Last Updated on by Tree of Wealth
Few financial products in Singapore spark as much debate as the Investment-Linked Policy. Ask around and you’ll get two completely opposite answers. Some will tell you their ILP quietly built them a six-figure portfolio. Others will tell you they surrendered theirs at a painful loss and warn you never to touch one.
So, is ILP good or bad?
Here’s the honest answer most articles won’t give you: the question itself is outdated. “ILP” is not one product. It’s a label that covers at least three structurally different products — and most of the bad reputation comes from just one of them: the older protection-focused ILPs, where rising insurance charges quietly ate into investment units year after year. Modern ILPs are built very differently, with some doing away with most insurance charges entirely to focus on wealth accumulation.
That means asking “is ILP good or bad” is a bit like asking “are cars good or bad” — the answer depends entirely on which one you’re looking at, what you need it for, and whether you understand what you’re committing to.
In this guide, we’ll break down how ILPs actually work, why the older generation of plans earned their bad name, how modern ILPs differ, and how they compare against the alternatives — including investing in unit trusts directly. And if you already own an ILP and are wondering whether to keep or surrender it, we’ll cover what to check before you make a decision you can’t undo.
Not sure whether the ILP you own — or the one you’re being offered — is worth it? Fill in the form below and we’ll walk you through the actual numbers, charges and alternatives clearly. As advisers who offer both ILPs and direct unit trust investing, we have no reason to push you toward one or the other — no pressure, just a proper comparison.
Interested to learn more?
Fill in the form below and we will get back to you!
What an ILP Actually Is — In Plain English
An Investment-Linked Policy is a life insurance policy where your premiums buy units in investment funds, called sub-funds. Your policy’s value is simply the number of units you hold multiplied by the current unit price. When the funds do well, your policy value rises. When markets fall, it falls. There is no smoothing, no bonus declaration, and — in a typical ILP — no guaranteed cash value.
This is the fundamental difference between an ILP and a traditional whole life or endowment plan. With those, your premiums go into the insurer’s participating fund, and the insurer declares bonuses that smooth out market ups and downs, with a guaranteed portion built in. With an ILP, there is no participating fund standing between you and the market. You carry the investment risk yourself — fully.
Where your premium actually goes
Here’s the part most people are never walked through properly. When you pay your ILP premium, it doesn’t all go into investments. Depending on the plan’s structure, your premium is used for some combination of:
Buying units in your chosen sub-funds. This is the investment portion — the part that actually compounds for you.
Paying for insurance coverage. If your ILP provides death, TPD or critical illness cover, the insurer charges for it. Crucially, this charge is usually not a separate bill — it’s paid by selling off some of your units every month. You don’t feel it, because you never see the money leave your bank account. But your unit balance feels it.
Fees and charges. Policy or administration charges, fund management fees inside each sub-fund, and — on older plans — allocation structures where only a portion of your early premiums bought units at all, or bid-offer spreads where you effectively bought units at a slightly higher price than you could sell them.
Interested to learn more?
Fill in the form below and we will get back to you!
The one mechanic you must understand: unit deduction
If you take away only one thing from this section, make it this.
Insurance charges in an ILP rise with age — the cost of covering a 55-year-old is many times that of covering a 30-year-old. On protection-focused ILPs, this means the number of units sold off each month to pay for your coverage keeps climbing as you get older.
Now combine that with a market downturn. Unit prices fall, so the policy has to sell more units to pay the same insurance charge. Your unit balance gets drawn down faster at exactly the moment your investments are worth less. In severe cases — an older policyholder, high coverage, prolonged weak markets — the policy can consume itself, and the policyholder is asked to top up premiums just to keep the coverage alive.
This single mechanic is the engine room of almost every ILP horror story you’ve read. It’s real, and it’s why the next section exists.
But — and this matters — it applies to a specific type of ILP. Many modern plans carry minimal insurance coverage precisely so that this problem barely exists, and some newer structures allocate 100% of your premium to units from day one. Which is why the “good or bad” question can’t be answered until you know which type of ILP is actually in front of you.
Interested to learn more?
Fill in the form below and we will get back to you!
Why ILPs Got a Bad Name
The ILPs sold in Singapore through the 2000s and early 2010s earned their reputation honestly. It wasn’t one flaw — it was several stacking on top of each other, and most policyholders only discovered them years in.
Low premium allocation in the early years
On many older regular-premium ILPs, not all of your premium bought units in the first few years. A meaningful slice went to distribution and administrative costs instead, with the allocation rate climbing to 100% only after several years. The result: your money spent its most valuable compounding years only partially invested. Policyholders who checked their statements after year two or three were often shocked to find their policy value far below what they had paid in — before markets had anything to do with it.
Bid-offer spreads
Many older plans bought your units at the offer price and valued them at the bid price — a built-in spread you paid on every single premium, on top of fund management fees. It was small enough per transaction to ignore, and large enough over hundreds of premium payments to matter.
The rising cost of insurance, paid invisibly
This is the unit deduction mechanic from the previous section, and it deserves repeating because of how it was experienced. The insurance charges weren’t a line item on a bill — they were units quietly sold off inside the policy. A policyholder could go ten years without ever being told that the cost of their coverage had tripled. On protection-heavy ILPs held into one’s 50s and 60s, the charges could grow to consume most of what the investments earned — and in bad markets, more than that.
Surrender penalties and the exit trap
Older ILPs and their modern accumulation successors share this feature: leaving early is expensive. Surrender in the first several policy years and you forfeit a substantial part of what you’ve paid. This created the worst possible dynamic — policyholders who discovered the above problems in year three or four faced a brutal choice between staying in a product they’d lost faith in, or crystallising a heavy loss. Many chose the loss. Those stories travelled.
Sold as everything to everyone
The structural flaws were compounded by how these plans were sold. ILPs were pitched as the one product that did it all — protection, savings, investment — often to buyers who would have been better served by term insurance plus a simple investment plan, or who didn’t understand that “projected values” in the benefit illustration were not promises. When markets underperformed the illustrated 8% scenarios of that era, the gap between expectation and statement became the defining memory of an entire generation of policyholders.
An honest scorecard
So were the critics right? About those plans — largely, yes. For most people who bought a protection-heavy regular-premium ILP in that era, a term plan plus direct investing would have produced a better outcome. There’s no point pretending otherwise, and we won’t.
But here’s what the “all ILPs are bad” crowd gets wrong: the industry knew all of this too. The product that exists today was rebuilt around precisely these failures — and judging a 2026 ILP by a 2006 structure is how people end up making the wrong decision in both directions: buying the wrong plan, or reflexively rejecting the right one.
Which brings us to the numbers. Before looking at how modern ILPs differ, let’s put actual dollars on what fee drag does to a portfolio — because this is the part that applies to every investment decision you’ll ever make, ILP or not.
The Real Cost of Fees: A Worked Example
Percentages hide things. “2% per annum” sounds trivial — it’s what fees do over twenty years of compounding that decides outcomes. So let’s put dollars on it.
The setup: You invest S$1,000 a month for 20 years — S$240,000 in total contributions. Assume the underlying investments earn the same 6% p.a. gross return in every scenario. The only difference is the total cost layer between you and that return.
| Total annual cost | Net return | Value after 20 years | Lost to fees vs lowest-cost option |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.3% p.a. | 5.7% | ~S$438,500 | — |
| 1.5% p.a. | 4.5% | ~S$384,100 | ~S$54,400 |
| 3.0% p.a. | 3.0% | ~S$326,900 | ~S$111,600 |
These cost tiers are illustrative examples only, not quotes from any specific product. As a rough guide to where real-world structures tend to sit: low-cost index ETF portfolios at the bottom of the range, actively managed unit trusts somewhere in the middle, and older-generation ILPs at the top once fund fees, policy charges and rising insurance costs are stacked together. The actual cost of any plan or portfolio can only be confirmed against its own product summary and fund factsheets.
Interested to learn more?
Fill in the form below and we will get back to you!
What this does and doesn’t prove
It would be easy to stop here and conclude “cheapest always wins.” That’s the DIY crowd’s favourite chart, and as far as it goes, it’s correct. But three honest caveats:
The comparison assumes identical gross returns and identical behaviour. In practice, the biggest destroyer of retail returns isn’t fees — it’s investors abandoning their plan: stopping contributions in bad markets, panic-selling near bottoms, or never starting at all. A structure that costs 1% more but keeps someone invested for 20 years beats a 0.3% portfolio that gets liquidated in the first crash. That’s not a sales line; it’s the well-documented gap between fund returns and actual investor returns.
Bonuses change the arithmetic — in both directions. Modern ILPs offset costs with upfront and loyalty bonuses. A large first-year bonus genuinely improves the math if you complete the premium term; surrender early and the surrender charges take back far more than the bonus gave. Never evaluate the bonus without the exit penalty next to it.
Interested to learn more?
Fill in the form below and we will get back to you!
Not all ILPs sit in the 3% tier anymore. Some modern structures cap or fix their charges, landing well below the older generation’s cost drag. Where a specific plan sits is exactly what you should demand to see — in dollars, on your own premium size — before signing anything.
The right conclusion from this section isn’t “avoid ILPs.” It’s this: know your total cost layer, in dollars, over your full holding period, before you commit. Any adviser worth their license should be able to show you that number. If they can’t — or won’t — that tells you what you need to know.
Investment returns are illustrations only and are not guaranteed; actual returns depend on fund performance and policy charges.
How Modern ILPs Differ
The ILP you’ll be shown in 2026 is not the product from Section 3. Insurers rebuilt the structure around the exact failures that damaged the older generation — partly because regulation and disclosure standards tightened, and partly because the market simply stopped buying the old design. Here’s what changed.
100% premium allocation from day one
The single biggest fix. On many modern accumulation ILPs, every dollar of premium buys units from the first month — no multi-year period where a slice of your money never reaches the market. Some plans go further and add upfront bonuses: extra units credited in the early years, effectively giving you more than 100% allocation upfront, with loyalty bonuses layered on in later policy years for staying invested.
The honest counterweight: those bonuses aren’t free money. They’re financed by the charges you’ll pay over the full premium term, and they’re protected by surrender penalties. Complete the term, and the bonuses genuinely improve your outcome. Leave early, and the surrender charge takes back more than the bonus gave. A modern ILP is a commitment device with a reward for finishing — evaluate it as exactly that.
Interested to learn more?
Fill in the form below and we will get back to you!
The 101 structure: insurance in name only
A large share of modern ILPs are what the industry calls “101 plans” — the death benefit is set at roughly 101% of what you’ve paid in or of your account value. The insurance element is deliberately minimal. That’s not a defect; it’s the point. With almost no coverage to pay for, the escalating mortality charge problem from Section 3 — the mechanic behind most ILP horror stories — barely exists. These plans are investment vehicles wearing a thin insurance wrapper, usually chosen for access to certain funds, share classes or bonus structures rather than for protection.
The flip side: if you hold a 101 ILP, you are not meaningfully insured. Your actual protection needs still have to be met separately — typically with term insurance, which does the job far more efficiently than any investment product ever will.
Charges that are capped, fixed or transparent
Older ILPs charged in ways that grew with you — spreads on every premium, insurance costs rising with age, percentage fees on an expanding account. Some modern plans invert this: fixed-dollar or capped charge structures where the cost is defined upfront and stops growing after a set point. On a plan like FWD’s Invest Flexi VII, for instance, the main account charge is calculated on your committed premium rather than your account value, and effectively caps after year ten — meaning that if your portfolio grows, the charge doesn’t grow with it. We’ve broken down exactly how that structure works in our FWD Invest Flexi VII review.
This isn’t universal — plenty of current plans still charge as a percentage of account value — which is why “modern” alone tells you nothing. The charge structure of the specific plan in front of you is what matters.
Flexibility the old plans never had
Current-generation ILPs commonly offer premium pause facilities for rough patches, partial withdrawals after an initial period, top-ups, free fund switching, and on some plans a dividend payout option that turns the portfolio into an income stream — the feature that makes some retirees look at ILPs at all. The fund shelves have improved too: access to institutional-class global funds across managers, rather than a short list of the insurer’s house funds.
So what didn’t change?
Three things, and they’re the ones that matter most:
The lock-in is real. Modern ILPs still punish early exits severely. If there is any realistic chance you can’t sustain the premium for the full term, the bonuses are irrelevant — the surrender table is your actual risk.
Returns are still not guaranteed. Better structure doesn’t mean better markets. You carry the investment risk, same as ever.
The math still has to clear a hurdle. Every ILP has a breakeven yield — the return the funds must earn just to cover the charges. On well-designed modern plans it can be modest; on others it isn’t. It’s a number your adviser can and should calculate for your exact premium and term. Ask for it. In writing.
The honest summary: the structural rot of the old generation has largely been fixed on well-designed modern plans, and the gap between an ILP and investing directly has narrowed. Whether it has narrowed enough — versus simply buying the same funds as unit trusts without the wrapper — is the real question, and it’s exactly what the next section puts side by side.
Interested to learn more?
Fill in the form below and we will get back to you!
ILP vs the Alternatives: A Side-by-Side Look
Here’s how the three structures actually compare — not old ILP versus a strawman, but the real decision most Singaporeans face today: a modern ILP, or term insurance plus investing directly.
| Feature | Older-Generation ILP | Modern Accumulation ILP | Term Insurance + Direct Investing (UT/ETF) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary purpose | Bundled protection + investment | Wealth accumulation with minimal insurance | Protection and investment fully separated |
| Premium allocation | Partial in early years | Typically 100% from day one, often with bonuses | 100% of investment amount invested |
| Insurance charges | Rise with age; paid by selling units | Minimal (101 structures) | None on the investment; term premium paid separately |
| Charge structure | Layered; grows with age and account value | Varies — some capped or fixed, some percentage-based | Fund-level fees only (UT) or expense ratio (ETF) |
| Bonuses | Rare | Upfront + loyalty bonuses common | None |
| Liquidity | Poor; heavy surrender penalties | Poor in early years; improves after lock-in | High; sell any time |
| Discipline mechanism | Forced premiums | Forced premiums + bonus incentive to finish | None — entirely on you |
| Investment risk | Borne by you | Borne by you | Borne by you |
| Guarantees | None on cash value | None on cash value | None |
| Best suited for | Largely superseded | Committed long-horizon savers who value structure | Disciplined investors who want control and low cost |
Three things the table can’t show:
The columns share their biggest weakness. No structure here guarantees anything. The choice is not between safe and risky — it’s between different cost layers, different levels of flexibility, and different amounts of enforced discipline wrapped around the same underlying market risk.
The right column is cheapest only if you actually behave like the right column. On paper, term-plus-direct-investing wins the cost comparison, as Section 4 showed. In practice, it demands that you invest every month without being made to, hold through crashes, and not raid the portfolio for a renovation or a car. Some people genuinely do this. Many don’t — and an honest look at your own track record with money is worth more than any fee table.
Where does CPF LIFE fit? It doesn’t belong in this table, and articles that force it in are comparing apples to national infrastructure. CPF LIFE is your guaranteed lifelong income floor — nothing private, ILP or otherwise, replaces it or beats its payout per dollar. Everything in the table above is what you build on top of that floor. Get your retirement sums sorted first; then this comparison becomes relevant.
So, Is ILP Good or Bad for You?
By now the honest answer should be clear: it depends on which ILP, and it depends on you. Here’s how to place yourself.
Interested to learn more?
Fill in the form below and we will get back to you!
An ILP may genuinely fit if…
You have a long runway and you’ll actually use it. Modern accumulation ILPs are built for 10–20 year horizons. The bonuses, the capped charge structures, the loyalty rewards — all of it pays off at the far end of the term. If you’re in your late 20s to 40s with a stable income and a goal that’s genuinely long-term, the structure works in your favour.
You know yourself well enough to want the commitment. This is the unfashionable truth of the whole debate. If your investing history is a graveyard of abandoned plans — the brokerage account you stopped funding, the “invest every month” resolution that lasted four months — then a structure that makes stopping painful is not a bug. Forced premiums plus a reward for finishing is exactly the discipline some people need, and they know it.
You want a managed, hands-off portfolio in one place. Curated fund shelves, free switching, automatic monthly deduction, one statement. Not everyone wants to run their own portfolio, rebalance it, and decide what to buy each month. Outsourcing that has a cost; for busy people it can be a cost worth paying.
You have a specific use for the features. Access to certain funds or share classes, a dividend payout option for future income, premium waiver riders that keep the plan funded if critical illness strikes — features direct investing doesn’t replicate.
An ILP is likely wrong for you if…
There’s any real chance you can’t sustain the premium. Unstable income, thin emergency fund, big upcoming commitments — the surrender table doesn’t care about your reasons. If you might need out in the first several years, the answer is no, regardless of how good the bonuses look.
You’re buying it mainly for protection. A 101 ILP barely insures you, and a protection-heavy ILP does it expensively. If coverage is the goal, term insurance does the job at a fraction of the cost — that money-saving comparison is one we’ll happily show you.
You’re disciplined and cost-sensitive. If you genuinely will invest every month, hold through crashes, and never raid the pot — the fee table from Section 4 is your answer. Direct unit trusts or ETFs will very likely leave you ahead, and you don’t need the wrapper.
You don’t understand what you’re being shown. If the adviser can’t clearly explain the total charges in dollars, the surrender schedule, and the breakeven yield — or you don’t understand the explanation — do not sign. This product punishes buyers who discover its terms in year three.
You expect guarantees. An ILP guarantees nothing. If “cannot lose my capital” is a requirement, this is the wrong aisle entirely.
The honest bottom line
The pattern across every point above: the ILP-vs-direct-investing decision is less about the product and more about an accurate reading of yourself — your horizon, your cash flow stability, and your actual (not aspirational) investing behaviour. The product that wins on a spreadsheet loses in real life if you can’t execute it. That self-assessment is genuinely hard to do alone, which is where a proper conversation with an adviser who can offer both structures earns its place.
Interested to learn more?
Fill in the form below and we will get back to you!
Already Own an ILP? Read This Before You Surrender
If you found this article because you’re holding a policy you’ve lost faith in, this section is for you. And the first thing to know is this: the decision you’re facing is not “was buying this ILP a mistake?” It’s “what’s the best move from today forward?” Those are different questions, and mixing them up is how people lose money twice.
The money you’ve paid is not the question
Everything you’ve paid in charges so far is gone whether you stay or leave. Painful, but irrelevant to the decision. The only comparison that matters now is forward-looking: what your policy is likely to do from here versus what your surrender value could do elsewhere from here. Surrendering to “stop the bleeding” without running that comparison is emotion, not analysis — and it cuts both ways: some policies genuinely should be surrendered, and some are quietly past their worst years and about to get cheaper to hold.
Five things to check before you decide
1. Where you sit on the surrender schedule. Surrender charges typically fall away over the early policy years. Being one or two years from a significantly better surrender value — or from bonuses vesting — changes the math entirely. Check the exact schedule in your policy documents, not your memory of what the adviser said.
2. Which generation of ILP you’re actually holding. Everything in this article applies here. An old protection-heavy ILP with escalating mortality charges eating your units in your 50s is a very different hold than a modern 101 accumulation plan whose heaviest charges are already behind you. Many policyholders don’t actually know which they own. The product summary and your annual statements will tell you — the unit deduction figures are in there.
3. The forward charges versus the alternative. Take the total charges you’ll pay from today to your intended exit, in dollars. Compare against what the surrender value would incur invested elsewhere. On some older policies this comparison is damning. On some modern ones — especially past the lock-in with charges capped — the wrapper is cheaper to keep than most people assume.
Interested to learn more?
Fill in the form below and we will get back to you!
4. What you lose that isn’t money. If your ILP carries real insurance coverage and your health has changed since you bought it, surrendering means reapplying for cover at today’s age and today’s health — possibly with exclusions or loadings, possibly declined. Never surrender coverage you can’t replace until the replacement is confirmed in force. This mistake is irreversible.
5. The middle options nobody mentions. Surrender-or-hold is a false binary. Depending on the plan: premium holidays if cash flow is the issue, reducing the sum assured to cut insurance charges, stopping future premiums while leaving existing units invested (making it “paid-up”), partial withdrawals past the lock-in, or switching sub-funds if performance — not structure — is the real problem. Sometimes the right answer is a modification, not an exit.
Get the numbers before you sign anything
Whether the policy should stay or go is answerable — with your actual policy documents, your surrender value quote, and thirty minutes of honest arithmetic. What it shouldn’t be is decided from a Reddit thread, a friend’s horror story, or the sunk-cost frustration of a bad statement.
Holding an ILP and not sure whether to keep it, modify it, or let it go? Fill in the form below and we’ll review it with you — the actual charges, the surrender schedule, and what your alternatives look like side by side. No pressure either way; sometimes our advice is to keep the policy you already have.
Interested to learn more?
Fill in the form below and we will get back to you!
The comparison almost nobody shows you
Here‘s what makes this decision genuinely hard to research: the people recommending ILPs usually can’t sell you unit trusts directly, and the people telling you to “just DIY” aren’t accountable for whether you actually stay invested. Almost everyone giving you advice can only sell one side of this table.
We offer both — ILPs and direct unit trust investing. Which means we can put the same portfolio in front of you both ways: inside an ILP wrapper with its bonuses, charges and lock-in, and as direct unit trust holdings with full liquidity. Same funds, same amount, two structures, real numbers on your actual budget — and let the better fit win.
Ready to start investing — whether through unit trusts or an ILP? Fill in the form below and our advisers will help you work out which structure fits your goals, budget and timeline. No pressure, just a clear starting point.
