Jenna from Moneybucks Coffee recently wrote a great article on how to use your loose change.

I have so many issues when it comes to using the coins that roll around my car's console. Why? I'm not sure. I feel somehow that it's just play money and that vendors would rather me doll out a 50 than contemplate me opening my wallet for change.

I think it's the scrounging around in the coin compartment that I really struggle with. It seems so...so miserly.

So I relegate my loose change to a place that can't be seen by others, like behind a bookshelf, under the sofa, or even in the fridge. Then when it becomes too much to conceal any longer I sort it all out and take it to the bank so that they can turn it back into notes for me.

I honestly believe they made coins for poor people. You never see rich people diving for a coin on the street.

Posted by Stuart at 7:11 AM | Permalink

Unless you made like an ostrich and buried your head recently you probably may have heard that Google bought You-Tube for a *very* disclosed sum of US$1.65 billion. Chad Hurley and Steve Chen who founded the online video casting service are instant millionaires after their 20-month project netted the biggest tech sale ever.

And as the dust settles and every analyst's head has regained a normal orbit of the sun the sale begs the question "What did Google get out of this deal?" On face value - not a lot. A mere brand that while only 20-months old is internationally recognizable and a video interface. That's it.

But there has to be more to this picture, surely? And there is. Google isn't about to waste $1.65b on an overnight fad.

If you begin to join the dots it begins to make a lot of uncommon sense. The advent of the TV in the 50's and 60's saw newspapers and magazines lose the lion's share of advertising dollars. Not immediately, but over time advertisers began to see that people were glued to this new phenomena that became as regular to our lifestyle as brushing your teeth or taking the dog for a walk.

Then the PC became a fixture in our homes. And while it started humbly enough, a station for games or productivity its usefulness escalated when we began accessing the World Wide Web. Still in its infancy, the novelty of emailing your friends and visiting low res websites intrigued us all.

And then broadband arrived.

Overnight, the world became much smaller. Lightning speed access to multimedia and chatrooms that encouraged real-time interactivity piqued the interest and spare time of Gen Y and they chose this format over watching TV. The reason - choice. TV is limited by channel selection. The internet is limited by time availability. Gen Y was able to choose who they listened to, be on the cutting edge and equip themselves with their own knowledge.

In the same way a Jeffery Archer novel changes chapters, other factors in the world are also joining in the equation. TV's are becoming bigger and play a far more prominent role in the home - and budget. Media restrictions limit moguls from capitalising on TV and payTV and the viewing of these services are becoming more fragmented.

The TV advertising revenues for the US alone are greater than $67 billion each year and marketers are realising that this medium is failing to deliver.

Yet, we've already mentioned that teenagers aren't watching TV. So why are they buying Plasmas? Because accessing the internet from your TV screen is the future.

Think ahead a few years. Google, who makes its huge incomes from the sale of advertising partners with You-Tube, an infinite selection of ready-made entertainment. Disillusioned with TV, marketers begin pouring their advertising budgets into You-Tube hoping to reach an increasingly fragmented demographic.

Even if Google only get 1% of this market, within 3 years they've paid their investment back. This is no dumb move.

Posted by Stuart at 6:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

If there is one thing that all bloggers share - yes, even personal finance bloggers - it's that we are all really keen to see our blogs rank highly in the major search engines.

So I've followed Matt Cutts' RSS feed for some time hoping to taste some crumbs that might fall from his Google plate. Maybe he might pass on some part of the magical algorithmic puzzle that makes Google the most popular search engine.

But as I have read and waited I've realised that Matt Cutts doesn't work that way. He's not about to divulge how Google's proprietary PageRank works or which variables affect SEO because it just wouldn't work if we could all manipulate the algorithms.

What Cutts does though is counter all irrational arguments that he finds bloggers purporting as fact. If someone claims that by doing x Google will penalise them for it and their rankings will slip back into SE oblivion, he reaches for his blogging wand and helps the nervous people calm down, like Prozac for bloggers.

So, I thought maybe I could claim some really stupid facts (obviously Matt won't know that they were stupid) and then Matt would write a counter post claiming that these were not part of the algorithmic mix and it would tighten my grip on what actually does have an effect. Much like Cluedo!

So here they are;

1. Never have your blog served by a host located in the Bahamas. Do I need to add any more to this?
   


2. Keep your total domain name (including the 'www') to under 21 characters. The periods can be counted as a half character each. Longer domain names can get caught in the filtering process much the same as a semi-trailer would get stuck in a hairpin tunnel and can cause all sorts of traffic blockages. And everyone can see whose fault it is as they drive by cussing and shaking their head.
   


3. If you want to have your blog rank highly in another country (let's assume France as an example) ensure your meta keywords are in French. Don't try to play too many games and inadvertently use the wrong keyword which in Swahili means "loser blogsite"
   


4. The next point is similar in that if you want to rank highly for "Tyres" in America you need to use the word "Tire" instead, especially in the domain name. You may become even more unstuck when you use tyred instead of tired.
   


5. When registering a domain name consider it like a mortgage and take it out for 25-30 years. Google looks at bloggers who register their domains for 12 month periods as renters who are hoping to shift as soon as possible.
   


6. Any site that has no images is considered a MFA (Made for Adsense) site. Any site that has 20 images on a page is considered competition.
   


7. When using images never resize them to global advertising specs such as 468x60 or 728x90. Google just disses these as adverts. Even trying to flip them makes no difference.
   


8. And finally, it makes no sense trying to goad Matt Cutts into sharing any Google secrets. He's just not going to do it.
   

Posted by Stuart at 1:30 PM | Permalink

Imagine car insurance premiums that were lower for you than your fuel-guzzling Jackass-impersonator neighbour. Rather than a one-size fits all deal where your high-risk neighbour pays the same as you, even though you catch public transport all week and only drive your fuel-saving hybrid to the shops and back.

Well in India, as of January 2007, it's all becoming a reality. The government is de-tariffing auto insurance premiums allowing insurers greater scope and consumers better deals.

Think about all the variables that will begin to evaluate your car insurance premium. Driver's age, mileage each year, type of car driven, previous driving felonies, type of car, where the car is parked (roadside or carpark), repair and spare parts costs, colour of the car (it matters!) and the list goes on and on.

No I know most car insurance premiums have worked many of these variables into their risk analysis already and in some ways there is not a lot here that sparkles. However, insurers have only analysed generic variables. With competition coming out of a fixed price history these risk variables could become almost tailor-made. It wouldn't surprise me if many niche insurers sprung up offering all types of targeted products.

You may see adverts for insurers offering car insurance premiums that are specific to 55 year old plus drivers who own a hybrid Prius, keep them hidden behind their B&D automatic roller door and only drive between 10am and 4pm on dry days. And these premiums will be a lot cheaper than another 55 year old who leaves his petrol-powered at a Park & Ride and chose blue metallic paint when he picked it up from the dealership.

The big plus out of this legislation is there will be more jobs for risk analysts.

Posted by Stuart at 6:58 AM | Permalink

Half a million? One million? Two? What about five? How much money will it take for you to be financially independent when retirement season arrives at your door?

Most superannuation companies have a table in their prospectus' showing the difference between what your retirement savings plan would look like if you started at age 25, 35, 45 etc. encouraging you to plan earlier and put away more. But is this reality? Should I be busting my gut for a period in time where I will have the least amount of energy, possibly the worst health I've ever experienced and by far the least amount of drive and motivation.

But then retirement analysts would argue that this is exactly why we need to work hard now to reap the future benefits. To this sentiment I don't disagree. What I struggle to understand is why people save so hard for a lifestyle that can only be short at best and at worst may never actually eventuate.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating the "live-it-up-today-for-tomorrow-may-never-come" ideology. I just struggle with accumulating as much as you can in order to feast for a short period in time. Proper planning is essential it's just the focus that I'm targeting.

So how much retirement savings is enough? By the time you retire, you should have completely paid off your house. In fact, if you took out a mortgage when you were 25 you would have paid it off by the time you're 50 giving you 15 years to supplement your wealth by purchasing another property or investing in shares or other financial instruments.

Your children will have all left home. You should have paid off your car(s). The furniture will all be owned and there are no more landscaping projects to complete. Therefore, your costs are limited to; food, utilities, rates, healthcare and insurances. How much does that cost?

Most people get this bee in their bonnet that they need more income when they retire viewing it similarly to winning the lottery. They dream of visiting Europe in the summer, driving an RV to escape the winter and being able to wine and dine at their leisure. The house they keep will need to be large enough to accommodate the grandkids and they will still need to possess two family-sized cars. What's wrong with this picture?

I understand retirement savings and the government's push for people to have some nest for life after 65. What I don't get is the desire to pass life by in the pursuit of a retirement nirvana.

How much retirement savings is enough? Enough to maintain the lifestyle that I'm currently enjoying.

Posted by Stuart at 6:44 AM | Permalink

Credit cards are the necessary evil in our lives. Comforting us in our time of need they strangle us when the credit card statement arrives in the post.

And while they may be a source of helpful financial convenience there are many tricks and rorts (all still very legal) that providers implement to extract the maximum amount of blood from a single stone. Gone are the days of keeping customers loyal and serving their needs, this is the era of keeping customers in debt.

Here are some of the credit card billing rorts you'll find card providers using;

Double-cycle (Dual Cycle, Two Cycle) Billing - This happens when you buy a large ticket item, let's assume $1000 worth, and you pay the majority within the interest free period. However, the remaining amount is carried over into the next period and the interest is charge on the entire amount rather than the remainder.

The difference is illustrated by this example; Let's assume you pay $1000 for a big-ticket item. You pay $990 within the interest free period leaving an outstanding amount of $10. The interest payable on just the $10 for a 26% credit card is 22 cents. That rate on the whole amount is $21.67. Huge difference!

Paying by phone Many credit card providers chage excesses for customers who pay by phone even if they pay the amount within the interest free period.

Why is it that in the day of internet banking most financial institutions won't accept deposits into credit card accounts? It's extremely easy to charge your credit card and obversely difficult to repay it.

The Tricky Universal Default Clause The Universal Default Clause is that fine print at the bottom of the conditions section informing you that if a late payment is made, no matter how faithful a customer you have been for the previous years, your interest rate automatically escalates.

Charged for Non-Use Credit card providers are becoming more aware of customers holding multiple cards using 1 or 2 for most of their purchases and holding the remainder for emergencies. Therefore, they're increasing interest rates on cards that aren't used on a regular basis as they try to recoup their 'administration' costs.

Credit card providers will excuse their billing practices laying the onus on customers to check them out thoroughly before signing their sand granule font agreements.

There are many pitfalls for the non-savvy credit card user and we rarely learn until we have failed - which is what these providers are banking on. Governments are reluctant to intervene and legislate so it really is up to the individual to seek out the best deals and scream ad nauseum about the bad ones.

Posted by Stuart at 6:56 AM | Permalink

In a crazy Meet the Parents - Ben Stiller-kind-of-way, Riccardo Paulin, a 65 year old Australian pensioner was removed from a SilkAir flight when he asked a flight attendant "Where is the Bomb?" as he placed his luggage into an overhead compartment.

Paulin was then charged and fined 10,000 Singapore dollars (US$6,420) but could have been looking at a maximum 100,000 dollars and up to 5 years imprisonment.

All for saying the word "BOMB" on a plane.

I keep seeing the scene from Meet the Parents as Stiller has a heated discussion with a flight attendant when he tries to assure her that "It's not like I have a bomb in my bag", to which she quickly hastens "You said the word bomb." He continues like a spoilt child "Bomb! Bomb! Bomb! Bomb! Bomb! Bomb!" as we see him unceremoniously exited from the plane by two oversized security guards.

Has our society gone completely berzerk? I won't defend that Mr Paulin couldn't have been a little wiser in his remark but to take this as a 'Bomb Threat' is a little over the deep end - one would assume.

Posted by Stuart at 7:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Many consumers avoid using e-stores like the plague, concerned that their credit card information will be hacked and used by others. Realistically, the chances of this happening are less than your details being fraudulently used when you're not online.

But for those who perceive the risk to be too great Innovative Cart Technologies have now produced the ICT DisplayCard.

The difference between this and a normal credit card is a small display located in the right-hand corner. Press your thumb onto it and a one-time 8-digit security number appears which can be quoted much like the Verification number you have on the back of your card now. Except that it changes each time you use it.

So even if a hacker or fraudster has your credit card number, expiry date, name on the card and verification PIN they still won't be able to use it. Only when the 8-digit number is quoted from physically having the card in front of you when you make a purchase can it be used.

This technology isn't cheap but for peace of mind and the ability to visit those e-stores you shyed away from it may be the idea you've been looking for.

Link

Posted by Stuart at 6:56 AM | Permalink

In your kitchen scales add one part per volume of "Experience" and one part per volume of "Product". Step back from the counter and evaluate the balancing act that ensues.

My dilemma, it seems, occurred when Little Britain advertised a show for March next year. Debating the pros and cons in my mind the decision was eventually concreted when I discovered the price - $130 for average seat holders.

$130 for a show that I enjoy, but find distasteful in parts, knowing full-well that I won't be able to pick and choose what I encounter. Or, I could spend $40.95 on each of the 3 series on DVD. Roughly, we've come up with the same price.

The difference? One is the experience. Memories of a show that can be reminisced with friends. Jokes retold; skits re-enacted; and lots of "remember..."

The other is a consumerist product that can be viewed ad nauseum, and probably will be. Fast forwarded; rewinded; paused for toilet and munchie breaks.

Is there a measure? I guess not. We need both in our worlds - the experiences and the valued possessions.

So I've decided to see the concert AND buy the series.

Posted by Stuart at 7:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Take this example of 30 year old, Holly Lesmeister - already $64,000 in debt and wanting to take a world holiday in the next couple of years.

Kara McGuire, from the Star Tribune, wrote this article delving into the financial world of a 30-something. The post is certainly revealing as we see a glimpse of the unreal expectations many young people have when it comes to their personal finances.

The killer for people wanting to budget their incomes is other people's expectations. Peer-pressure doesn't end with high school or the teenage years and realising that others are dictating how you spend your time and finances is an incredible paradigm to deal with.

In our own situation, we always struggle with Christmas gift-giving. I don't want to be a scrouge but I don't want to spend my life savings keeping up with family expectations. We feel bullied by others and then settle for a mediocre financial existence, always pandering to the next expectation placed upon us.

Echo Huang, gives Lesmeister some great advice after she shares her financial predicament.

Lesmeister worries about missing out on fun. Friends mentioned checking out the new Jean-Georges restaurant in the Chambers Hotel in downtown Minneapolis. "You just can't go cheaply," she says, predicting she'll stay at home more rather than lower the caliber of places she frequents.

Huang suggests Lesmeister share her financial goals with her friends so they can support her efforts. Who knows -- they might feel relieved if she steers them toward affordable activities like bet-free poker or hiking in the woods.

She didn't like that idea too much.

If your friends control your spending habits, they will certainly control your financial destiny. All I could suggest to Holly was grow some financial balls and stop selling out to the "live for today" mentality.

Posted by Stuart at 7:00 AM | Permalink

Ask a real estate agent which investment option is better and she'll tell you "Property". Ask a stock broker which is the better performer and he'll unequivocally state "Stocks." So which is better?

You can make up your own mind but here's six reason's why I'd invest in stocks over property.

For the record, I'm not saying that I wouldn't invest in real estate or that it's a bad idea to do so. I'm merely stating that there are reasons why stocks are much better

1. Liquidity

The beauty of investing in stocks is that if everything goes pear-shaped, either with your investment or your own life situation, you can readily liquidate them. In fact, you could have them sold and the money transferred to your bank account within an hour.

To liquidate property requires are far more tedious and time consuming exercise. The property needs to be listed with an agent who will then network with clients to view the property. If there is no interest at this level, the property will be advertised and in due course a buyer will be sourced.

Then there's the settlement period which could take from between 1-3 months before you actually see your money.

2. Transaction costs

Transaction costs when buying a property include stamp duty tax, conveyancing fees, mortgage transfer fees etc and could be well into the thousands of dollars. Selling your property will also incur fees including the agents fee, unless you go down the for sale by owner road and perhaps some legal costs. These exit fees will also be in the thousands of dollars.

Stocks, on the other hand, enjoy marginal transaction costs. Taxes may apply and perhaps a small percentage by a broker but nowhere near the amount we're prescribing with a property transaction.

3. Stocks outperform property in the long term

Traditionally stocks outperform property over the long term trend. Why? Because property is an asset used by companies which obviously affects their share price. Any upswing in property values is reflected in the company's balance sheet which determines their dividends or stock value. Downturns are also measured against the company's financials.

If the companies were no longer making profits then stocks would go down but so too would the value of property. People would be laid off, property values would fall as people try to reduce their mortgage debt and the value of stocks would still remain higher.

4. Ability to enter the market

Try getting into the property market with $5,000 and you'll find listed property trusts may be your only avenue (although most of these require larger entrance investments). However, with $5,000 you could start investing in stocks immediately.

This is the problem for new home buyers. Coming up with a 10-20% deposit on a $400k home is near on impossible. I imagine that in years to come many young people will turn to investing in the stock market long before they contemplate buying a house.

5. Maintenance costs

Stocks cost nothing to keep. Real estate, on the other hand, will consume large chunks of maintenance money. At the very least fashions and trends change and there is always the need to update and keep your property relevant in a fickle market - unless your prepared to accept less when selling it.

Gardens, lawns, fences, plumbing, painted areas... the list goes on and on - and on.

6. Transaction ease

This is where stocks stand out. As previously mentioned when it comes to liquidity stocks are very easy to sell and buy. All it takes is a phone call or internet transaction and the investment is yours.

Real estate takes much more. Time, legalese, paperwork etc makes a transaction to purchase or sell property look more like signing a peace treaty with a warring nation.

While property seems to have many downsides to investing than stocks, there is another option than buying a physical property - Managed Property Trusts. These are similar to stocks in that you are buying a share of the property rather than the whole property.

Many managed property trusts are listed on the stock exchange as well and enjoy all the convenience of buying and selling as stocks have.

Posted by Stuart at 6:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

His Majesty Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu'izzaddin Waddaulah is warning Bruneian's via a Titah to be frugal as they celebrate Hari Raya, a celebration that marks the end of the fasting month of Ramadan.

This coming from a man who has no understanding of the world "frugal".

Listed by Forbes in their top 100 Richest people in the world and recorded as having the largest private collection of Rolls Royce marques, the infallible Sultan is wanting Bruneians to keep a tight rein on their spending.

Brunei is a developing nation ranked 45th in the world per capita GDP and with a population of less than 400,000 people it's hardly a poor country.

So why the Titah? Maybe the oil price slump is beginning to have an effect!

Posted by Stuart at 6:34 AM | Permalink

Two days ago I wrote a post titled I'm in the top 10% of the world's wealthiest people and ended up having the second most popular post on Pfblogs.org for that day.

Yesterday, I followed that up with a rant about something that is financially crippling our teenagers - ringtone providers and recieved only 1 click.

So, I started perusing my pfblogs.org entry listing to see if any light could be shed on what makes one post a success while another is lost to oblivion.

People are more interested in themselves than others

Here's some of the titles that have had the most success from pfblogs;

What does your car say about the real YOU? (16 Clicks)
Are we heading for another Great Depression? (23 Clicks)
Stick to your personal financial plan like superglue (13 Clicks)
7 traits of an astute investor (17 Clicks)

while these ones flew under the radar;

Training your teenagers to handle money
Another Billionaire Dies (1 Click)
Giving your kids a better credit history

The most researched post does not equal a winner

My I'm in the top 10% of the world's wealthiest people post took only 5 minutes to write based on a post I had seen elsewhere. On the flip-side yesterday's post had been brewing for a couple of weeks and I had been on a fact-finding mission for the same period.

Linkbait is well and truly alive

Just ask Brian from CopyBlogger. Your post could be the most amazing piece of literature the world has ever seen (not that I'm saying my posts even fit that genre) but if it's not packaged correctly, no-ones going to look in the box.

People are natural voyeurs

We love to see what other people are doing in their lives - especially those who might be doing it better than we are. Find open windows and doors to lead people through so that they can analyze from a distance how their idols do what they do.

Posted by Stuart at 5:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

How long will society accept ringtone providers exploiting our children?

Ringtone providers are the 21st century equivalent of con artists and shysters. They peddle their wares to impressionable teenagers eager to keep up with the latest trends and unwise to know when to stop.

It seems every prime time TV show is now a carrier for ringtone adverts. Their message is simple, "Buy now so that you aren't left behind." Teenagers race for their phones and dial the number and instantly they're rewarded with a ringtone of the latest song.

However, they managed to miss the fine print at the bottom of the advert stating that it is a service that will continue to send messages (for which they will be charged for). And the only way to stop it is to sms the company back, if you happened to remember their phone number, with the words "Stop now O Mighty Ringtone Provider" (all case-sensitive of course!) Failure to get the syntax right and the charges keep coming.

Sure, this is the blatant extreme. But what about those seemingly once-off purchases? Even in this example (pictured above), the only time you come in contact with a price is when you have chosen that must-have song and are about to download it. Then, and only then, is the price revealed albeit in faint grey font!

Ringtone providers are flawting what little legislation there is that regulates this industry. They prey on teenagers irrational thoughts and trick them into purchases that are exploitive at best. Not to mention the price of these ringtones being exhorbitant - ($6.60 for a piece of digital bits when a CD single costs less than $5 and includes an actual physical product!)

When will governments see that this is hurting our young people and legislate accordingly?

Posted by Stuart at 5:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Would you like to know how rich you are in comparison to the rest of the world? Sure you would!

If you're dying to know where you rank, type your annual income into this wealth calculator. (Depending which country you hail from you may need to do some currency conversion first).

This is a great little calculator that I found via Seth Godin's blog. It makes you think how the rest of the world is getting on.

Posted by Stuart at 6:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

When you're standing in front of a small group of people ashamedly stating, "My name is [Insert Your Name Here] and it's been 2 weeks since I..." it's probably a tad late recognising that you have a shopping addiction.

While we always blame women for their poor shopping restraint research now shows that men are almost equally culpable.

Test yourself on the following questions and see how you fair?

1. How many credit cards do you possess?
a. None
b. One
c. Two
d. Three or more

2. What's your annual income?
a. More than 200K
b. 101K to 199K
c. 51K to 99K
d. 50K or less

3. How old are you?
a. Above 80
b. Between 41 and 79
c. Between 18 and 39
d. 40

4. How far is your credit card away from its limit?
a. Less than $1000 or more
b. Less than $500 - $999
c. Exceeding the limit
d. Less than $100

5. How much do you pay off your credit card?
a. All purchases within interest-free period
b. As much as you can
c. More than the minimum payment
d. The minimum payment

If you selected (d) for most of your answers you'll find that chances of joining that compulsive shopping group therapy class are quite high.

Link

Posted by Stuart at 7:54 AM | Permalink

...but you do need to employ one, or two.

FMF started this post and as I followed the links I found that myself disagreeing on a couple of points.

My e-journey finally took me to this post on using financial planners. FMF's opinion was "If I was to use a financial planner, I wouldn't want one who wasn't in better financial shape than I am." and illustrated this point referring to not employing the services of a fat doctor.

Birds of a Feather Flock Together...And Fools Seldom Differ

I understand FMF's point but his opinion is slightly flawed. For if we carry that notion forward he wouldn't use a doctor to operate on his heart who also hadn't had a heart operation. This is foolish thinking in my book because it limits the amount of knowledge you are willing to hear and process. It's really the same argument that people have for keeping the friendships they do - we mostly tend to those who have the same ideas and agree with our worldview.

Most millionaires would employ the services of more than one accountant or financial planner so that they can be stretched. It's their ideas that we need to become wealthy more than their advice. And their ideas come from their education and the fact they work with many individuals who have specific requirements that may be way outside the box.

Having said that, I agree with the heart of FMF's opinion and that is if financial planners aren't willing to take the same risks and succeed then their advice has limited value - but it still has value! As people on a journey to financial independence, or whatever your financial goal is, we can't know all there is to know about everything. So we find advisors we can trust and speak excellence through how they handle their own affairs and those of their clients.

Our Goals May Not Line Up With Our Accountants

FMF is also making a big assumption that if someone is going to give good advice they must personally have the same goals and priorities. How can this be valid? If a financial planner personally values lifestyle and time with their family over the next million dollar profit doesn't mean that they aren't capable of giving great advice. My goals don't have to match those of my mentors or my advisors.

However, they do need to understand my goals and dreams. If their worldview clouds their financial advice then it is as FMF espouses - not useful.

In a Nutshell

Never write someone's advice off because they don't fit your mold. We employ accountants and financial advisors because they have a finger on the pulse in areas that we may not. They see ideas that we may be blinded to.

In reality, all they are doing is offering advice. Heading towards financial independence I need to "eat the chicken and spit out the bones."

Posted by Stuart at 6:26 AM | Permalink

Feasible life insurance is becoming harder to find as insurers are upping the ante with premiums and conditions for acceptance. Medical examinations are becoming the norm as insurers analyse the risk. Furthermore, insurers are becoming less interested in how healthy you are now and more intent on discovering what genetic issues may currently lie dormant in your body.

So it seems like a breath of fresh air when ING begin advertising their SureLife Plan. Always ready to tear apart any offering from banks and insurance companies, I began delving through the paperwork to try and explain the concept in terms that anyone could understand.

The first difference you notice with the the SureLife Plan is that ING doesn't require a medical examination for acceptance. Their only distinctions for premiums are your age bracket and whether you're a smoker or non-smoker.
They will also only cover you up to $500,000.

At a second glance, you're mystified to the reasons for their competitive rates. As most insurers are forcing a plethora of paperwork to be signed and the information they require exceeds the national census questionnaire, how can ING offer such reasonable premiums?

I think you can put it down to an insurer who's realising what the market wants (or in this case doesn't want) and is prepared to make worthwhile risk analysis. Most insurers want to iron out every abnormality in their risk assessments whereas it appears ING has realised that they are so minute they're not worth forcing the majority of consumers to suffer.

The SureLife Plan explained;

• The plan is available to anyone between the ages of 21 and 75.
• Obviously, premiums are commensurate with your age (ie the younger they are, the cheaper they are); sum insured (from $50 - $500K); and, whether you smoke or don't smoke.
• The SureLife Plan is only available to Australian residents.
• Pre-existing medical conditions that are terminal and are known to the applicant aren't covered
• Coverage worldwide, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week
• An easy 2-page form to complete

As a life insurance plan, the SureLife Plan is very viable. There may be others that are better but I haven't found them yet.

Posted by Stuart at 5:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)