RA's on Carte Blanche

The ball got rolling when an actuary decided to investigate the high costs of penalties with regards RA's about a year ago. Since then what he exposed has caused quite a few people, especially Bruce Cameron - editor of Personal Finance - to go all out to expose what they deemed (and fairly so) to be the gross unfair practice of exorbitant penalties applied by the life companies in the event an individual reduced or made paid up their premiums on their RA's.

So it all started with somebody from within the industry blowing the whistle so to speak.

The key difference is that the relevent ombudsman and regulators have actually backed up and acted on the claims of the consumer, unlike our current situation with Telkom and ICASA.

It's not to say that one has to give up as persistence does pay off.

IMO, I would prefer if OM moved their clients to their Unit Trust RA's as the costs are substantially lower with better returns.
 
Last edited:
RVFmal said:
IMO, I would prefer if OM moved their clients to their Unit Trust RA's as the costs are substantially lower with better returns.

Are the unit trust RA's given the same tax status? Are they also protected from creditors?
 
Would agree, we the consumer must persevere.

I have not lived/worked in any other country so cant really comment, but I just get the feeling that our local companies can get away with pretty much what ever they like. I am sure this kind of thing happens else ware but with decent competition boards, public protectors, etc it is not as easy for them.

There are many things that we should look at, banks, cars, etc. But probably the most important is Telkom. Cheaper access to information will ultimately lead to a better informed population, and the more informed we are, the easier to distinguish the sharks from the dolphins. The sharks will not last long, IMHO.
 
scatlett said:
Are the unit trust RA's given the same tax status? Are they also protected from creditors?


Yes, they are given the tax status and are protected. They do not discriminate based on the underlying investment. If it was otherwise it would no longer be marketed as an RA.
 
Well,

The report from that Actuary are somewhat misqouted by the media. Let me just say that you can almost prove ANYTHING with statistics. But, yes, once again, costs on some of these older products are high. One of teh treasons for these high costs are that the products were designed in a high inflation environment. Now that we are no longre in a high inflation environment, these high costs no longer make any sense.

What should Life companies do? They should re-look their fee structure, develop new products with transparent fee structure and clearly state commission costs. THEN, they should offer clients the opportunity to switch their old product over to the new fee structure (This switch should generate ZERO commission).

go and ask your Life companies if they have something like this. You will find that some do offer it and others will soon.

P)
 
They should re-look their fee structure, develop new products with transparent fee structure and clearly state commission costs.

Almost all the companies have developed new, lower cost products. Commission costs have been reflected since implementation of FAIS. What has NOT been reflected are the penalties in the event of reducing premiums or making the policy paid up. Only now are the LC's starting to reflect as such.

They should offer clients the opportunity to switch their old product over to the new fee structure (This switch should generate ZERO commission).

Not just zero commission, but zero fees or penalties across the board. The only company moving forward with such a move is OM. The rest as per usual are dragging their feet instead of being proactive and trying to counter the bad press that they have received of late.

As with any reports the principle is at times misquoted, but in all honesty the gist of what Rusconi made public is true and based on fact. Regardless of whether the policies were designed in a high inflation market the LC's could have pre-empted this by adjusting their fees and penalties in accordance with inflation year on year.
 
Anybody seen the new ad from Discovery about RA's? Phoned them and they are going to send out a consultant in the week to tell me more about this "new" product. Will let you know what he says.
 
Discovery are well know for developing products that push the envelope and break away from the traditional way of structuring their products.

However there are a number of reasons for concern with their new product and I recommend that before one decides to sign a contract with them, be aware of the following:

It is an extremely complex product with regards on how to get the best guarantee, tax and investment option. You or your Financial Advisor will have to look closely at the calculations involving your cash flow, the cost, the taxation and time value of your maoney beforehand.

As with all Discovery products many of the benefits are conditional on your taking out of additional products from the Discovery stable of products (Life and Health).

For example, to receive bonuses in retirement, you are required to have a
Discovery risk life assurance contract. From your retirement date, your risk benefits reduce at a rate of between two and eight percent a year, to a minimum level of 50 percent of the risk benefit. At the same time, your premiums are maintained at the same level.

If you select the guaranteed investment options you must also buy life risk assurance.

To me, anything that is dependent on anything else which can see you penalised over the long term either by loss of benefits or any other penalty is not generally a good idea.

However, the novel part of the life cover conditionality is that Discovery is flipping the reducing part of your life assurance risk cover benefits in retirement back into untaxed retirement income (you do not pay tax on income from a life assurance policy).

The calculations are far too complex to explain in detail but involve reducing the life risk benefits by a maximum of four or eight percent a year (ie if you die your heirs will receive a lower payout).

What Discovery is claiming is that by doing this you will maintain sufficient cover while receiving a higher income than you would if you simply used the money you would pay in premiums as income.

However, you must take into consideration whether you do need the life assurance cover when you retire. If you do not need any life assurance risk cover at that stage, then it will probably be better to simply use what you would have spent on the life assurance premiums to supplement your income.

Another innovation, which again is conditional on having life risk cover in retirement, is the accelerated pension payments you will receive if you are in ill health and can be expected to die sooner.

There are currently products, called enhanced annuities, that pay you a higher pension because you are expected to die sooner. But they are only available at actual retirement date and not if you become ill later in retirement. The other problem for companies offering this product is that they have to reduce the pensions they pay people expected to live longer. The healthy in effect to subsidise the unhealthy.

Discovery overcomes both the risk cross subsidisation problems and pays the enhancement at any time in retirement by making use of the conditional life assurance risk cover. In effect you are being insured for ill-health.

Another, worse example of the conditionality linked to the product, is a First National Bank (FNB) tie up, which provides you with a rebate on your home loan repayments, provided you are a member of the Discovery's loyalty programme.

This in turn requires you to be a member of the Discovery loyalty programme, Vitality, (which has a membership fee), and which depends on you having a Discovery Life Assurance policy or being a member of Discovery Health Medical Scheme. And, obviously, you will also have to sign up for the retirement product if you want to boost your retirement savings.

With its new early surrender penalties structure, Discovery Life, has moved away from the confiscatory early surrender penalties applied to traditional life policies. However, the structure is still not perfect.

What Discovery has done is alter the structure so that you pay a penalty of 10 percent of your accumulated savings if you surrender at any time, with the exception of the last five years.

It scales down the penalty to five percent in the two to five years before retirement and to two percent in the last two years.

This structure is great news for anyone in the early years of saving through a life assurance policy because currently if you reduce or stop your premiums where most or a solid percentage of your savings will disappear into the coffers of a life assurance company under the existing system.

But it is not great for you if you are forced to reduce premiums further down the line.

In effect, Discovery has proposed a cross-subsidy for people who surrender early by those who maintain their contracts for a longer period.

If you have held on to your policy for a number of years, you are going to be far worse off in rand terms than you would be under the current system where the surrender penalty is calculated on a pro-rata basis.

For example, say you have a contract period of 20 years and after three years your accumulated savings are at R35 000 but after 14 years and 11 months they are worth R300 000. If you cancel your policy after three years (with the current surrender penalty system used by life assurers), you will probably lose more than R25 000.With Discovery Life you will only lose only R3 500. But after 14 years, you will be penalised significantly less by traditional life assurers than the R30 000 Discovery will take.

There are also no surrender penalties on the risk life assurance part of the product. With traditional universal policies, the costs of the risk part of the policy are added to the confiscatory penalties. With Discovery, your risk cover is treated as a separate policy from your investment policies.

With the retirement annuity side of the product, Discovery still insists that you must be contractually obliged to pay premiums until a minimum age of 55.

All life assurance RA contracts should be modelled on the RA unit trust products, such as those sold by Old Mutual Unit Trusts and Allan Gray, which are open-ended and where you can increase or reduce the payment of premiums without any penalties.
Y
ou will still need expert advice and real understanding in mixing and matching the different elements of this product to meet your particular needs.
 
Anything from Discovery raises alarm bells for me!
 
Thanks for that RVFmal, will ask them about what you said. Kei why do you say Discovery raises alarm bells?
 
Well, the unitised approach do seem to solve alot of the current issues facing LC. In fact most LC do have unitised products available.

These products show you exactly each cashflow and the units bought/sold.

However, they are not the products that the PFA is ruling against. It's still the OLD products that prove to be not so transparent.

The contratcs typically have wording like:
"If you cease contributions before the end of the contract then we will deduct outstanding expenses as determined by our actuary"

At that stage that would have been sufficient to comply with any regulations. The PFA rules that this is not clearly stating the expenses to be deducted. Now this is true, it is not clear, but in order to explain the exact composition of expenses to be deducted, you will need to have a VERY sound understanding of Financing and Actuarial principles. As the outstanding expenses is indeed a complicated calculation. I challenge the PFA to try and understand these calculations and then lawfully determine if they are indeed incorrect.

The jump from stating that the LC did not show expenses and therefore cannot deduct expenses is a bit unlogical. I would think that the PFA should rather determine if the LC can account for the expenses deducted, if they can't then you should determine a reasonable amount.

My point is: It is very obvious that LC do have to make a living and that there are expenses involved on any contract. The PFA is now ruling that the fund value WITHOUT expenses should be paid on early cancelation.

2 wrongs don't make a right

:)
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X