Here is a puzzle. You have to guess a number from 1 to 4. Each day the correct answer is drawn. You have 1 out of 4 chance of getting it right. You repeat this exercise for 6 days. What is the probability (chance) of getting the right number for 6 days, 5 days, 4 days, 3 days, 2 days, 1 day and 0 day? Please show in percentages to 2 decimal places. The total must add up to 100%
Send your answer to kinlian@gmail.com. The first correct answer will win my Tangram book.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Competition Law
I am surprised that SISTIC should be charged, found guilty and fined nearly $1 million for breaching the Competition Act. Here are my reasons:
a) SISTIC competed fairly to win the contract from the venue owners to handle the ticketing of their shows.
b) It is more sensible for the venue owner to get one ticketing company, rather than several companies, to handle the sale of the tickets.
c) The ticket charge (presumably $2) is a small charge for the work of issuing a ticket
d) ticket charge can be considered as part of the total cost of the show. If the customer does not like the total price, the customer is not required to watch the show.
The ticket charge is small, as compared to the charge of $30 imposed by the banks to transfer US$100. If SISTIC should be fined for this charged for this fee, why are the banks allowed to impose a charge that is 15 times of this sum? The work is similar in both cases.
I am not sure if I got my facts and issues correctly, so I look forward to getting the views of other people on this matter.
Tan Kin Lian
a) SISTIC competed fairly to win the contract from the venue owners to handle the ticketing of their shows.
b) It is more sensible for the venue owner to get one ticketing company, rather than several companies, to handle the sale of the tickets.
c) The ticket charge (presumably $2) is a small charge for the work of issuing a ticket
d) ticket charge can be considered as part of the total cost of the show. If the customer does not like the total price, the customer is not required to watch the show.
The ticket charge is small, as compared to the charge of $30 imposed by the banks to transfer US$100. If SISTIC should be fined for this charged for this fee, why are the banks allowed to impose a charge that is 15 times of this sum? The work is similar in both cases.
I am not sure if I got my facts and issues correctly, so I look forward to getting the views of other people on this matter.
Tan Kin Lian
Poor return from endowment policy
Dear Mr Tan,
In 1995, my mother was sold an endowment product. The policy is maturing in about 5 years time. By that time, she would have paid a total of $16,000 in premium for the life policy and $2,000 for the critical illness rider. The insurance company said that the guaranteed payout after 21 years is $14,000 and the projected payout is about $16,000.
This is really a ridiculous situation. If she had left her money in FD over 21 years, she would have got a better return than this endowment product. This product is giving a negative returns over the 21 year period! At that time, my mother was not working and the premium was all she could afford. It is sickening that there are people out there who will even try to milk money out of such poor people, as the agent sold the policy as a "savings plan".
Is there any action that I can take against the insurance company? The agent who sold the policy has long since vanished.
MY REPLY
I agree with your views. A fair return for 21 years should be 3% p.a. This would give a maturity benefit of $21,800, instead of $16,000. Another insurance company has advertised that it gave a return of more than 5% over a similar period in the past. This would have produced more than $27,200.
I suggest that you write a complaint to MAS and to the newspaper.
In 1995, my mother was sold an endowment product. The policy is maturing in about 5 years time. By that time, she would have paid a total of $16,000 in premium for the life policy and $2,000 for the critical illness rider. The insurance company said that the guaranteed payout after 21 years is $14,000 and the projected payout is about $16,000.
This is really a ridiculous situation. If she had left her money in FD over 21 years, she would have got a better return than this endowment product. This product is giving a negative returns over the 21 year period! At that time, my mother was not working and the premium was all she could afford. It is sickening that there are people out there who will even try to milk money out of such poor people, as the agent sold the policy as a "savings plan".
Is there any action that I can take against the insurance company? The agent who sold the policy has long since vanished.
MY REPLY
I agree with your views. A fair return for 21 years should be 3% p.a. This would give a maturity benefit of $21,800, instead of $16,000. Another insurance company has advertised that it gave a return of more than 5% over a similar period in the past. This would have produced more than $27,200.
I suggest that you write a complaint to MAS and to the newspaper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)