Systematic Investment Plans (SIPs) have emerged as one of the most popular entry points into the world of investing. Their appeal lies in simplicity: invest a fixed amount every month, benefit from compounding, and build wealth steadily over time. Because of their ease and affordability, SIPs attract first-time investors, salaried professionals, and even retirees.
But beneath this simplicity lies a widespread practice that rarely gets attention: the use of SIPs as bait for cross-selling insurance.
Across India and in many other markets, banks, financial distributors, and even fintech platforms package SIPs with insurance products. Investors who walk in to start a SIP often end up with a hybrid plan — part investment, part insurance — without fully understanding the trade-offs.
This article explores how SIPs are used for insurance cross-selling, the tactics employed, why it benefits the industry, and how it can hurt investors.
Why SIPs Are Attractive for Cross-Selling
- Mass Appeal
SIPs are the entry-level product for millions of retail investors. They draw in customers who may not otherwise engage with financial products. - Recurring Payments
The monthly debit structure mirrors insurance premiums, making it easy to blend the two. - Trust Factor
Banks and AMCs promote SIPs as safe, disciplined investments. Once investors commit, they are more likely to accept “add-ons.” - Low Awareness
Many first-time SIP investors have limited understanding of mutual funds, let alone insurance overlaps. This makes them vulnerable.
The Cross-Selling Playbook
1. Bundled SIP + Term Insurance
Some AMCs offer SIPs with a “free insurance cover” — usually term insurance linked to the SIP amount. The pitch: “Invest in markets and get life cover at no extra cost.”
Reality: The insurance is not free. The AMC bears the cost, funded by higher expense ratios and investor inflows. Coverage is limited and conditional on SIP continuity.
2. SIPs as Gateway to ULIPs
Bank relationship managers often redirect SIP queries into Unit Linked Insurance Plans (ULIPs). They market ULIPs as “SIPs with insurance,” obscuring high costs and lock-ins.
Reality: ULIPs carry steep charges, poor transparency, and long lock-in periods, unlike mutual fund SIPs.
3. Cross-Selling During Account Openings
When customers open savings accounts or demat accounts for SIPs, they are nudged into insurance policies: “You’re investing for your future; why not also protect your family?”
Reality: Insurance sold this way is often overpriced, redundant, or misaligned with needs.
4. “Goal-Based” Traps
Investors starting SIPs for goals (education, retirement) are told to “secure the goal” by adding an insurance plan. The emotional pitch makes resistance difficult.
5. Group Insurance via SIP Platforms
Some fintech apps add accidental or health insurance as “membership perks” for SIP investors. These offers are rarely compared against standalone policies.
Why Institutions Push Cross-Selling
1. Higher Revenues
- SIP commissions are modest, but insurance commissions (especially ULIPs and endowment plans) are lucrative.
- By cross-selling, distributors multiply their earnings per client.
2. AMC Incentives
- Insurance-backed SIPs attract long-term commitments, reducing redemption risk.
- Investors are “locked in” to continue SIPs to keep insurance coverage active.
3. Bank Targets
- Banks impose dual targets: grow mutual fund AUM and meet insurance premium quotas. Cross-selling helps meet both.
4. Customer Stickiness
- A customer who holds SIPs and insurance is less likely to switch providers, creating long-term revenue streams.
The Risks for Investors
1. Illusion of “Free” Insurance
Insurance is never free. Either returns are diluted through expenses or coverage is too small to matter.
2. Lock-In Pressure
Insurance-linked SIPs require uninterrupted contributions. Missing a few payments may terminate coverage, leaving both investments and protection compromised.
3. Wrong Product Fit
Retirees or risk-averse investors may be sold high-cost ULIPs instead of low-cost SIPs or pure-term insurance.
4. Reduced Flexibility
Traditional SIPs can be stopped anytime. But with insurance add-ons, investors hesitate to stop SIPs, fearing loss of coverage.
5. Overpaying for Coverage
Cross-sold policies often duplicate existing insurance, making investors pay more for less.
Case Studies
Case 1: The Young Engineer
A 28-year-old in Pune started a ₹5,000 SIP in an equity fund bundled with life cover. After three years, his SIP underperformed, and the “insurance” cover ended once he stopped payments. He could have bought a standalone term plan for far more coverage at lower cost.
Case 2: The Retired Officer
A retired officer in Delhi was persuaded to put his retirement corpus into “SIP with guaranteed insurance benefits.” In reality, he was sold a ULIP with high charges and long lock-ins. He realized too late that liquidity was compromised.
Case 3: The Bank Trap
A couple in Mumbai opened a joint account for SIPs. The RM cross-sold health insurance with high premiums, claiming it was “mandatory” with SIPs. Later, they discovered it was entirely optional.
The Psychology Behind the Cross-Sell
- Trust in Authority: Investors assume banks and AMCs act in their best interest.
- Fear Appeal: “If something happens to you, what about your family?” pushes insurance decisions emotionally.
- Convenience Bias: Bundled products feel simpler than evaluating separate policies.
- Status Quo Bias: Once linked, investors continue both SIPs and insurance to avoid disruption.
Global Parallels
- UK Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) Scandal: Banks cross-sold unwanted insurance with loans, leading to billions in refunds.
- U.S. Bank Cross-Selling: Wells Fargo was penalized for opening unwanted insurance and investment accounts.
- Asian ULIP Boom: Across Asia, insurers marketed ULIPs as “SIPs with insurance,” locking savers into poor-value products.
Cross-selling through SIPs fits into a global pattern of financial mis-selling.
Warning Signs for Investors
- Words like “mandatory,” “free cover,” or “exclusive perk” used in SIP pitches.
- SIPs tied to insurance continuation clauses.
- RMs pushing ULIPs as SIP equivalents.
- Lack of written disclosures on coverage limits.
- High-pressure pitches during account openings.
What Regulators Should Do
- Ban Misleading Bundling
Insurance should not be disguised as SIP perks. - Separate Disclosures
Insurance and SIPs must be explained as distinct products with clear risks. - Suitability Tests
Ensure retirees or conservative investors aren’t mis-sold aggressive hybrids. - Commission Transparency
Distributors should disclose earnings from insurance cross-sales. - Stricter Enforcement
Penalties for misrepresentation and coercive cross-selling.
How Investors Can Protect Themselves
- Buy Separately
Keep investments (SIPs) and protection (insurance) distinct. - Demand Transparency
Ask whether insurance is optional, and insist on written confirmation. - Compare Coverage
Standalone term insurance almost always provides higher cover at lower cost. - Avoid Pressure
Never accept bundled products sold as “mandatory.” - Check Exit Terms
Review what happens to insurance if SIPs are stopped.
Could This Become a Larger Scandal?
Yes. If millions of SIP investors realize they were nudged into overpriced or inadequate insurance, the backlash could mirror the PPI scandal in the UK. Regulatory bodies may be forced to investigate and penalize AMCs, banks, and distributors engaged in misleading cross-selling practices.
Conclusion
SIPs are powerful investment tools when kept simple. But when used as bait for cross-selling insurance, they lose their transparency and flexibility. What begins as disciplined wealth creation often morphs into a confusing hybrid that neither maximizes returns nor provides adequate protection.
The truth is simple: insurance and investments serve different purposes. Mixing them benefits institutions, not investors. To protect their financial futures, savers must resist bundled pitches and keep their SIPs and insurance separate.
ALSO READ: Dogecoin’s meme-fueled rally
