SIT Journal of Management

Vol.2. No. 2. December 2012. Pp.42-56

A Comparative Study of Traditional Policies and ULIP Policies with reference to Life
Insurance Companies in India

Debabrata Mitra* & Piyali Chandra Khan**

ABSTRACT

Unit Linked Insurance Plan (ULIP) is one single solution for insurance as well as for investment. It is
considered to be a hybrid instrument comprising the features of a life insurance policy and a mutual fund.
A unit linked insurance plan (ULIP) is a type of life insurance where the cash value of a policy varies.
The cash value depends on the current net asset value (nav) of the underlying investment assets. It allows
protection and flexibility in investment, which are not present in other types of life insurance such as
whole life policies. ULIP came into picture around 1960s and became very popular in the world due to
its lucrative features. In 1971 the Unit Trust of India offered the first ULIP policy in which a small part
of premium was utilized for providing life cover and balance was invested in units. With new
developments in the insurance policy, finally the plans which provided the dual benefit of sum assured
plus the fund value, in the event of an unforeseen occurrence became popular. The Unit Linked
Insurance Plans involves risks of investors money because the investments are channelised in capital
market and that is why the return is not guaranteed. As we are aware that insurance is a way to manage
risk whereas ULIP are not risk free investments, so a dilemma arises whether to avoid risk or to accept
risk. In this perspective, the study compares the Traditional policies with Ulip policies catered by the Life
Insurance Companies in India in this era of globalization.

Key Words: ULIP, NAV, IRDA, AMC

* Dr. Debabrata Mitra, Professor, Department of Commerce, University of North Bengal, India, email
:,M : +91(0)9474877362.
**Piyali Chandra Khan, Lecturer, Department of Management, University of North Bengal, India, email
:,M : +91(0)9476158709.

1 Mitra & Khan

ISSN: 2278-9111
 SIT Journal of Management
Vol.2. No. 2. December 2012. Pp.42-56

1. Introduction

The insurance sector is a Nursing Home which aids to recover the ailments of financial sector. Life
Insurance is the fastest growing sector in India since 2000 as Government allowed Private players and
FDI up to 26% (which is likely to go up to 49% shortly). Life Insurance in India was nationalised by
incorporating Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) in 1956.. LIC got the sole monopoly for transacting the
life insurance business in our country. In 1993 the Government of India appointed RN Malhotra
Committee to lay down a road map for privatization of the life insurance sector.

While the committee submitted its report in 1994, it took another six years before the enabling legislation
was passed in the year 2000 This legislation amended the Insurance Act of 1938 and also legislating
the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act of 2000. In the same year the newly appointed
insurance regulator, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), started issuing licenses to
private life insurers.

With the opening up of the market, foreign and private Indian players were keen to convert untapped
market potential into opportunities by providing tailor-made products. The insurance market started to fill
up with new players which had led to the introduction of several innovative insurance based products,
value add-ons, and services. Many foreign companies have also entered the arena such as Tokio Marine,
Aviva, Allianz, Lombard General, AMP, New York Life, Standard Life, AIG, and Sun Life. The
competition among the companies has led to aggressive marketing, and distribution techniques. The
active part of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) as a regulatory body has
provided to the development of the sector. The insurance industry is the latest which was thrown open to
competition from the private sector including foreign players. Foreign companies can only enter joint
ventures with Indian companies, with participation restricted to 26 per cent of equity. It is too early to
conclude whether the erstwhile public sector monopolies will successfully be able to face up to the
competition posed by the new players, but it can be expected that the customer will gain from improved
service. The new players will need to bring in innovative products as well as fresh ideas on marketing and
distribution, in order to improve the low per capita insurance coverage.

The last ten years have seen major improvements in the working of various financial market participants.
The government and the regulatory authorities have followed a step-by-step approach, not a big bang one.
2 Mitra & Khan
ISSN: 2278-9111
 SIT Journal of Management
Vol.2. No. 2. December 2012. Pp.42-56

The entry of foreign players has assisted in the introduction of international practices and systems.
Technology developments have improved customer service. On the whole, the cumulative effect of the
developments since 1991 has been quite encouraging. An indication of the strength of the reformed Indian
financial system can be seen from the way India was not affected by the Southeast Asian crisis. However,
financial liberalization alone will not ensure stable economic growth. Some tough decisions still need to
be taken. Without fiscal control, financial stability cannot be ensured. The fate of the Fiscal
Responsibility Bill remains unknown and high fiscal deficits continue. In the case of financial institutions,
the political and legal structures have to ensure that borrowers repay on time the loans which they have
taken. The phenomenon of rich industrialists and bankrupt companies continues. Further, frauds cannot be
totally prevented, even with the best of regulation. However, punishment has to follow crime, which is
often not the case in India.

India's ranking in the world insurance market has dropped four places from number 11 in 2010 to number
15 in 2011 because of a sharp drop in life insurance business in 2011-12., India's share of the world
insurance market has declined to 1.58% in 2011 from 1.8% in 2010 as a result of a drop in life insurance
premium. India has been displaced by countries like Brazil, Spain and Taiwan which now rank higher
than India. India's best performance was in 2009 when a surge in premium generated by life insurance
companies through unit-linked insurance plans resulted in India's ranking rising to number 9 position,
displacing Taiwan.

When life insurance industry was opened for competition in 2000, India ranked number 20 among life
insurance markets and accounted for a mere 0.5% of the world premium. By 2009, the share has
improved to 2.45%, overtaking developed markets in the West such as Spain, the Netherlands,
Switzerland, Sweden Belgium, Ireland and Finland, South Africa, Australia and Canada.

However, now some industry persons say that the surge in premium in 2009 cannot be taken as an
increase in life insurance penetration as it was investment driven with ULIPs being marketed as a channel
to invest in stock markets. In the last two years the Insurance Regulatory and Development
Authority ( IRDA) came out with guidelines that required life companies to reduce charges and provide a
minimum level of insurance cover with every policy. This has resulted in a sharp drop in premium
collections even though sum insured has jumped because of the change in focus to term insurance. The

3 Mitra & Khan

ISSN: 2278-9111
 SIT Journal of Management
Vol.2. No. 2. December 2012. Pp.42-56

drop in life insurance business in 2011-12 in India has been partly responsible for dragging down growth
According to a report by Swiss Re, in 2011 total insurance premiums in emerging markets grew only
1.3% in 2011 to $700bn largely due to the poor performance of the two biggest emerging markets - China
and India. Premiums in China and India, which account for over 42% of total emerging market premium
volume, declined 6.4% and 5.5% respectively. However, in the other two BRIC countries (Brazil
and Russia), growth remained solid, keeping the share of emerging markets' share of global premium at
15%.Together the BRIC countries continue to dominate insurance growth in the emerging markets
accounting for about 60% of total emerging market premium, up from 37% in 2000. In India the
shrinkage in premium was because of tighter regulation on distribution of unit linked insurance plans
while in China life premiums fell after the authorities set in stringent rules regarding bancassurance. This
resulted in life insurance premium falling 15% in China and 8.5% in India. Global insurance premiums
contracted 0.8% in 2011. However, because the US dollar depreciated against other major currencies in
2011, premiums increased 6% in nominal terms to $4597bn. Life insurance accounted for 57% of total
premiums.

2. Literature Review
Akula, R. and Kanchu, T.,(2011), conducted a study on growth of ULIP Policies in life insurance sector
of India by comparing traditional (Life Fund + Pension & General Annuity + Group Fund) and ULIP
Policies. The objective of the study was to observe the evolution of ULIPs in India, the growth of ULIPs
over traditional Policies, risk factors involved in ULIPs over traditional policies and to suggest various
measures to develop and stabilize the growth of ULIPs. The period from 2007 to 2009 was covered in the
study. The study considered 5 companies to compare growth, namely, LICI, HDFC Standard Life, ICICI
Prudential Life, SBI Life and Bazaz Allianz Life. It was revealed from the study that there was
remarkable growth in ULIP compared to traditional policies as the new private entrants targeted ULIPs
for market penetration.

Venugopalan, K.,V.(2011), conducted a study on global financial crisis and Life insurance sector in India
by undertaking a comparative study of LIC with Private Sector. The impact of the Global Financial Crisis
of 2007 to the Indian Life Insurance Sector is measured by using the following variables insurance
penetration, insurance density, number of insurance policies issued, number of insurance premiums
collected, total premium collected, profit obtained.The period covered in the study was from 2004-05 to
2010-11. The study suggested insurance sector to be an emerging and untapped sector in our country

4 Mitra & Khan

ISSN: 2278-9111
 SIT Journal of Management
Vol.2. No. 2. December 2012. Pp.42-56

with good growth potentials. A mixture of traditional and ULIP Policies was also suggested in the study.

Sinha, R.P.(2009) compared the public and private sector life insurance companies on the basis of
investment funds. The period covered in the study was from 2002-03 to 2006-07. The study revealed that
the private sector insurance companies collected more funds from unit-linked plans that LICI and
therefore, were more exposed to stock market. During the years 2005-06 and 2006-07 the return on
investment was found to be higher for the private players compared to LICI owing to buoyant stock
market conditions. The study also suggested that the private players might not repeat this in later years
due to stock market meltdown.

Nair, K.K.(2009), conducted a study on Unit Linked insurance plans (ULIP) based on secondary data
available on its emergence, concepts, parameters, benefit, current position and future outlook. The study
suggested that India has a plethora of opportunities for insurance companies because three-fourth of the
population was uninsured also majority of the investing population were small and medium investors and
majority of the investors lacked the expertise to directly enter the stock market and earn good returns. The
Study emphasized the about facts to be the reasons for increased importance of ULIP. The study observed
that ULIP will continue to be a good investment option for the investors as it combines the multi aspects
of insurance, investment and tax benefit.

Rao,T. and Samuel, S.(2009), studied the reforms in the insurance industry and suggested that the reforms
would create the potential for further growth in the industry, it might totally transform the industry and
also that the future of insurance industry according to them was a blend of opportunities and challenges.

Ramana, B.V.(2009), studied the impact of global financial crisis on insurance and reinsurance industry
using a meta-analytical analysis. The study suggested that the insurance industry (barring AIG, the
insurance giant) escaped largely unscathed from the first round effects of the subprime disaster but the
prolonged credit and liquidity crisis, as well as, the consequent regression in the financial services sector
had its direct and indirect impact on both primary and reinsurance markets the world over which was
quite evident from the increase in the number of claims, decline in investment return and reduced access
to finding.

5 Mitra & Khan

ISSN: 2278-9111
 SIT Journal of Management
Vol.2. No. 2. December 2012. Pp.42-56

James J. Schiro(2006) suggested that insurance industry must be proactive to deal with changes in
external forces and technological developments. Regulations can play a key role here. The regulators have
to be in pace with the world. The regulations should be principle based rather than rule based.

Stefan Engelander and Joachim Kolschbach(2006) opined that in insurance sector the risk is retransferred
to the policy holder by a refund of premiums not required. The performance linked feature has a
significant role in the insurance business. They stressed upon reducing the liquidity risk by speeding up
the settlement process. Traditionally, the relationship between a policy holder and insurer depends on
mutual trust.

3. Objectives of the Study

The main objective of the study is to find the growth of ULIP as compared to the Traditional objective.
So, the study has the following underlying objectives:

i. To study the features of ULIP policies.

ii. To find out the growth in the fund of ULIP and Traditional policies of the life insurance
companies in India.

iii. To enumerate the business in force of ULIP and Traditional policies of the life insurance
companies in India.

iv. To study the growth of ULIP through the premium collected by the life insurance companies in
India.

4. Period of Study
The study compares the ULIP policies with the Traditional policies. For purpose of analysis, the period
from year ending 31st March 2009 to 31st March 2011 has been considered for the study.

5. Methodology
The study is based on secondary sources of data collected from published sources such as IRDA Annual
reports, Company Annual reports, Books, Magazines, Journals and Newspaper. The figures so collected
have been expressed in absolute or percentage as required for the purpose of the analysis.

6. Unit Linked Insurance Plan versus Traditional Plan

6 Mitra & Khan
ISSN: 2278-9111
 SIT Journal of Management
Vol.2. No. 2. December 2012. Pp.42-56

I. Theoretical Overview

Insurance is an arrangement to transfer the risk from oneself to an insurance company. Life of everyone is
full of uncertainties and future unseen so we tend to trust the company and try to get peace of mind. The
primary function of insurance is to provide protection. There are many secondary functions as well viz.
prevention of loss, tool for savings and investment etc.

Life Insurance plans are beneficial as a long term avenue for investment which also offers protection
through life cover. Life Insurance policies are broadly categorized into :

i. Traditional Policies

ii. Unit Linked Insurance Plan

i. Traditional Policies

The traditional policies offer in-built guarantees and define maturity benefits through variety of products
such as guaranteed maturity values. The investment risk is borne by the life insurance company.

The traditional policies consist of following types:

a. Whole Life Plans

b. Term Insurance Plans
c. Endowment Plans
d. Protection Plans
e. Child Plans
f. Health Plans
g. Pension Plans

ii. Unit Linked Insurance Plan(ULIP)

Unit linked insurance plan is a type of life insurance where the cash value of a policy varies according to
the current net asset value (nav) of the underlying investment assets. It allows protection and flexibility in
investment. The premium paid is used to purchase units in investment assets chosen by the policyholder.
The investment risk is borne by the policyholders. ULIP provides a flexibility to decide about the risk
taking profile.

Evolution of ULIP:

7 Mitra & Khan

ISSN: 2278-9111
 SIT Journal of Management
Vol.2. No. 2. December 2012. Pp.42-56

ULIP came into play in 1960s and has been adopted in all countries throught the Globe.

In 1971 the Unit Trust of India offered ULIP where one small part of the premium was used as
life cover and the balance was invested in units.

Unit linked guidelines was notified in India on 21st December 2005 by IRDA.The guideline
ensured transparency and understanding of these products amongst the insured.

Risk factor in ULIP:

The investment risk is related to the stock market. The NAVs of the units go up and down depending on
the funds performance and the factors affecting the Capital market. The ULIP are subject to following
charges:

a. Premium allocation charge

b. Mortality Charges
c. Fund Management Charges
d. Policy Administration Charges
e. Surrender Charges
f. Fund Switching Charges
II. Fund wise growth (Assets under Management)

The entry of the private players in the life insurance market triggered competition in the market. The
private players primarily used ULIP products to penetrate the insurance market . During 2007 to 2009 a
huge growth in ULIP was found in the market. The growth of ULIP and Traditional plan from 2009 to
2011 is shown in the Table below:

Table 1: Overall growth in Assets Under Management

Fund 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011

Total increase Total increase Total increase

over over over
(Rs.in (Rs.in (Rs.in
previous previous previous
Crore) Crore) Crore)
year ( %) year ( %) year ( %)

629650.4 731290.86 841074.55

Life Fund(a) 16.25 16.14 15.01

8 Mitra & Khan

ISSN: 2278-9111
 SIT Journal of Management
Vol.2. No. 2. December 2012. Pp.42-56

113951.6 143626.93 189927.26

Pension and 24.86 26.04 32.24
General annuity
& Group
Fund(b)

743602.02 874917.79 1031001.81

Traditional(a+b) 17.49 17.66 17.84

172762.8 337540.1 399115.67

Unit Linked 29.82 95.38 18.24
Fund

Source: IRDA Annual Reports

Analysis: From the above table, it is evident that in the year 2009, the life funds increased by 16.25%
only. The Pension and General annuity fund increased better at 24.86%.So, the total growth in Traditional
Fund is 17.49% which is lower than the ULIP Fund (29.82%).

In the Year 2010, we see that the Traditional fund has again a similar type of growth whereas the ULIP
fund grew remarkably by 95.38%.

But the year 2011 depicts a different picture. It reflects that Life fund has a decrease in the growth rate,
pension and general annuity and group fund shows an increase in the growth rate. The traditional fund
thereby could again maintain a growth rate of 17.84%. But the growth in ULIP fund was as low as
18.24% which is due to the capital market conditions and IRDA regulations.

So, in all these three years we find that Life funds has been slightly decreasing in terms of growth rate.
The pension and general annuity and group fund has shown a gradual increasing trend and the ULIP
funds were quite volatile.

III. Assets under Management of Life Insurance Companies (Growth from 2009 to 2011)

Name of Company Growth in Life Fund Growth in Pension Growth in ULIP fund
(in %) and Annuity Fund
(in %)
(in% )
LICI 31.63 61.74 105.90
TATA AIG 67.14 28.46 253.08

9 Mitra & Khan

ISSN: 2278-9111
 SIT Journal of Management
Vol.2. No. 2. December 2012. Pp.42-56

Star Union Dai-chi 223.3 421550 5310.04

Sriram 32.67 295766.67* 201.71
SBI Life 29.35 149.66 280.65
Sahara 64.69 223.68 185.50
Reliance 73.69 100 196.92
Met Life 72.94 215.20 203.29
Max New york 96.71 78.024 192.25
Kotak Mahindra 75.47 40.33 130.51
ING Vyasya 75.04 220 134.72
India first 6.24* 100 350.44*
IDBI Federal 76.36 63566.67 404.24
ICICI pru 111.03 140.30 14.29
HDFC Standard 111.33 41.62 182.89
Future Generelli 156.94 280.25 662.72
DLF Pramerica 80.76 0 1108.24
Canara HSBC -10.17 2020.50* 987.75
Birla Sunlife 150.73 19.39 121.32
Bharti Axa 74.85 0 572.97
Bajaj Allianz 93.54 392.80 133.80
Aviva 51.17 2020.50* 102.41
Aegon Religare 293.09 100 2387.33
Private Companies
Total 84.71 144.17 103.88
Total 33.58 66.67 131.01
*in comparison to 2010 as there was no fund in 2009.

Analysis

From the above table it is quite distinct that the ULIP fund has grown significantly during these years in
comparison to the traditional funds.

Both Public (LICI) and Private sector reflects a higher growth in the ULIP. The private sector has also
shown remarkable growth in pension and annuity fund but most of this companies have just started this
fund and therefore have a very small amount of fund.

Canara HSBC has shown a negative growth rate for Life funds and for pension and annuity funds it has
just started these policies from 2010.Undoubtedly ULIP fund has again reflected a superior growth rate
here also like other companies.

IV. Company wise comparative analysis of Traditional and Unit Linked Insurance Plan (Number
of Policies)

Table 3: Business in Force (Number of Policies): in 000

10 Mitra & Khan

ISSN: 2278-9111
 SIT Journal of Management
Vol.2. No. 2. December 2012. Pp.42-56

2011 2010 2009

Company Traditional ULIP Total Traditional ULIP Traditional ULIP

LIC 243131 42462 285593 228838 49434 212942 44682

TATA
AIG 839 1000 1839 760 933 730 781
Star Union
Dai-chi 37.1 150.93 188.03 12.24 106.11 0.62 13
Sriram 72.43 248.43 320.86 39.81 258.22 38.36 227
SBI Life 928.24 3548.98 4477.22 711.96 3167.14 611.47 2030
Sahara 150.16 167.49 317.65 116.58 166.06 101.41 136
Reliance 1953.16 3261.82 5214.98 600.21 3980.9 234.1 3015
Met Life 271.21 578.26 849.47 230.89 563.02 176.26 469
Max New
york 1721.59 1613.53 3335.12 1348.8 1586.93 1142.27 1359
Kotak
Mahindra 271.7 878.33 1150.03 168.62 912.64 162.79 788
ING
Vyasya 683.27 631.16 1314.43 521.27 663.67 433.4 581
India first 0.7 168.66 169.36 0 70.47 0 0
IDBI
Federal 119.97 129.07 249.04 47.45 114.7 10.47 71
ICICI pru 1148.57 4944.66 6093.23 1028.84 5089.19 1368.65 4826
HDFC
Standard 1678.71 1893.61 3572.32 1577.24 1666.98 1323.45 1404
Future
Generelli 372.01 178.75 550.76 182.42 196.95 58.53 40
DLF
Pramerica 20.83 33.11 53.94 1.4 19.84 0.63 2
Canara
HSBC 15.31 200.02 215.33 0.81 129.34 0.17 36
Birla
Sunlife 852.98 2130.42 2983.4 993.32 2304.84 675.93 1737
Bharti Axa 118.39 266.35 384.74 44.79 257.47 38.83 188
Bajaj
Allianz 1828.1 6689.62 8517.72 947.6 7247.94 727.74 6721
Aviva 152.88 711.01 863.89 61.92 921.54 61.9 824
Aegon
Religare 54.55 72.21 126.76 14.83 44.34 5.51 17
Private
Total 13290.39 29496.11 42786.5 9410.81 30427.87 7902.49 25265
Total 256420.88 71958.02 328378.9 238248.54 79862.15 220845.3 69946
Analysis:

From the above table it can be interpreted that the public sector company (LICI) is doing more business
on traditional policies whereas the private sector companies are counting on the ULIP policies. The

11 Mitra & Khan

ISSN: 2278-9111
 SIT Journal of Management
Vol.2. No. 2. December 2012. Pp.42-56

difference was more prominent in 2009 and 2010.In 2011, however there is slight difference. However,
we can well understand the growth in the sale of ULIP policies has been quite more than the traditional
policies in these years.

V. Company wise comparative analysis of Traditional and Unit Linked Insurance Plan (Premium
Collected):

Table 4: Premium collected(First year + Renewal) (in % of total)

2011 2010 2009

Company Traditional ULIP Traditional ULIP Traditional ULIP
LIC 80.74 19.26 74.60 25.40 77.94 22.06
TATA AIG 28.21 71.79 23.95 76.05 31.34 68.66
Star Union Dai-chi 24.64 75.36 9.31 90.69 10.84 89.16
Sriram 19.72 80.28 11.25 88.75 6.37 93.67
SBI Life 29.91 70.09 32.69 67.31 37.35 62.65
Sahara 37.56 62.44 35.50 64.50 29.52 70.48
Reliance 23.02 76.98 6.79 93.21 3.49 96.51
Met Life 23.21 76.79 18.34 81.66 13.38 86.62
Max New york 39.43 60.57 30.10 69.90 30.61 69.39
Kotak Mahindra 16.46 83.54 8.72 91.28 9.52 90.48
ING Vyasya 50.41 49.59 36.03 63.97 72.88 27.12
India first 4.74 95.26 0 100 0 0
IDBI Federal 29.69 70.31 18.69 81.31 9.52 90.48
ICICI pru 12.49 87.51 4.29 95.71 5.55 94.45
HDFC Standard 17.90 82.10 17.58 82.42 15.01 84.99
Future Generelli 48.92 51.08 35.21 64.79 29.48 70.52
DLF Pramerica 24.21 75.79 1.04 98.96 96.14 3.86
Canara HSBC 10.99 89.01 0.95 99.05 0.09 99.91
Birla Sunlife 6.64 93.36 1.13 98.87 3.26 96.74
Bharti Axa 12.46 87.54 5.76 94.24 19.19 80.81
Bajaj Allianz 83.04 16.96 90.06 9.94 6.01 93.99
Aviva 11.01 88.99 2.32 97.68 2.01 97.99
Aegon Religare 21.93 78.06 6.25 93.75 87.15 12.85
Private Total 20.79 79.21 14.00 86.00 13.25 86.75
Total 37.38 62.62 56.48 43.52 59.13 40.87
Analysis

12 Mitra & Khan

ISSN: 2278-9111
 SIT Journal of Management
Vol.2. No. 2. December 2012. Pp.42-56

From the above table we can well understand that the insurance companies has collected more premium
for the ULIP policies as compared to the traditional policies in the year 2011. The private players collect
most of their premium income from ULIP policies which has been reflected in all these years. In case of
Bajaj Allianz we find that there has been a drastic change in their pemium from ULIP policies to
Traditional policies from 2009 to 2010.The same has been continued in 2011 also. The public sector
company (LIC) collects more of its premium from traditional policies. It had reduced slightly in 2010.But
in 2011 they again returned to the basic by collecting only 19.26% of their premium from ULIP policies.
Whereas in case of all private sector life insurance companies (except Bajaj Allianz) we find that in 2009,
almost 87% of the premium used to collected from ULIP policies which has come down to 80% in 2011.
From the above analysis it can be interpreted that though the regulations in the life insurance sector has
affected the ULIP policies to an extent but its growth rate is still quite high as compared to the traditional
policies.

7. Conclusion
The ULIP products are more risky as compared to the traditional policies. There has been a growth in
ULIP in a limited period of time. The private life insurance companies are showing higher growth in
ULIP policies as compared to traditional policies. In 2011 however the scenario is bit different in certain
cases, which might be a warning for the growth in ULIP policies in near future. In ULIP policies the
investment risk is borne by the investor and not the insurer. At the same time the investor also has the
advantage of selecting the appropriate fund depending on their risk appetite. However the investors
should keep in mind the following factors while investing in ULIP policies:

1. It should be known to the investor that these investments are for long run.

2. There are some charges applicable so knowing the charges in advance will help in return
assessment.

3. The risk profile of the fund and the investor should match with each other.

The regulatory authority, IRDA, have set up stringent regulations for insurers regarding ULIP policies. In
the last two years the market has seen few ULIP policies with guaranteed return marketed by the
insurance companies (such as Highest NAV guaranteed return).So, the insurers are working on their
part.2011 was not a very good year for the ULIP policies. So, the insurers and IRDA should try to work
out on this. To sum up, ULIP policies are the best option available to investors when they are looking for
transferring their risk(life insurance) and also maximizing their return (investment).
13 Mitra & Khan
ISSN: 2278-9111
 SIT Journal of Management
Vol.2. No. 2. December 2012. Pp.42-56

References:
I. Books
Khan,M.Y., Indian Financial System, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi,2007,
print

Kothari C.R.,Research Methodology, New Age International (P) Ltd., New Delhi, 2009, Print

Machiraju, H.R., Indian Financial System, Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2007, print

Mitra, Debabrata, Amlan Ghosh, Life Insurance in India, Abhijeet Publications, Delhi, 2010, print

Sondhi, N.K., Shruti Sondhi, Management of Banking and Insurance, Vrinda Publications (P) Ltd., New
Delhi,2011,print

Gupta, Insurance and Risk Management, Himalaya Publishing House, Mumbai, 2008

Gupta, Legal Aspects of Insurance, Himalaya Publishing House, Mumbai, 2006

Gupta, Fundamentals of Insurance, Himalaya Publishing House, Mumbai, 2004

II. Articles
Schiro J. James,(2006), External Forces Impacting the Insurance Industry: Threats from Regulation,
The Geneva Papers,2006, 31, pp 25-30
Engelander Stefan and Joachim Kolsbach, (2006), A reliable fair value for insurance contracts, Geneva
papers, 2006, 31,pp 512-527
Nair, K.K. (2009), Relavance of ULIPs as a good Investment Tool, Insurance Chronicle, Vol-IX (V),
pp-43-46.

Ramana, B.V. (2009), Global Financial Crisis Impact on Insurance and Reinsurance Industry,
Insurance Chronicle , Vol-IX (VI), pp-27-31.

Rao, T. and S. Samuel, (2009), The Indian Insurance Industry Inching Forward, Insurance Chronicle,
Vol-IX, (I), pp-23-30.

Sinha, R. P. (2009), Investments of Indian life Insurance Companies, Insurance Chronicle, Vol-IX
(III), pp-48-53.

14 Mitra & Khan

ISSN: 2278-9111
 SIT Journal of Management
Vol.2. No. 2. December 2012. Pp.42-56

Venugopalan, K.,V., (2011), Global Financial Crisis and Life Insurance Sector in India A
Comparative Study of LIC with Private Sector, Indian Journal of Commerce and Management Studies,
Vol-II (06), pp-56-61.

Akula, R. and T. Kanchu, (2011), Growth of ULIP Policies in Life Insurance Sector A Comparative
Study of Traditional and ULIP Policies, Indian Journal of Commerce and Management Studies, Vol-II,
Issue-02, pp-190-200.

III. Reports

Swiss Re, sigma 2/2011

Swiss Re, sigma 3/2012

IV. Webliography

http://wikipedia.org retrieved on 12.08.2012

http://irdaindia.org retrieved on 27.08.2012

http://lifeinsurancecouncil.org retrieved on 27.08.2012

http:// licindia.com retrieved on 11.08.2012

http://bimadeals.com retrieved on 13.08.2012

http://www.insurancetimes.in retrieved on 12.07.2012

15 Mitra & Khan

ISSN: 2278-9111