Re. : Right Move by SEB

Re. : a lot of difference between mutual fund and insurance.i welcome the changes in both.

Re. : a lot of difference between mutual fund and insurance.i welcome the changes in both.

Re. : Infect SEBI is the Capital Markets regulator and IRDA is the Insurance regulator. Logically, as the stock market operations of ULIPs come under Capital Market operations, it is clearly fall under the purview of SEBI, not IRDA. IRDA should restrict itself to regulating the (small) insurance premium component of ULIPs, and work with SEBI to enable SEBI to regulate the (large) investment component.

Re. : Of course, SEBI is right in barring Insurance Companies for launching new ULIP Schemes, because even existing are also questionable. So, first of all GOI decides who is Regulator for Investment part of ULIP.

Re. : Finally, something we can appreciate.

Re. : It too appreciate this SEBI move

Re. : The basic problem is that the ULIPs have costs structures and sales processes. The MFs do not have such thing. Both are chasing the same Investors. IRDA has taken a role of promoting industry development like an industry association, rather than acting like a true regulator to see that players do not loot powerless customers. The real failure has been of IRDA governance. This could have been resolved by Finance Ministry by putting a better leadership into IRDA as well as mandating a harmonization of rules between ULIPs and MFs (obviously by a joint committee of SEBI-IRDA). It is shame on the part of GOI by referring the case to judiciary.

Re. : It is really surprising that a market regulator waited almost 8-9 years to act. Can anybody calculate gross amount collected by these Life Insurance Companies during this period. As stated Life Companies were violating SEBI guidelines of pooled Money under Securities Act, it is not biggest Indian Scam. And in this biggest scam Public and Private Sector Majors are all participants. And surprisingly SEBI acted very late and that too partially.

Re. : SEBI s stand appears to be justified as it is Responsible for regulation of Collective Investments Schemes

Re. : Nobody buys or even sells ULIP for its insurance protection—it is much more of a ‘mutual fund with an insurance rider’ rather than ‘an insurance scheme with possibility of market gain .

Re. : Insurance offered with certain Credit Cards or some Bank Accounts are not IRDA approved. So, why SEBI approval is not required by anyone managing securities in a pooled mannered. ULIPs are clear cut violation of Indian Law.

Re. : How can a regulator which claims to have “public interest” in mind clear an insurance plan that has the flexibility to invest up to 100% of the total money it collects in the stock market and yet offers a guarantee? Any accountability.

Re. : Joining the Ulip sales pitch: Recently IRDA put out advertisements in newspapers using taxpayers’ money, asking people to invest in Ulips. Is that a function of an industry lobby or a regulator which has public interest on its mind?

Re. : IRDA says that the stopping of new issues of Ulips can land insurance companies in liquidity problems, jeopardising payments on existing policies, they should face the reality and act accordingly. They were not knowing they are promoting an illegal act. Strange!

Re. : this is realy nice move