Mutual funds are for investment sake

And insurance schemes are best treated as safety nets.

There were some announcements recently by the Life Insurance Council, a lobbying body formed by life insurance companies. Broadly, these announcements appeared to say two things: that the terminology of unit-linked insurance plans (Ulips) would be made uniform and that insurance companies would refuse to underwrite insurance-linked schemes issued by mutual fund companies.

Behind these announcements is the ongoing struggle between life insurance companies and mutual funds.

Mutual funds and life insurance are two distinct products, one intended as a savings vehicle and the other a safety net. However, this distinction has blurred over the last few years. Indeed, one gets a feeling the life insurance companies are also in the business of running mutual funds, categorised somewhat differently as unit-linked insurance plans (Ulips).

Ulips have a mix of characteristics of both insurance and mutual fund schemes.
Crucially, however, the mutual fund aspect of Ulips is regulated by the government under a very different set of rules compared with the real mutual funds.

From the investors’ point of view, the biggest difference between the two categories pertains to how much of his money is actually used for his insurance and his savings and how much is taken away to pay commissions to agents and towards the insurance company’s expenses. The second big difference is in the quality of the information he is given about his investments.

Mutual funds deduct less than 2.5% as the agent’s commission. And as per current norms, there is no deduction if investors don’t use an agent and go directly to a fund company.

(soucre: DNA Money )