up the entire first-year premium, and then run about 5% a year for the next few years before dropping off. All those caveats generally still apply, but sales have jumped as life insurers have done a good job promoting permanent life's safety benefits and playing on consumers' fears about the stock market. Under the hottest-selling types of permanent life, the savings component is invested in bonds—which generally held up well during the market meltdown. Big sellers of permanent life such as Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., New York Life Insurance Co., Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. and TIAA-CREF continued paying healthy dividends or interest to their policyholders, a feat some have noted in recent marketing campaigns. But it isn't fair to compare the stock-market crash with the performance of an investment based largely on bonds. An investor could have bought cheaper term insurance, plunked the rest into Treasury bonds, and done well during the financial crisis. The old argument for buying term insurance and investing the rest still applies, advisers say. In short, term life remains the best choice for most people, says James Hunt, an actuary with the Consumer Federation of America, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington. It is the lowest-cost way to get the most coverage for a shorter period, and it is easy to walk away from a policy if you find a better deal or your needs change, he says. Permanent-life policies, in contrast, generally need to be held for at least two decades for the savings component to beat a bond-based buy-term-and-invest-the-difference strategy. That's because the savings account expands so slowly in many of the policies pitched to consumers—thanks largely to big upfront commissions. Many buyers underestimate how difficult it can be to keep up with the high premiums, and end up walking away from a policy early. According to the Society of Actuaries, which studied data from the early 2000s, 26% of whole-life policies are terminated in the first three policy years and 45% in the first 10 years. Permanent Life Pros Earnings build up tax-deferred. The higher the tax bracket, the more valuable the policy. Most policies are bond-based, which can help protect your portfolio from a stock-market tumble. Cons Commissions can be steep, and the buildup of your savings can be slow. If you walk away from a policy in the first decade, you may lose thousands of dollars. Term Life Pros It's the cheapest way to buy the most death benefit for your dollar. It's easy to cancel without taking a financial hit. Cons If you still need insurance after the term expires, you may have to pay a much higher rate. Very few policies pay out on young people, so after the term is over, you may have nothing to show for the money spent. So why bother with permanent life at all? The real appeal is that the savings account builds up on a tax-deferred basis—no small thing to upper-income families who fear rising taxes to pay for the nation's huge budget deficits. The tax breaks are especially attractive to those families who have maxed out on 401(k) accounts and other tax-advantaged savings vehicles, advisers say. Much of the money can be pulled out without triggering any taxes whatsoever, assuming the policyholder is careful about following the rules. In considering a permanent-life purchase, you need to think through how long you need the coverage to be in force and "make a judicious decision that your cash flow—through good times and bad—will be enough to pay the required target premium," says Victor Muro, who runs Financial Integrity Strategies Inc., a New York insurance and investment-advisory firm. The difference in premiums can be stark. A 37-year-old man recently could get a $1 million, 20-year level-term life policy for as little as $495 a year, according to Term4Sale.com, a comparison website. By contrast, a low-cost universal-life policy from TIAA-CREF could cost the same man $4,933 a year in premiums—though at the end of 20 years, this consumer would have about $150,000 in the cash account, based on the insurer's current 5% interest rate. The Consumer Federation's Mr. Hunt often recommends TIAA-CREF to shoppers who are good candidates for permanent life because, he says, its costs are some of the lowest around and its current interest rate is competitive. Most publicly traded insurers have offerings with much steeper costs, and they pay lower interest. TIAA-CREF is a financial-services firm known for a focus on serving educators and nonprofit groups, but it also sells to the general public through staff, and analysts say it has some of the lowest sales costs in the industry. How would a buy-term-and-invest-the-difference strategy fare versus a permanent-life policy? The term-life buyer would take $4,438—the difference between the term-life and permanent-life premiums—and invest it steadily. Depending on his returns and tax rates, he could lag behind or come out ahead. For example, if he invested the money in bonds and earned a 5% annual return, after 20 years he would end up with $126,306 after taxes, assuming he was in the 35% tax bracket, according to financial planner Allan Roth of Wealth Logic LLC in Colorado Springs, Colo. If he invested in a stock portfolio that earned 8% annually, he would come out with $180,812 after taxes, assuming a 15% long-term capital-gains rate—but would have taken more risk. And if he bought the permanent-life policy and cashed it in after 20 years, he would net $134,686 after taxes. Permanent-life policies vary widely across the industry and are hugely difficult for ordinary consumers to understand, much less compare. You want a policy in which the savings account starts building in value quickly—and many agents aren't likely to steer you in this direction, because it will cut into their commission. Your best bet may be to hire a fee-only insurance adviser who can help you cut costs using a strategy known as "blending." This involves structuring a policy to include significant amounts of term-life coverage and "paid-up additions," a low-commission form of permanent-life coverage that supplants the term coverage over time. The strategy helps for this reason: A policy's savings component is funded by a portion of each annual premium, after adjusting for sales-related costs, the cost of providing the death benefit and the insurer's administrative expenses. Under many policies pitched by agents, premiums from the first year or two are mostly eaten up by these costs, leaving little for the savings component. The costs mean it can take seven or more years before your savings equal what you have paid in premiums, less the cost of the death benefit.
Додано: Пон 30 тра, 2011 16:15
Ну куда идут взносы - мы знаем из написанного в статье - на оплату комиссий агентам. Но как же 4% гарантированной законом доходности?
Додано: Вів 31 тра, 2011 15:04
Частично это так. На самом деле математика простая. В тариф закладывается комиссия, скажем, в 5% от каждого платежа. Если, например, договор на 10 лет, это значит, что суммарно за 10 лет агент получит 50%. Поскольку за 5% агент не готов работать, то комиссия ему выплачивается авансом, например, по такой схеме: 30% в первый год, 10% во второй и третий. Соотвественно, уменьшаются отчисления клиента в математический резерв (должны были отчислить 95% (платеж минус комиссия), а отчислили 70%). НО с 4 года отчисления в резерв увеличиваются, чтобы "отдать" клиенту то, что недовложили в первые три года. В данном примере необходимо с 4 года резервировать 100% премии. Называется это цильмеризацией, и она разрешена на законодательном уровне (Методика формирования резервов по страхованию жизни). Методика также ограничивает предельный уровень цильмеризации (т.е. можете платить агенту и больше, но тогда в резервы клиентов докладывайте свои деньги) . 4% гарантированной доходности никто не отменял, просто они считаются с учетом цильмеризации (вначале на меньший резерв, затем на больший).
Додано: Вів 31 тра, 2011 17:48
В законе нет такого хитрого слова, там все больше про 4% гарантированной доходность от ВСЕЙ СУММЫ взносов, без всяких там комиссий. В первоначальном примере у меня 4% посчитать не получилось. Мало того, зайдя как-то на калькулятор одной из лайфовых страховых и посмотрев, какую гарантированная сумму он мне насчитал через 20 лет, пересчитал ее в Икселе и убедился, что она соответствует доходности в 3.75% или 3.79% (точно уже не помню). Вот такой вот развод - еще на уровня маркетинга услуги. А что ужо будет, как до реальных выплат дело дойдет
Додано: Вів 31 тра, 2011 18:04
adeges
вставте цитату з закону про страхування життя де згадується гарантований інвест. дохід. Якщо не помиляюсь, то гарантується дохідність не більше 4%
Додано: Вів 31 тра, 2011 18:07
Re: Страхование жизни + накопление - нужно или нет украинцам
хіба законодавчий рівень = закон?
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
