Hi Kin Lian,
Are you aware of how NTUC Insurance has evolved since you left?
I entered the industry (as an independent advisor) the same year you left NTUC in 2007. I'm a newbie here. But it does not prevent me from observing (with a sigh), that NTUC, the company you led for a long time, has changed since you left - from an organisation that prides itself for being pro-society to a somewhat changed "organism".
NTUC used to be tolerant towards people whose health are not in "tip-top" conditions. I attribute it to its role of being a pro-society co-operative, putting more emphasis in social goodness rather than profit/loss (that's what the guys there always say). It's a humane organisation.
Of course, ultimately bottomline counts. But now, for unknown reasons, the same organisation is suddenly turning its back on the people it's supposed to serve. So much so that it has tightened its procedures so drastically, resulting in people being rendered uninsurable for slight ailments, ie, not in tip-top conditions. It wants to have a sure-win situation?
That's why I say its a systemic problem. Because if this toughness continues, many Singaporeans, especially the older folks, will be without insurance/ medical coverages. Imagine how huge an issue it can be, in an era of aging population, increasing medical expenses etc. I can't comment whether it's due to a change in management philosophy. But for any person who cares (& I think you might), I would say that this is a Mini-bond in the making. Some time, some how, things will blow up. And it can be quite disasterous.
REPLY
I suggest that you write to the secretary general of NTUC, Mr. Lim Swee Say. I hope that he will respond to your feedback.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Survey: How will you vote in the General Election (1)?
The hot topic now is the next general election, which may be held in 2009. How will you vote? Give your views in this survey.
Please pass the word around to your friends and invite them to give their views in this survey. I like to have many people to participate, so that the results can be more representative of the population.
UPDATE
Here are the survey results based on 206 replies. The results are quite close to the results based on 149 replies. This shows that the results are not affected by the size of the sample, provided that the initial sample is quite large (say 50 replies)
Monday, March 23, 2009
Tutoring, temp work can pay off
MAS Consultation Paper - Toxic Investment Products
Under the consultation paper, the issuers are required to provide more clearer information about complex financial products. But, the question is, will this approach prevent the sale of toxic products?
The credit linked notes, which were allowed to be sold, were toxic because they carry 5 to 8 times the risk of ordinary bonds. The issuer was able to package these toxic products and offer a low rate of return to the unsuspecting investors.
It will be difficult for the ordinary people to understand the risk of these products. They have to rely on the adviser. If the adviser is not aware of the risk, then the chance of mis-selling is high.
There is already an existing requirement for the issuer to provide relevant information about the product that is registered for sale to the public. If the authority is not willing to enforce this requirement under the existing regulation, will the "better disclosure standard" prevent a similar problem from recurring several years into the future?
A better solution is to have independent experts to certify the risk of the product. This independent experts must be appointed by the approving body and not by the product issuer.
If the independent experts cannot certify the products to be fairly designed and described, the authority should not allowed the product to be sold.
This is similar to the certification of drugs. If the drugs is not tested to be safe and effective, it is not allowed to be sold to the public.
I hope that MAS will consider this point. I shall be submitting this suggestion in reply to the consultation paper.
The credit linked notes, which were allowed to be sold, were toxic because they carry 5 to 8 times the risk of ordinary bonds. The issuer was able to package these toxic products and offer a low rate of return to the unsuspecting investors.
It will be difficult for the ordinary people to understand the risk of these products. They have to rely on the adviser. If the adviser is not aware of the risk, then the chance of mis-selling is high.
There is already an existing requirement for the issuer to provide relevant information about the product that is registered for sale to the public. If the authority is not willing to enforce this requirement under the existing regulation, will the "better disclosure standard" prevent a similar problem from recurring several years into the future?
A better solution is to have independent experts to certify the risk of the product. This independent experts must be appointed by the approving body and not by the product issuer.
If the independent experts cannot certify the products to be fairly designed and described, the authority should not allowed the product to be sold.
This is similar to the certification of drugs. If the drugs is not tested to be safe and effective, it is not allowed to be sold to the public.
I hope that MAS will consider this point. I shall be submitting this suggestion in reply to the consultation paper.
MAS Consultatation paper - simple insurance products
To MAS
This consultation paper is for regulation on investment products. I suggest that the regulation should make clear that life insurance products that provide only insurance protection (and do not have any saving or investment return) do not require to have any adviser.
This will allow life insurance products, such as term insurance, accident insurance and medical insurance, can be marketed without the involvement of a financial adviser. This will reduce the cost of distributing the simple insurance products.
It also avoids the conflict of interest, where unethical advisers may influence the consumer to buy an unsuitable product that pays a bigger commission to the adviser.
Tan Kin Lian
Survey: Politician Ratings
Who will you vote in the next general election? Survey.
Here are the preliminary survey results, based on 49, 112 and 178 replies. The latest rating has a more balanced distribution by age group.
Disclaimer. The people who participate in this survey do not reflect the population at large. This survey attracts a larger proportion of people who are unhappy with the Government.
It is more important to look at the relative ranking of the politicians in the PAP and the alternative parties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)