nigelforbes

More or less, I know it as the Health Happy product. It's 5 mill. coverage which doubles in the event of major illness.

I would much rather have the insurer know the true state of my health before I take out the policy than when I go to claim, only for the claim to be denied because I either exaggerated, lied or forgot about things. It's a false economy to do otherwise. And I had forgotten about some things, when you use your local hospital as a family doctor you tend to rack up the visits pretty quickly, their report of visits ran to five pages (20 years) so be careful. I have been through the (insurance company paid) medical and I have declared everything. I'm expecting to hear in the next few days what the underwriters counter offer will be and will compare that to what I have at present and will post what they have to say. BTW AIA will accept applications from people over age 70 years.

I personally don't think the IMF should have a voice in how a global pandemic should be managed and controlled, just like I don't think the WHO should have a voice in how countries should manage their respective economies.

Things just got more interesting, the IMF (highly unusually) waded into the fight and was publicly critical of governments new economic measures. Moody's followed up by saying the measures would be credit negative for the UK...ouch. Do nothing and the UK credit rating falls and borrowing becomes even more expensive. Reverse the cut to the top rate of tax and it will be seen as backtracking by a new government as it tried to execute its first economic policy. My guess is the government will ignore the IMF and hope the new fiscal measures bring some early wins. No pain, no gain as they say. But exactly what the BOE can or will do remains a mystery.....double ouch. Personally, I think a part of the solution will come from the US Fed., USD is too strong and is having a damaging impact on countries/economies globally, I would expect them to put a lid on things soon which will help Sterling.

I'm very fortunate that I get half my income from Pounds and half from USD. They were identical amounts a few months ago, both paid in THB here in Thailand. Today the difference is around 7,000, as one increases in value, the other decreases by a similar amount but the total stays about the same....lucky lucky me.

I agree. There are plenty of one year at a time options, available for many reasons. But none of them are assured for the probable duration of retirement or even a reasonable period that masquerades as one.

You're actually buying a life insurance policy with a health insurance rider so it's not conventional health insurance as we typically know it. The life insurance policy runs until age 99 and the premium for that is based on the age of the applicant when the policy was first taken out. The cost of the rider is also age related and set out in a published table that applies to everyone, up to age 99 year so yes, renewal is assured. Also, there is no deductible and no co-pay with AIA, unlike CIGNA where both can be quite onerous, in my case, up to 500k baht per year (360k deductible and 140k co-pay).

Thanks for replying. I'm not sure I agree with everything you wrote but what sort of place would the world be if we all thought the same thing! Just one comment before I disappear for the day - I started a business in the UK over 35 years ago, I did so not for any reason other than I had some spare cash and I desperately wanted to do so. I charged into the whole thing with nothing more than a really strong desire and some cash, no marketing, no sector surveys no economic evaluation and no business plan, I didn't even have any customers. Without the determination, drive and some cash it never would have taken off, luckily for me it did. I think that companies, jobs and wealth are created by people, opportunities are created by economies. Have a great day.

I'm in the process of changing from CIGNA to AIA, the latter being an insurance company rather than a health insurance company. I think the AIA policies are far superior and they have been highly professional to work with during the application process. AIA seems to put more effort and scrutiny into the application process and has paid for a health exam before deciding whether to accept me or not. I prefer it that way, it means there are fewer surprises later if you try to claim. It means I have to pay a life insurance premium every year in addition to the health insurance rider, the total cost is still less than the CIGNA premium. The only downside is that there aren't a lot of good English speakers to deal with at AIA, fortunately I found one person who has lived in the US for many years and has been super helpful.

Your Will in Thailand should be written in your native language and then translated (by a third party) and certified by MOFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs). As a non Thai you cannot be expected to be fluent in Thai and to have understood and agreed with a document written in a foreign language, the will can potentially be challenged on that basis. The cost to translate a one page will shouldn't be more than about 500 baht or so, the MOFA charge is very similar.

So your short answer is that you'd raise interest rates and not do anything else, you wouldn't do anything to help people under strain from the interest rate increases.....really? If you give those people on the bottom end of the earnings ladder any form of support, it will come at a cost, somebody has to pay for it and that somebody is the tax payer. It's either paid for with cash handouts, which increase borrowings and taxes, or it's paid for by tax cuts and then paid for by tax increases. The current government has chosen a third option, cut taxes and pay for it by increased borrowings, like I said, a bold move.....I think. The only issue in question seems to be, who should receive those tax cuts. Should it be the wealth and job creators, the people who create jobs and companies, or, the people on the bottom end who you say can't afford to eat because of inflation etc. Hmmm, tricky. From a humanitarian perspective you'd chose the latter, I certainly would. But from an economic recovery position of government I might chose the former, because I think that has a better chance of success and avoid me having to do exactly the same thing over again, in six months time. Of course there is yet another option, tax the bejesus out of the people and companies with money and give it to the poor, the Robin Hood solution. Unfortunately that has the effect of forcing the Dysons to Singapore, the Jim Radcliffe's to Monaco and the bankers to Europe and the US, a seriously unhelpful solution..

Yes really, read it again, slowly. I don't believe that giving money to the lowest income groups helps stimulate investment or the economy, sorry if you disagree but that's my view. Now we're done.

You trolling me boy! I never said anything like that. I think we're done.

One of the benefits of raising interest rates is that it attracts overseas investors, Foreign Direct Investors is the target. I do not mean to imply that raising rates would attract UK investors to invest in UK business. As for your question about bottom, I can't believe you're actually asking it, let alone expecting an answer!

We don't have to agree...and we don't. Not all wealth is merely accumulated and stored, much of it is invested in business, that why venture capital and the like exist.

The Pound would only rise if the economy was improving, buying in at the bottom is nothing new. There's a lot of people right now looking globally for somewhere to invest and markets are out for the time being. UK interest rates are forecast to reach 6%, that's a decent return when the average return from markets is only 7.5% per year.

OK, if that's what you think. I disagree, I think trickle down economics works and that giving hand outs to the lowest income group is nothing more than financial aid and nothing to do with stimulating the economy. Trickle up economics, which is what that is, doesn't create jobs or stimulate new investment, ....I think.

It doesn't have to be gilts, why must it be so? Overseas investors are able to invest the same things that UK citizens are, hedge funds, property, markets, private sector business, venture capital etc etc. I'm an overseas investor who invests globally, including in the UK. I am invested in UK property, UK income and accumulation funds and also in a UK business, anyone practically can do exactly the same.

Large scale inflation during a recession is a serious problem, there is no single answer that suits both sides of the economic argument, at the same time. Lowering inflation has to be the priority hence that means increased interest rates, that's BOE's job. Stimulating growth is the governments job, hence the tax cuts, which in turn means increased government borrowings. Which of those two items would you suggest we forgo, quelling inflation or stimulating growth? I think that trying to do both things at once is a bold move, I hope it doesn't backfire but as I said earlier, what is the alternative?

Once you invest in Sterling you have to do something with it after you've bought it! We're in a risk off mode presently so equities and bonds don't make much sense, private sector investment is one alternative.

My view is that the higher the BOE rates go, the more attractive that makes Sterling and the less it costs us to service foreign debt. Increased rates also attract foreign investment which combined with other tax cuts, should make the UK more competitive and attractive to foreign business. Oh yes, increased rates also help control inflation. The downside is that domestic rates will increase also hence consumer and business borrowing become more expensive. In theory that is partially offset by increased interest on savings, assuming everyone has any! I can see the logic and think it's a bold move and a sound one, the alternative after all is....what?

That was actually the joke, 99% of people don't benefit from trickle down economics, or so the popular theory goes.

I was looking for a plunge in the FTSE (not Sterling) but it seems to already be priced in on US markets. A large number of shares in the FTSE100 have US earnings and are listed on the US exchanges. The value of those shares fell by around 2% in US trading, after UK trading had ceased.

They effectively increased the interest rate the government has to pay on foriegn debt (by weakening the Pound) but they haven't increased the key lending rate that will attract inwards investment and capital inflows, a big difference.

Currency exchange rates rarely make big moves and stay there forever, at some point the markets will see the Pound is oversold and it will rebound. That may well be a dead cat bounce, unless the UK economy starts to see some tangible benefit to the tax cuts that caused all of this. The other reason it will improve is because the BOE will have to increase interest rates at some point, that will make the Pound more attractive or rather I should say, less unattractive.