Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Office Staff in Ang Mo Kio office
I wish to employ an office staff to do admin work. The office is in Ang Mo Kio. The work can be for 4 to 8 hours a day (flexible). Preference to someone living in or near Ang Mo Kio (or 1 direct bus). Interested, please send resume to kinlian@gmail.com.
TKL Intelligence Quiz, Sudoku
I have received two orders for my TKL Intelligence Quiz book through my website. The books will be mailed, free of postage, to an address in Singapore. This is a new way of selling books, which I am experimenting with. I also have a book on TKL Sudoku ($7.90). It contain challenging puzzles.
More orders are welcomed.
More orders are welcomed.
Obama's plan for Financial Regulatory Reform
Here are the details of the plan.
Someone said: If USA, which is the center of capitalism, finds it necessary to regulate the financial system, what about the rest of the world?
Obama to Create Consumer Financial Agency
President Obama has the courage to do what needs to be done. He is creating a Consumer Financial Agency with powers to punish wrong doings by financial institutions. Read this report.
Reckless behaviour by financial institutions
In the early 1990s, several insurance companies in Scandinavia lost a lot of money on credit insurance. They insured financial institutions from losses on mortgages in the event that the borrower did not pay back the loan. During the economic recession, the property values fell and many borrowers defaulted. These insurance companies had to be recapitalised.
15 years later, other insuranced companies have started to issue credit default swaps. They are like the credit insurance, except that the magnitude of the bets are of an unimaginable scale and they are unregulated entirely.
Could the insurers have forgotten the lessons of the 1990s? I do not think so. These new gamblers are either arrogant (i.e. they think that they found a new way to manage the risk) or reckless (i.e. they wanted to make a lot of profit now, and let the system collapse later).
The regulators were also negligent in not stopping these reckless bets.
Tan Kin Lian
15 years later, other insuranced companies have started to issue credit default swaps. They are like the credit insurance, except that the magnitude of the bets are of an unimaginable scale and they are unregulated entirely.
Could the insurers have forgotten the lessons of the 1990s? I do not think so. These new gamblers are either arrogant (i.e. they think that they found a new way to manage the risk) or reckless (i.e. they wanted to make a lot of profit now, and let the system collapse later).
The regulators were also negligent in not stopping these reckless bets.
Tan Kin Lian
Life insurance - indisputable clause
A life insurance policy is likely to have an indisputability clause. This clause states that the insurance company will not dispute any claim after it has been in force for one or two years, except in the case of fraud.
The purpose of this clause is to protect the consumer (i.e. policyholder) from unreasonable rejection of a death claim due to non-disclosure of material information. After a policy has been issued for a few years, it will be difficult to establish if the non-disclosure is intended or an oversight. The indisputability clause states that the insurance company will not dispute the claim on this account.
The claim can be disputed if the premium is not paid.
Some claim offiicers are willing to dispute a claim under the "fraud" clause. They claim that policyholder is commiting fraud by the non-disclosure. This stand is in contraction to the indisputablity clause.
If the insurance company wish to use the fraud clause, they have the burden to prove that fraud was intended by the policyholder. The non-disclosure event does not amount to fraud. Other evidence had to be produced, e.g. that the policyholder knew about the duty to disclose and take steps to hide the facts. This type of evidence is usually not available, probably because fraud was not intended in the first place.
I hope that insurance companies are aware about the intent of the indisputability clause to protect the consumers from unreasonable rejection of claim on weak grounds. If such a case is challenged in court, it is likely that the insurance company is not able to prove the intent to commit a fraud, and that the claim will be paid.
Tan Kin Lian
The purpose of this clause is to protect the consumer (i.e. policyholder) from unreasonable rejection of a death claim due to non-disclosure of material information. After a policy has been issued for a few years, it will be difficult to establish if the non-disclosure is intended or an oversight. The indisputability clause states that the insurance company will not dispute the claim on this account.
The claim can be disputed if the premium is not paid.
Some claim offiicers are willing to dispute a claim under the "fraud" clause. They claim that policyholder is commiting fraud by the non-disclosure. This stand is in contraction to the indisputablity clause.
If the insurance company wish to use the fraud clause, they have the burden to prove that fraud was intended by the policyholder. The non-disclosure event does not amount to fraud. Other evidence had to be produced, e.g. that the policyholder knew about the duty to disclose and take steps to hide the facts. This type of evidence is usually not available, probably because fraud was not intended in the first place.
I hope that insurance companies are aware about the intent of the indisputability clause to protect the consumers from unreasonable rejection of claim on weak grounds. If such a case is challenged in court, it is likely that the insurance company is not able to prove the intent to commit a fraud, and that the claim will be paid.
Tan Kin Lian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)