Insurance Compare
Quickly compare HK insurance products' coverage, premiums, and terms
Select 2-4 products to view coverage and terms differences. Data sourced from public information for reference only.
ManuLegacy vs Prosperity: separate year-5 use, year-15 lock-in, and legacy-governance depth first
This compare ManuLegacy vs Prosperity page does not force a simplistic “higher return” verdict. It first separates the five easiest mistakes: whether 2-pay is standard, whether year-5 use and year-15 lock-in are the same function, whether currency switch is just FX, whether deeper successor architecture can fail on age and amount conditions, and why premium financing cannot be assessed after product selection. Only after those are clear do IRR, breakeven, and financing discussions become meaningful.
Published: 2026-03-27 · Last updated: 2026-03-27 · Next review: 2026-06-27
Minimum executable next step
Lock one or two candidate versions first, then request dual proposals under matched currency, age, and payment-term assumptions. Put the post-2025-07-01 illustration date, the post-switch new-plan sheet, premium-holiday side effects, rider inventory, successor age and amount conditions, and cooling-off checkpoints into the same checklist.
Answer these 7 questions before asking “which is better”
The easiest way to fail a deep compare page is to start with return slogans. For ManuLegacy versus Prosperity, versioning, timing, legacy architecture, and premium-holiday side effects decide more than public headlines.
Why it matters
This is a version-risk issue, not just a payment-term issue. Treating a promotional term as a permanent baseline is a direct execution error.
Check first
FWD lists single-pay plus 2/3/5/10/18-year terms in the main brochure. Manulife’s standard brochure still centers on single-pay plus 3/5/10/15-year terms, with a separate 2-pay limited leaflet shown when accessed on 2026-03-27.
Why it matters
Both can market long-term savings and legacy planning, but the timing gap for usable value changes the real plan.
Check first
ManuLegacy starts terminal-bonus realization from policy year 5 with a 10% annual cap and a 50% rolling five-year cap, while Prosperity’s brochure-level lock-in action starts from policy year 15 and the 18-pay version cannot exercise lock-in during its premium-paying period.
Why it matters
Many buyers treat year-5 realization or year-15 lock-in as something they can “try first.” That is not how the public documents describe them.
Check first
A Genesis realization request cannot be reversed once submitted, but the realized terminal bonus may stay in the policy to earn non-guaranteed interest or be withdrawn later. Prosperity’s lock-in value cannot be converted back to bonus cash value, and the 18-pay version must wait until the premium-paying period ends.
Why it matters
This determines whether you are building a multi-generation governance structure or prioritizing mid-term liquidity with later legacy flexibility.
Check first
FWD packages successor insureds, successor policy owners, and year-3 policy split as one public structure, but each contingent insured still has to satisfy the issue-age and minimum-notional requirement or the result may become a lump-sum payout instead of policy continuation. Manulife can bridge a minor successive policy owner through an Interim Policyowner under Legacy Choice, but only one contingent life insured can sit on the policy at a time.
Why it matters
Many pages only compare 7 versus 8 currencies, while the real risk is whether policy terms, riders, and future actions survive after conversion.
Check first
ManuLegacy publicly lists 7 currencies while Prosperity publishes 8, but both describe currency switch as a conversion into a designated new plan and both warn that benefits, terms, or riders may change or terminate afterward.
Why it matters
Premium stress management is not just about whether you can pause payments. It is also about what changes afterward.
Check first
ManuLegacy’s brochure explicitly allows up to a two-year premium holiday after policy year 2 on the 5/10/15-pay versions, with submission at least 30 days before the policy anniversary and repayment of indebtedness first. FWD’s brochure allows premium holiday on 5/10/18-pay versions, stretches to four years on the 10/18-pay versions, requires filing within 60 days before the policy anniversary, and suspends bonuses while attached riders terminate.
Why it matters
This is the most common decision error because the two insurers do not publish symmetric return disclosures.
Check first
Manulife’s 2024-04-23 release publicized a year-100 TIRR of up to 7.19% but also said the figures were only for reference until 2025-06-30. FWD does not publish a matched IRR or breakeven matrix publicly. From 2025-07-01, IA moved the participating-policy illustration caps to 6.0% for HKD and 6.5% for non-HKD currencies, so matched dual proposals are mandatory.
Audit the gaps before adding evidence
Per the research skill workflow, the page audits the most common weak spots first and then shows how each one is corrected into executable information.
| Common gap | Why it misleads | How this page fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Treating both sides as standard 2-pay products | This erases the difference between a standard term and a limited promotion. Manulife’s 2-pay appeared as a leaflet offer on 2026-03-27 rather than the standard brochure baseline. | The page separates “standard payment terms” from “time-sensitive 2-pay status” and requires a version check before signing. |
| Treating year-5 use and year-15 lock-in as the same kind of action | ManuLegacy uses capped terminal-bonus realization, while Prosperity introduces bonus lock-in much later. The cash-flow meaning is completely different. | The page uses a timeline and boundary table to separate timing, action type, and action limits. |
| Ranking from historical yield headlines | Manulife’s 2024 launch release contains historical illustrations with a stated reference-validity window, while FWD does not publish a symmetric IRR matrix. | The page converts the yield section into an evidence-boundary section instead of a winner table and adds the 2025-07-01 IA illustration-cap reminder. |
| Ignoring premium-holiday side effects on riders and execution | Users often only see “payment holiday”, while FWD’s brochure explicitly says attached riders terminate after approval and cannot be reattached. | The page isolates premium holiday as a risk item and adds a rider-inventory check to the action list. |
| Treating currency switch as a pure FX action | Both brochures describe currency switch as a conversion into a designated new plan rather than a guarantee of staying in the original product. Without post-switch documents, 7 versus 8 currencies becomes a misleading proxy. | The page adds dedicated rows for the nature of currency switch and post-switch rider continuity, and requires a post-switch new-plan sheet before signing. |
| Counting successors without testing continuation failure conditions | FWD’s contingent insured still has to meet the issue-age and minimum-notional requirement or the result may become a lump-sum payout. Manulife only allows one contingent life insured at a time, but can bridge minors through an Interim Policyowner. | The page rewrites legacy depth into legacy depth plus activation conditions, and adds age / relationship / amount checks in the scenario guidance. |
| Treating lock-in or realization as actions you can reverse later | Both brochures describe these actions as irreversible once submitted. The difference is the form of value left behind afterward. | The page adds dedicated rows for post-action value state and execution percentage, and requires a before-versus-after check on cash value, death benefit, and liquidity. |
Conclusions first, then evidence and limits
Each conclusion includes evidence, limit, and minimum executable action, so the page does not stop at a point of view.
Verdict
If your plan window sits around years 5 to 12, ManuLegacy exposes the earlier public action.
Evidence
Manulife’s brochure starts terminal-bonus realization from the 5th anniversary, while FWD’s core lock-in action begins only from policy year 15 and the 18-pay version cannot exercise lock-in during its premium-paying period.
Limit
This does not mean fully free withdrawals from year 5. ManuLegacy has a 10% annual cap and a 50% rolling five-year cap, while Prosperity’s 18-pay version still cannot lock in at year 15.
Next step
Write down the target year together with the payment term, then test whether the year-5 cash-use plan fits ManuLegacy’s capped realization rules or whether Prosperity has actually entered an executable lock-in period.
Verdict
If you want a withdrawable accumulation, ManuLegacy behaves more like a liquidity tool. If you want to convert part of non-guaranteed value into a guaranteed bucket inside the policy, Prosperity behaves more like a structural reallocation.
Evidence
A Genesis realization request cannot be reversed once submitted, but the realized terminal bonus may stay inside the policy to earn non-guaranteed interest or be withdrawn later. Prosperity’s lock-in value cannot be converted back to bonus cash value and changes subsequent bonus growth.
Limit
This is not a button you can “try once and undo later.” Both products rewrite the future bonus path, just in different ways.
Next step
Ask the advisor to show cash value, death benefit, and withdrawable funds side by side before and after the action.
Verdict
If you care most about successor insureds, successor policy owners, and year-3 split, FWD looks closer to a governance-style legacy framework.
Evidence
FWD’s brochure explicitly publishes up to three successor insureds, up to three successor policy owners, and once-per-policy-year split from the 3rd policy anniversary. Manulife’s Legacy Choice publicly supports a minor successive policy owner through an Interim Policyowner bridge.
Limit
Deeper structure does not guarantee policy continuation. FWD’s contingent insured still has to pass the issue-age and minimum-notional tests, while Manulife only allows one contingent life insured at a time.
Next step
Write down each successor’s age, relationship, and target amount first, then decide whether you need multi-person sequencing or a cleaner minor-bridge design.
Verdict
If EUR matters explicitly, FWD still has the edge on breadth with 8 currencies. But the first thing to verify is whether the policy converts into a designated new plan and whether riders or services survive afterward.
Evidence
Manulife’s official page lists 7 designated currencies while FWD’s brochure lists 8, but both describe currency switch as a move into a designated new plan and warn that benefits, terms, or riders may change or terminate.
Limit
Currency count is not a standalone edge. If the policy becomes another designated plan after conversion, the brochure you compared may no longer be the final operating document.
Next step
Compare only the currencies you actually need and require the advisor to show the post-conversion new-plan sheet, rider survival result, and calculation date together.
Verdict
ManuLegacy’s public rule is simpler, while Prosperity appears to offer a deeper relief path but with heavier rider side effects.
Evidence
Manulife’s brochure allows up to a two-year premium holiday after year 2 for 5/10/15-pay versions, but requires filing at least 30 days in advance, repayment of indebtedness first, and termination of all supplementary benefits. FWD’s brochure allows premium holiday on 5/10/18-pay versions, extends to four years on the 10/18-pay versions, suspends bonuses during the holiday, and also terminates attached riders.
Limit
If your protection gap relies on riders, FWD’s premium holiday may not be an advantage. ManuLegacy’s version is not a harmless buffer either because it freezes the policy rhythm and restricts later actions.
Next step
Build a rider inventory before signing and put pre-versus-post holiday cash value, bonus treatment, available actions, and resumption conditions into the same worksheet.
Verdict
At this stage you can choose a direction, but you cannot assign a deterministic IRR or breakeven winner from public materials alone.
Evidence
Manulife has a historical launch-return headline, FWD does not publish a matched public matrix, and from 2025-07-01 IA moved the participating-policy illustration caps to 6.0% for HKD and 6.5% for non-HKD currencies.
Limit
Any cross-company “high return ranking” without matched currency, age, and payment-term proposals is still a marketing shortcut.
Next step
The next step is not another webpage. It is a matched pair of proposals with base and downside scenario review.
Mid-page CTA
If the direction is clear, the next step is a matched dual-proposal review
Put the same-currency, same-age, same-pay-term proposals side by side, then verify the post-switch new-plan sheet, premium-holiday side effects, successor conditions, and financing stress tests in one pass.
At least 15 reproducible rows, not one “high return” slogan
This table fulfills the task requirement of 15+ comparison items. Each row explains why it changes the decision instead of merely listing fields.
| Dimension | ManuLegacy | Prosperity | What this means | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard payment terms | Single-pay, 3 / 5 / 10 / 15-pay. | Single-pay, 2 / 3 / 5 / 10 / 18-pay. | FWD has the wider public baseline if you need standard 2-pay or a longer 18-pay ladder. | S2 / S6 |
| 2-pay status | A limited 2-pay leaflet was shown on the official page when accessed on 2026-03-27. | 2-pay sits inside the main brochure term set. | Manulife’s 2-pay is more version-sensitive, while FWD treats it as a standard configuration. | S3 / S6 |
| Policy currencies | 7 currencies. | 8 currencies. | If EUR matters, FWD has the explicit public edge. Otherwise the gap may not determine the winner. | S1 / S6 |
| Nature of currency switch | From the 3rd policy anniversary, the policy may be converted into a designated Manulife new plan, which may not be the original Genesis. | From the 3rd policy anniversary, the policy may be converted into a designated New Plan, which may not be the original MaxFocus Legacy. | Currency switch is not pure FX conversion. It may change the product shell as well. | S1 / S2 / S6 |
| Post-switch terms and rider continuity | After conversion, benefits, features, terms, and investment strategy follow the new plan. Supplementary benefits remain only if they are still available under the new plan and currency; otherwise they terminate. | After conversion, product features, terms, and benefits follow the New Plan. Riders remain only if the same type is still available under the New Plan and new currency; otherwise they cannot be assumed to continue. | When comparing multi-currency features, the real question is whether split, holiday, riders, and other future actions still survive after conversion. | S2 / S6 |
| Currency-switch starting point | From the 3rd policy anniversary. | From the 3rd policy anniversary. | The timing is the same, so the real comparison shifts to what survives after conversion. | S2 / S6 |
| Earliest usable value action | Terminal-bonus realization from the 5th policy anniversary. | Bonus lock-in enters the framework from policy year 15, but the 18-pay version still cannot exercise it during the premium-paying period. | If the target cash-flow window is mid-term, Manulife becomes executable much earlier. | S2 / S6 |
| What happens after lock-in or realization | Once a realization request is submitted it cannot be reversed. The realized terminal bonus may stay in the policy to earn non-guaranteed interest or be withdrawn later by the policy owner. | The lock-in value moves into the bonus lock-in account and cannot be converted back to bonus cash value. That portion no longer grows along the original bonus-cash-value path. | Neither side is a “try first and undo later” button. One behaves more like withdrawable accumulation, while the other behaves more like a guaranteed bucket inside the policy. | S2 / S6 |
| Value-use constraints | No more than 10% annually from policy years 5 to 9, and no more than 50% over any consecutive five years. | All premiums must be fully paid; the action locks in part of policy value, with details confirmed in the application materials. | Neither side means unrestricted access. The constraint model is just different. | S2 / S6 |
| Execution percentage and cadence | The request has to be made within 31 days after each Realization Option Exercise Date. The limit is up to 10% per year from years 5 to 9 and up to 50% across any consecutive five years. | Automatic lock-in transfers 10% of total premiums paid into the lock-in account on each policy anniversary. Flexi lock-in can be used once per policy year to lock in 10% to 70% of the bonus cash value. | Manulife behaves more like mid-term liquidity scheduling, while FWD behaves more like a re-layering of part of the non-guaranteed value. | S2 / S6 |
| Policy-split starting point | The later of policy anniversary 5 or the end of the premium term. | From the 3rd policy anniversary, once per policy year. | FWD is faster for early split governance, while Manulife feels more natural if split needs to follow year-5 extraction planning. | S2 / S6 |
| Change of insured | After the first policy anniversary or one year after issue, whichever is later. | After the end of the first policy year, unlimited times. | If change of insured is a long-run governance tool, FWD publishes the broader rule. | S2 / S6 |
| Successor structure | Backup insured, policy successor, and temporary holding arrangement. | Up to 3 successor insureds plus up to 3 successor policy owners. | If you need pre-defined multi-level succession, FWD’s public structure is deeper. | S2 / S6 |
| Minor-successor bridge | Legacy Choice allows an Interim Policyowner when the successive policy owner is under 18, with rights transferred automatically on the designated date or once the successor reaches age 18. Only one contingent life insured can sit on the policy at a time. | The policy can set up to 3 contingent insureds and up to 3 contingent policy owners, but the brochure does not publish a separate minor-policy-owner bridge structure like Manulife’s. | Manulife fits a single-path succession plan with a minor bridge, while FWD fits multi-person sequencing with higher governance complexity. | S6 / S13 |
| Fallback if the successor design fails | If you want the policy to continue after death, contingent-life-insured and successive-ownership arrangements need to be set up in advance under the relevant administrative rules. | If a nominated contingent insured cannot become the new insured, or the designated split policy does not satisfy the minimum notional amount, FWD will pay a lump sum to the first-ranked contingent insured instead of continuing the policy. | “Up to 3 successor insureds” does not guarantee policy continuation. The age and amount thresholds still have to be met first. | S6 / S13 |
| Premium-holiday entry | For 5 / 10 / 15-pay versions after policy year 2, up to 2 years. | For 5 / 10 / 18-pay versions from policy year 2; the official summary indicates a longer relief path on 10 / 18-pay. | FWD appears to have the larger public relief range, but it must be judged together with rider side effects. | S2 / S6 |
| Premium-holiday window and maximum length | The request must be submitted at least 30 days before the policy anniversary, and the aggregate premium-holiday period cannot exceed 2 years. | The request must be submitted within 60 calendar days before the policy anniversary. The maximum is 2 years for 5-pay, 4 years for 10/18-pay, with one extra year if the policy owner is diagnosed with specified critical illness. | FWD provides a longer buffer, but it is a heavier policy intervention. Manulife behaves more like short-term first aid. | S2 / S6 |
| Premium-holiday side effects | Indebtedness must be repaid first; all supplementary benefits terminate; Easy Choice is revoked, and policy loan, currency switch, realization, and other value-affecting actions cannot be requested during the holiday. | No reversionary bonus or special bonus is declared during the holiday. Attached riders terminate once approved, and no new riders can be attached afterward. | If riders or future bonuses support the plan, this row matters more than the holiday headline itself. | S2 / S6 |
| Extra protection and incapacity support | Specified illness or mental-incapacity events can trigger an advance lock of up to 100% of terminal bonus. | Within the first 10 policy years, accidental death can add up to 200% of paid premiums, with an incapacity arrangement. | Manulife ties emergency support more directly to terminal-bonus access, while FWD adds a more external risk buffer. | S2 / S6 |
| Death-benefit payout design | Lump sum, installment, or combined payout. | Five methods, including fixed and increasing installments. | Both support distribution planning, but FWD publishes finer-grained payout structure. | S2 / S6 |
| Single-pay maximum issue age | Age 80. | Age 80. | Age is not the main differentiator for single-pay cases. | S2 / S6 |
| Longest-pay maximum issue age | 15-pay up to age 60. | 18-pay up to age 62. | If the plan needs 18-pay and the applicant is older, FWD is more likely to fit the published age gate. | S2 / S6 |
| Public return headline | A 2024-04-23 launch release stated TIRR up to 7.19% at year 100 and said the figures were only for reference until 2025-06-30. | The public page and brochure do not publish a matched IRR or breakeven matrix. | Public return evidence is visibly asymmetric, so direct ranking is not defensible. | S4 / S5 / S6 |
| Fulfillment-ratio disclosure path | Manulife maintains an official fulfillment-ratio page. | FWD maintains a regulatory-disclosures / fulfillment-ratios page. | Historical fulfillment ratios are a due-diligence entry point, not a replacement for matched proposal comparison. | S8 / S11 / S12 |
Place the actions back on a timeline
For savings insurance, “when you can act” usually matters more than brochure headlines.
| Moment | ManuLegacy | Prosperity | Decision hint |
|---|---|---|---|
| Before signing | Confirm whether the standard brochure version and the limited 2-pay leaflet are both currently valid. | Confirm the 2 / 3 / 5 / 10 / 18-pay version, rider bundle, premium-holiday rules, and whether you will rely on future lock-in or currency-switch paths. | Do the version check before discussing returns. Do not leave the post-switch new plan and post-holiday feature loss until the end. |
| After year 1 | Change of insured becomes available once the timing condition is met. | Unlimited change of insured becomes available. | If you need long-run governance flexibility, the year-1 rule gap matters. |
| After year 2 | 5 / 10 / 15-pay versions may apply for premium holiday, up to 2 years. | 5 / 10 / 18-pay versions enter the premium-holiday eligibility zone. | Stress-test not only the payment pause, but also the rider and feature loss. |
| Year 3 | Currency conversion opens, but it may lead into a designated new plan instead of the original Genesis. | Currency conversion opens and year-3 policy split becomes available. The conversion may also move the policy into a New Plan that is not the original MaxFocus Legacy. | If early split governance matters, FWD is faster. If you plan to switch currency, inspect whether the original features still survive afterward. |
| Year 5 | The terminal-bonus realization window opens, subject to the 10% / 50% caps. | The plan is still not at its core lock-in stage. | If your cash-flow plan needs a year-5 to year-12 action, the direction is already largely decided here. |
| Year 15 | The plan can continue under the capped realization rhythm. | If you are on the 2 / 3 / 5 / 10-pay version and premiums are fully paid, bonus lock-in can be applied for. The 18-pay version is still inside the premium-paying period and cannot execute lock-in between years 15 and 18. | If you already accept a long hold, Prosperity’s lock-in logic starts becoming executable here, but the 18-pay version still has to wait longer. |
| Death event / legacy trigger | Backup insured, policy successor, and death-benefit payout options become the main tools. | Successor insureds, successor policy owners, and split structures become the main framework. | This is not about nicer wording. It is about whether your family structure actually needs pre-defined multi-layer succession order. |
Do not skip these 9 boundaries on returns, structure, ratios, and financing
The page does not stop when evidence is incomplete. It marks the missing edge clearly and gives the minimum executable path to close it.
| Topic | ManuLegacy | Prosperity | Why it matters | Minimum next step |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public IRR / breakeven comparison | There is a historical launch-release headline, but it was stated as reference only until 2025-06-30. | There is no matched public IRR or breakeven matrix. | Public evidence is asymmetric, so you cannot write a deterministic winner. | Get dual proposals under matched currency, age, and payment-term assumptions and run both base and downside scenarios. |
| IA illustration-cap treatment from 2025-07-01 | HKD proposals sit under a 6.0% point-of-sale illustration cap, so older higher examples cannot be used as the current sales baseline. | Non-HKD proposals sit under a 6.5% point-of-sale illustration cap, so even stronger future public examples still remain inside IA point-of-sale rules. | The caps are distinguished by policy currency rather than by “long versus short term”, and they govern point-of-sale disclosure rather than actual realized returns. | Confirm that the proposal version is post-2025-07-01, record the calculation date, and read HKD versus non-HKD scenarios separately. |
| Whether 2-pay is truly comparable | As of 2026-03-27, 2-pay came from a limited leaflet rather than the standard brochure grid. | 2-pay sits in the standard brochure. | If you describe both as permanent 2-pay products, you mis-handle version risk. | Require the advisor to place the current saleable version code and validity window into the comparison sheet. |
| Whether currency switch is only an FX action | No. Genesis may convert into a designated new plan that is not the original Genesis, and the post-switch benefits, features, and investment strategy follow that new plan. | Also no. Prosperity may convert into a designated New Plan that is not the original MaxFocus Legacy, and riders remain only if they are still offered under the new plan and currency. | Currency-switch comparison has to inspect the post-switch documentation rather than only comparing 7 versus 8 currencies. | Ask the advisor for the post-switch new-plan sheet, the rider survival result, and the new calculation date. |
| Activation conditions for the legacy structure | Legacy Choice can bridge a minor successive policy owner through an Interim Policyowner, but only one contingent life insured can sit on the policy at a time. | The structure is deeper with up to 3 contingent insureds and 3 contingent policy owners, but each contingent insured still has to satisfy the issue-age and minimum-notional requirement or the result may become a lump-sum payout. | “More features” does not guarantee policy continuation. It still depends on whether the people you nominate can actually satisfy the operating conditions. | Put every successor’s age, relationship, target amount, and intended sequence into the same family map. |
| The asset form left after the action | After realization, the terminal bonus may stay in the policy to earn non-guaranteed interest or be withdrawn later, and the request cannot be reversed once submitted. | The lock-in value remains inside the bonus lock-in account and cannot be converted back to bonus cash value. The 18-pay version also cannot lock in during the premium-paying period. | Neither side is “do it once and see later.” The difference is whether you are creating withdrawable accumulation or moving value into a guaranteed bucket inside the policy. | Ask the advisor to show three views at once: cash value, death benefit, and liquidity before and after the action. |
| What premium holiday freezes or removes | Indebtedness has to be repaid before the holiday. During the holiday you cannot request policy loan, currency switch, realization, or other value actions, and supplementary benefits terminate. | No reversionary bonus or special bonus is declared during the holiday. Attached riders terminate automatically, and the 18-pay version also cannot execute lock-in during the premium-paying period. | Premium holiday affects more than affordability. It also changes the later bonus path and the operating space available afterward. | Ask the advisor for a holiday before-versus-after sheet covering values, bonuses, riders, and available actions. |
| How to use fulfillment ratios | You can start from Manulife’s fulfillment-ratio page, but you still need the product bucket and issue year. | You can start from FWD’s disclosure page, but a single ratio cannot replace proposal comparison. | Fulfillment ratios work as due diligence, not as a direct cross-company return ranking. | Read ratios only alongside dividend philosophy and within the same issue year and product bucket. |
| Whether premium financing can be assumed | No. You must return to affordability, FNA, and the IFS-PF. | Also no, and a longer payment term does not automatically mean better financing fit. | Financing is a separate risk-control topic, not an extension of product marketing. | Run at least three stresses: higher loan rates, lower policy values, and an income interruption scenario. |
Execution depends on more than brochure features
GL29, GL30, premium-financing standards, and IA illustration rules determine whether a “good-looking” plan is actually executable.
| Rule | Date | Explicit requirement | Why it matters | Minimum action | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participating-policy illustration caps | 2025-02-28 / 2025-07-01 | IA issued the Practice Note on 2025-02-28 and applied new illustration caps from 2025-07-01: 6.0% for HKD-denominated policies and 6.5% for non-HKD policies. | Older high illustrations cannot be moved into today’s sales comparison, and HKD versus non-HKD proposals cannot be assumed to sit under the same point-of-sale ceiling. | Every proposal comparison must record the calculation date and policy currency, and confirm that it sits under the post-2025-07-01 rules. | S7 |
| GL29 / cooling-off | Accessed 2026-03-27 | IA’s points to note for long-term insurance state a 21-day cooling-off period, during which cancellation should generally refund paid premium and premium levy. | This affects the timing of your second review and post-issue document checks. | Set day-2 and day-10 post-issue reviews as fixed checkpoints instead of treating cooling-off as the only safety net. | S9 |
| GL30 / FNA | Updated 2024-07-19 | The IA premium-financing standards page lists GL30, GL29, GL16, the agent/broker codes, and the IFS-PF together as sales guardrails. | Without FNA, you cannot defend that the plan matches cash flow, purpose, and affordability. | Ask the advisor to document the FNA target, premium source, holding horizon, and downside case in writing. | S10 |
| Premium-financing controls / IFS-PF | Updated 2024-07-19 | IA explicitly requires affordability assessment, over-leveraging identification, and full disclosure through the IFS-PF. | “Is the product good?” and “Can the financing survive?” are different questions. If the second fails, the first becomes irrelevant. | Run at least three stresses: +2% loan-rate, lower policy value, and income interruption. | S10 |
| IA risk reminder / premium-financing market signal | 2024-02-18 | An IA official article noted that the relevant business dropped from 43% of total market share in 2022 to 21% in 2023, and further to 9% in the fourth quarter of 2023, while warning that some early-surrender cases can produce losses exceeding 100% after expenses. | This is not a legal cap. It is an official market signal from the regulator that financing cases are far more fragile than sales language suggests when the rate environment changes. | If the advisor still leads with financing, require written stress tests for rate reset, early surrender, and refinancing failure. | S14 |
| GL16 / fulfillment-ratio disclosure | Accessed 2026-03-27 | IA requires fulfillment-ratio disclosure for participating policies, and both insurers provide their own disclosure entry points. | It helps you understand dividend philosophy and historical realization, but a single ratio is not a total product score. | Interpret ratios only within the same product bucket and issue year, alongside the current proposal version. | S8 / S11 / S12 |
There is no flawless winner, only different ways to be wrong
The purpose of the risk matrix is not to scare the reader away, but to clarify which type of mistake would hurt the most.
| Risk | Trigger | ManuLegacy | Prosperity | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Historical yield anchoring risk | Using older marketing headlines to rank products | Manulife’s older TIRR headline is easy to misread as a current sales baseline. | FWD lacks a symmetric IRR matrix, which can create a false sense of fair comparison. | Use current dual proposals and keep the calculation date on record. |
| Timing mismatch | Treating year-5 use and year-15 lock-in as one function | Fits mid-term action but comes with capped realization. | Fits longer holding, but cannot replace a year-5 use case. | Write the target year before picking the product. |
| Version or promotion expiry risk | Planning around Manulife 2-pay without checking leaflet validity | 2-pay is time-sensitive. | 2-pay is part of the brochure baseline, so the version risk is lower. | Require the advisor to write version code and validity window on the quote sheet. |
| Premium-holiday side-effect risk | Seeing only the payment holiday and ignoring rider or feature changes | The key risk is frozen value growth and a disrupted plan rhythm. | The key risk is automatic termination of attached riders. | Put the rider inventory and the holiday scenario on the same checklist. |
| Post-switch new-plan risk | Comparing only 7 versus 8 currencies without reading the post-switch documents | The policy may convert into a designated plan that is not Genesis, and the terms, services, or supplementary benefits may change with it. | The policy may convert into a New Plan that is not the original MaxFocus Legacy, and riders remain only if they are available under the new plan and currency. | Get the post-switch new-plan sheet first, then decide whether the multi-currency feature still matters. |
| Legacy-continuation failure risk | Setting up successors without checking age, relationship, or minimum notional amount | If contingent-life-insured and minor-bridge arrangements are not set up in advance, the continuation design may break at death. | Even with a three-layer successor structure, the result may still become a lump-sum payout if the contingent insured fails the issue-age or minimum-notional test. | Put every successor’s age, relationship, target amount, and order into the same worksheet. |
| Irreversible-action risk | Treating realization or lock-in as actions that can be undone later | Once the realization request is submitted it cannot be reversed, and the future terminal-bonus path is changed. | The lock-in value cannot be converted back to bonus cash value, and the 18-pay version also remains constrained by the premium-paying period. | Review three before-versus-after tables before signing: cash value, death benefit, and liquidity. |
| Over-engineered legacy structure | Choosing the more complex architecture because it looks feature-rich | If you only need one-layer succession and mid-term extraction, complexity stays lower. | If you do not need multiple successor insureds, the deeper structure may only add management cost. | Draw the family distribution map before deciding whether the extra structure is truly needed. |
| Premium-financing over-leverage | Mistaking a longer pay term for automatic financing suitability | If mid-term extraction underdelivers, financing rhythm may break. | Longer payment does not automatically mean safer financing. The cash-flow window may be longer and more fragile. | Discuss financing structure only after the affordability assessment passes. |
What this page can answer and cannot answer
The value of a generic research page is to build the decision chain first and then mark which parts must return to proposals, policy wording, and case-specific information.
Year-5 versus year-15 action timing.
Whether 2-pay is standard or version-sensitive.
Whether currency switch turns the policy into a designated new plan.
Which side publishes deeper legacy governance, and when it can fail.
Which plan definitely has higher IRR.
Whether your financing case is affordable.
Whether unnamed successors will definitely satisfy the age and amount thresholds.
Whether every feature survives after conversion.
Prioritize timing, structural depth, post-switch plan changes, and side effects.
Treat returns as boundary evidence, not a deterministic ranking.
Get matched dual proposals.
Confirm version date, rider inventory, and cooling-off checkpoints.
Add FNA and stress tests for financing cases.
This page only uses public and traceable primary sources: insurer product pages, brochure PDFs, regulatory guidance, official risk reminders, and fulfillment-ratio disclosures.
Before matched dual proposals are available under the same currency, age, and payment-term assumptions, the page does not assign a deterministic IRR or breakeven winner. Anything that must be validated in proposals or case-specific materials is marked explicitly as a boundary or next step.
Author: Su Jiang (GXBIBI research team). The content is assembled from public materials and policy wording.
This page was last updated on 2026-03-27 and is scheduled for another time-sensitive fact review by 2026-06-27.
Give scenario-based next steps instead of a forced overall winner
The final purpose of a research page is not to finish the comparison, but to show how the reader should narrow the shortlist next.
Its public action starts much earlier, which makes it the better first check when year-5 onward capped realization might fund the target window.
Next-step checklist
Run proposal comparisons at years 5, 8, and 10.
Check whether the 10% annual and 50% rolling-five-year limits choke the withdrawal rhythm.
Confirm that change-of-insured and split actions still preserve the intended legacy arrangement.
FWD’s public structure puts successor insureds, successor policy owners, and year-3 split into one governance framework.
Next-step checklist
Document the insureds, policy owners, beneficiaries, and payout order first.
Validate each contingent insured’s age, relationship, and minimum notional amount instead of focusing only on “up to 3”.
If there is a minor successor in the family, also test whether ManuLegacy’s Interim Policyowner bridge is the cleaner route.
In this scenario, post-holiday riders, value freezes, and management cost matter more than brochure-level return language.
Next-step checklist
List every rider attached to the planned policy.
Simulate both a one-year holiday and a maximum-allowed holiday, and list whether bonus, loan, or switch actions become frozen.
Place the protection gap, cash-flow gap, payment-resumption conditions, and post-holiday available actions side by side.
IA’s premium-financing standards require affordability assessment, over-leveraging controls, and the IFS-PF. IA’s 2024-02-18 risk reminder also showed the relevant business falling from 43% of market share in 2022 to 21% in 2023, and just 9% in the fourth quarter. Until that risk layer passes, product comparison is premature.
Next-step checklist
Complete GL30/FNA and the IFS-PF first.
Run at least +2% loan-rate, lower policy-value, and income-interruption stress tests, then add early-surrender and refinancing-failure scenarios.
Return to ManuLegacy vs Prosperity only after the financing case passes.
Answer the most common decision mistakes clearly
This FAQ is not a glossary. It addresses the questions readers keep asking before signing.
Every key conclusion maps to a source and date
Time-sensitive information is dated, and any public-evidence gap has already been marked as a boundary instead of being written as certainty.
7 currencies, standard payment terms, and the product-page wording that shows currency switch may move into a designated new plan.
Open sourceYear-5 terminal-bonus realization, the post-switch new-plan and rider rules, premium holiday, split, backup insured, and change of insured.
Open sourceConfirming that 2-pay is a time-sensitive version entry rather than the standard brochure baseline.
Open sourceHistorical year-100 TIRR up to 7.19% and the time boundary that said the figures were only for reference until 2025-06-30.
Open sourceProduct positioning, page-level feature entry points, and public marketing wording.
Open source2 / 3 / 5 / 10 / 18-pay, 8 currencies, the 18-pay lock-in restriction, year-3 split, successor insured or policy-owner structure, the post-switch New Plan rules, premium holiday, and rider or bonus side effects.
Open sourceThe HKD 6.0% / non-HKD 6.5% illustration caps from 2025-07-01, plus the boundary that point-of-sale caps do not equal actual return caps.
Open sourceRegulatory disclosure requirements for fulfillment ratios and how to read them.
Open sourceThe 21-day cooling-off period, cancellation process, and levy-refund rule.
Open sourceGL16 / GL29 / GL30, affordability assessment, over-leveraging control, and the IFS-PF.
Open sourceDue-diligence entry point for Manulife participating-product fulfillment ratios.
Open sourceDue-diligence entry point for FWD participating-product fulfillment ratios.
Open sourceThe Interim Policyowner bridge for a minor successive policy owner, the one-contingent-life-insured limit, and the activation conditions for the legacy design.
Open sourceThe official warning that premium-financing market share fell from 43% in 2022 to 21% in 2023 and to 9% in the fourth quarter of 2023, plus the reminder that early surrender can produce losses above 100% after expenses.
Open sourceNeed Professional Analysis?
Everyone's financial situation and goals are different. Contact us for personalized advice.
Scan to add WeChat for consultation
• Free product proposal
• One-on-one Q&A
• HK visit booking assistance