Read this BBC report.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
NTUC Income AGM, May 2009
At the AGM of NTUC Income held in May 2009, I raised a few questions on the cut in bonus and increase in premium rates on motor insurance. The answers provided by the management are shown in the attached document.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Tweak ATMs to do away with cheques
This letter was printed in Straits Times Forum Page. Do you agree with the suggestion? Give your views here.
Editor
Forum Page
Straits Times
MANY people are familiar with the use of automated teller machines (ATMs) to withdraw cash or transfer funds to another account.
The transfer funds facility can be used to pay a third party, in place of writing a cheque. If this is widely promoted and used, it will reduce the number of cheques that have to be mailed and cleared through the banking system, and improve efficiency of companies.
There is a drawback in the existing transfer funds facility that needs to be addressed. DBS and POSB ATMs do not allow the transferor to enter a reference number to notify the payee about the party making the transfer. I am not sure if other banks' ATMs have a similar restriction.
I suggest that the ATM system be modified to allow a reference number to be entered in making a fund transfer. This number can be entirely numeric, as the ATM does not have the facility to enter letters.
If this facility is provided, many companies will actively encourage their customers to pay by bank transfer via the ATM, instead of writing a cheque. It will benefit all parties involved in the transaction and reduce the cost of making a payment.
I also suggest that the banks provide a facility for the account owner to ask for fund transfer transactions to be downloaded daily for processing. This will suit companies that do not wish to give full access to their employees to view other transactions in the bank account.
I hope the Association of Banks in Singapore or the Monetary Authority of Singapore will take up this suggestion.
Tan Kin Lian
Editor
Forum Page
Straits Times
MANY people are familiar with the use of automated teller machines (ATMs) to withdraw cash or transfer funds to another account.
The transfer funds facility can be used to pay a third party, in place of writing a cheque. If this is widely promoted and used, it will reduce the number of cheques that have to be mailed and cleared through the banking system, and improve efficiency of companies.
There is a drawback in the existing transfer funds facility that needs to be addressed. DBS and POSB ATMs do not allow the transferor to enter a reference number to notify the payee about the party making the transfer. I am not sure if other banks' ATMs have a similar restriction.
I suggest that the ATM system be modified to allow a reference number to be entered in making a fund transfer. This number can be entirely numeric, as the ATM does not have the facility to enter letters.
If this facility is provided, many companies will actively encourage their customers to pay by bank transfer via the ATM, instead of writing a cheque. It will benefit all parties involved in the transaction and reduce the cost of making a payment.
I also suggest that the banks provide a facility for the account owner to ask for fund transfer transactions to be downloaded daily for processing. This will suit companies that do not wish to give full access to their employees to view other transactions in the bank account.
I hope the Association of Banks in Singapore or the Monetary Authority of Singapore will take up this suggestion.
Tan Kin Lian
Comments in my blog
I like those posting comments in my blog to sign off with their real name or a pen name. This makes it easier for toher readers to refer to their posting by name. Do not post anonymous comments.
Insurance company has a duty to render a clear statement on ILP
Hi Mr Tan,
I'm writing regarding a recent blog post "Full refund of premium under ILP". I was surprised and envious when I read this.
For the past 6 months, I have been pursuing X for two ILPs I bought a few years ago. I wanted to track my investments and insurance, but was not given the full disclosure of fees involved.
The total contribution I make every month goes to 1) policy charges, 2) mortality charges, 3) insurance, and 4) investment funds. The fees and charges were not disclosed to me explicitly. I learned about these fees only very recently when I started to track my investments. I realised that the numbers cannot balance month to month. Then I read the policy booklets in detailed, and learned of all the extra charges.
X was also not able to give me the number of fund units that I buy every month, after the deductions of the charges. Hence I am unable to track the performance of my investment. I tried to contact them several times. But every time I'm told this is
not possible.
The company sends a yearly statement on the "Average" no. of units I have, and I'm told that is the only best info they can provide me. Unfortunately, it is not clear how many units are deducted for charges, and how many are added. I've spent many nights on Excel spreadsheets, running the statements, the info they provide, and the amount deducted from my bank. I tried to balance the numbers to the current units I hold, to no avail.
I get a lot of pressure from X and my financial advisor. They told me I'm being unreasonable when I ask for the funds' units every month, and that no insurance or fund companies can give me this information. I cannot imagine being stuck with these two policies for the next 36 years, not knowing where my money is going every month.
I am considering bringing my case to MAS and FIDREC. Is my request for more transparent information an unreasonable one?
REPLY
I support your idea to bring up this matter with MAS and FIDREC.
The insurance company owes a duty to the policyholder to provide details of the charges and a clear statement of how the money is being invested. No policyholder, regardless of how well educated, will know what is happening, unless a clear statement is rendered each month. It is not possible to know at the end of the year from a consolidated statement.
Many insurance companies fail to provide a clear statement, and in the process the policyholder is unaware about the high charges that are being deducted. This is an unacceptable practice, from the consumer's point of view. This shabby practice cannot be condoned.
All the best in lodging your complaint.
I'm writing regarding a recent blog post "Full refund of premium under ILP". I was surprised and envious when I read this.
For the past 6 months, I have been pursuing X for two ILPs I bought a few years ago. I wanted to track my investments and insurance, but was not given the full disclosure of fees involved.
The total contribution I make every month goes to 1) policy charges, 2) mortality charges, 3) insurance, and 4) investment funds. The fees and charges were not disclosed to me explicitly. I learned about these fees only very recently when I started to track my investments. I realised that the numbers cannot balance month to month. Then I read the policy booklets in detailed, and learned of all the extra charges.
X was also not able to give me the number of fund units that I buy every month, after the deductions of the charges. Hence I am unable to track the performance of my investment. I tried to contact them several times. But every time I'm told this is
not possible.
The company sends a yearly statement on the "Average" no. of units I have, and I'm told that is the only best info they can provide me. Unfortunately, it is not clear how many units are deducted for charges, and how many are added. I've spent many nights on Excel spreadsheets, running the statements, the info they provide, and the amount deducted from my bank. I tried to balance the numbers to the current units I hold, to no avail.
I get a lot of pressure from X and my financial advisor. They told me I'm being unreasonable when I ask for the funds' units every month, and that no insurance or fund companies can give me this information. I cannot imagine being stuck with these two policies for the next 36 years, not knowing where my money is going every month.
I am considering bringing my case to MAS and FIDREC. Is my request for more transparent information an unreasonable one?
REPLY
I support your idea to bring up this matter with MAS and FIDREC.
The insurance company owes a duty to the policyholder to provide details of the charges and a clear statement of how the money is being invested. No policyholder, regardless of how well educated, will know what is happening, unless a clear statement is rendered each month. It is not possible to know at the end of the year from a consolidated statement.
Many insurance companies fail to provide a clear statement, and in the process the policyholder is unaware about the high charges that are being deducted. This is an unacceptable practice, from the consumer's point of view. This shabby practice cannot be condoned.
All the best in lodging your complaint.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Only 20% received offer
Dear Mr. Tan
508 million was invested in minibonds. but Mr. Goh revealed offers made to victims from the distributors totalled 100 million, or 20%. Is it a joke of the century or what when Mr. Goh bragged about "2/3 receiving compensation?
ST: Lehman saga: Two thirds get payment offer
June 27, 2009
One in four who had mis-selling complaints fully compensated
By Francis Chan
MORE than two-thirds of the investors in Singapore who complained of mis-selling after losing money from the collapse of US investment bank Lehman Brothers, have been offered compensation.
Out of 5,350 cases dealt with by financial institutions that sold the Lehman-linked structured products, a quarter saw investors receiving full compensation, said Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong yesterday.
The latest updates came from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).
Mr Goh, who is also MAS chairman, was speaking at The Association of Banks of Singapore's (ABS) annual dinner.
He said the financial institutions that distributed the failed structured products have generally reviewed investor complaints in accordance with MAS recommendations that they should not take an overly legalistic approach.
Three banks and one finance company told MAS that as at last month, settlements worth $105 million - on a no-admission-of-liability basis - had been offered to more than 3,600 investors of Lehman-linked notes.
Of the 5,350 cases dealt with and decided on by the financial institutions, 67 per cent had seen settlements offered, while investors in 25 per cent of the cases decided were fully compensated.
Ten financial institutions sold over $660 million worth of Lehman-linked investments to more than 10,000 investors, who bought Lehman Minibonds, DBS High Notes 5 and Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3 LinkEarner Notes.
Mr Goh said MAS had recently consulted the public on proposed regulatory enhancements to cover the sale and marketing of structured products to retail investors.
'Broadly, the findings from MAS' policy review and investigations show that financial institutions will need fundamental changes in both business models and mindsets to win back the trust and confidence of consumers. This is true not only in Singapore, but across the globe.'
Mr Goh said that MAS had completed its probe into the sale of the structured notes and would release its findings soon.
Investors caught up in the fiasco have been looking forward to the the findings for months, most with mixed feelings.
'If the investigation process is conducted properly and without prejudice, I am hopeful that the findings will be in our favour,' said one investor who did not want to be named.
'My case is still in adjucation, so I do hope to hear favourable findings,' said another Minibonds investor whose complaint is being dealt with by the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre.
'But all they need to do is tell us the truth, and I am sure most, if not all, cases should receive full compensation.'
MAS recently set out in its Fair Dealing Guidelines the roles and responsibilities of boards and senior management in driving some fundamental changes needed for good customer outcomes.
Mr Goh said MAS will fine-tune its approach to supervision of the market conduct of financial institutions, including greater probing of boards and senior management on the steps they are taking to embed fair dealing outcomes in all their processes, from product approval to staff incentive structures.
franchan@sph.com.sg
One in four who had mis-selling complaints fully compensated
By Francis Chan
MORE than two-thirds of the investors in Singapore who complained of mis-selling after losing money from the collapse of US investment bank Lehman Brothers, have been offered compensation.
Out of 5,350 cases dealt with by financial institutions that sold the Lehman-linked structured products, a quarter saw investors receiving full compensation, said Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong yesterday.
The latest updates came from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).
Mr Goh, who is also MAS chairman, was speaking at The Association of Banks of Singapore's (ABS) annual dinner.
He said the financial institutions that distributed the failed structured products have generally reviewed investor complaints in accordance with MAS recommendations that they should not take an overly legalistic approach.
Three banks and one finance company told MAS that as at last month, settlements worth $105 million - on a no-admission-of-liability basis - had been offered to more than 3,600 investors of Lehman-linked notes.
Of the 5,350 cases dealt with and decided on by the financial institutions, 67 per cent had seen settlements offered, while investors in 25 per cent of the cases decided were fully compensated.
Ten financial institutions sold over $660 million worth of Lehman-linked investments to more than 10,000 investors, who bought Lehman Minibonds, DBS High Notes 5 and Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3 LinkEarner Notes.
Mr Goh said MAS had recently consulted the public on proposed regulatory enhancements to cover the sale and marketing of structured products to retail investors.
'Broadly, the findings from MAS' policy review and investigations show that financial institutions will need fundamental changes in both business models and mindsets to win back the trust and confidence of consumers. This is true not only in Singapore, but across the globe.'
Mr Goh said that MAS had completed its probe into the sale of the structured notes and would release its findings soon.
Investors caught up in the fiasco have been looking forward to the the findings for months, most with mixed feelings.
'If the investigation process is conducted properly and without prejudice, I am hopeful that the findings will be in our favour,' said one investor who did not want to be named.
'My case is still in adjucation, so I do hope to hear favourable findings,' said another Minibonds investor whose complaint is being dealt with by the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre.
'But all they need to do is tell us the truth, and I am sure most, if not all, cases should receive full compensation.'
MAS recently set out in its Fair Dealing Guidelines the roles and responsibilities of boards and senior management in driving some fundamental changes needed for good customer outcomes.
Mr Goh said MAS will fine-tune its approach to supervision of the market conduct of financial institutions, including greater probing of boards and senior management on the steps they are taking to embed fair dealing outcomes in all their processes, from product approval to staff incentive structures.
franchan@sph.com.sg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)