Papa has a suitcase full of LIC bonds, I wanted to dig around returns so went LIC office yesterday to get the surrender value quotes. 📈
Read this Mini Thread 🧵 before your family LIC uncle tries to sell you the next policy!
‘Don’t mis insurance with an Investment.’
You can sell anything in India if you can play around emotion and trust, LIC has built a robust network of branch, distributors/agents.
Just check the global and Indian market share of LIC.
Now, Compare the returns with FD, Gold and Mutual Funds and instruments you feel comfortable investing.
Well they say - ‘Zindagi ke Sath bhi, Zindagi ke Bad Bhi.’
Guaranteed poor returns seem missing in the line. ❌
(Important)
They trap you with poor insurance plans while they themselves invest in equities.
Well LIC booked a whopping record ₹37,000 crore profit from share sales in 2020-21, the highest in its 65-year history!
https://t.co/5qfIiWktxN
Be informed about your investment decisions, if you liked reading this thread please consider RT so it reaches more people. 🙏
Happy Investing.💰
https://t.co/wDV9kQWOxN
How to choose a Debit Card? \U0001f4b3\U0001f3e6
— Ravisutanjani Kumar (@Ravisutanjani) July 5, 2021
Why? Because not everyone feels suitable with Credit Cards so what are their options?
We want good rewards, lounge, cashback, free insurance, and premium benefits but how to go with one?
A Thread \U0001f9f5
More from All
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?