Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Survey: Political Party Blogs
You can read the blogs of the political parties using the links on the right panel. Please give your views about these blogs. Survey.
Orphan money at NTUC Income
Someone, posting anonymously, has attacked me a few times for my views on the treatment of orphaned money. He asked if there were orphaned money in NTUC Income during the time that I was the CEO.
During my time, we adopted a different approach. We distributed a high rate of reversionary bonus to each class of policy that could be supported by the actual long term investment yield of the fund. We kept a portion of the surplus to be paid as special bonus on the maturity or termination of the policy.
More importantly, we were able to distribute to the policyholders an attractive rate of return, which is now used by the new management in their advertisement. This attractive return was possible due to low expenses and a high payout to policyholders, i.e. not retained as orphaned money.
I became alarmed when NTUC Income decided to cut the reversionary bonus recently. Under the new structure, it is difficult for a policyholder to know if he or she is getting a fair payout on the maturity or termination of the policy. It now becomes important for an asset share should be calculated for each policy, to guide the final payout.
I decided to study the concept of asset share in more detail. I like the approach adopted in Malaysia. It requires an asset share to be calculated for each policy based on the actual experience of the fund. It credits the premiums paid and investment income earned and deducts the actual expenses and other charges. The regulator requires that the full asset share should be paid to the policyholder on the termination of the policy, after it has been in-force for a certain number of years.
This method is simple, transparent and fair. I hope that MAS will adopt this approach in Singapore.
During my time, we adopted a different approach. We distributed a high rate of reversionary bonus to each class of policy that could be supported by the actual long term investment yield of the fund. We kept a portion of the surplus to be paid as special bonus on the maturity or termination of the policy.
More importantly, we were able to distribute to the policyholders an attractive rate of return, which is now used by the new management in their advertisement. This attractive return was possible due to low expenses and a high payout to policyholders, i.e. not retained as orphaned money.
I became alarmed when NTUC Income decided to cut the reversionary bonus recently. Under the new structure, it is difficult for a policyholder to know if he or she is getting a fair payout on the maturity or termination of the policy. It now becomes important for an asset share should be calculated for each policy, to guide the final payout.
I decided to study the concept of asset share in more detail. I like the approach adopted in Malaysia. It requires an asset share to be calculated for each policy based on the actual experience of the fund. It credits the premiums paid and investment income earned and deducts the actual expenses and other charges. The regulator requires that the full asset share should be paid to the policyholder on the termination of the policy, after it has been in-force for a certain number of years.
This method is simple, transparent and fair. I hope that MAS will adopt this approach in Singapore.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Analogy - there are no poor people in Singapore
There is a debate in the Straits Times Forum about the existence of "orphaned money" in the participating fund of a life insurance company.
In my letter, I gave an example of a life insurance fund with assets of $15 billion and liabilities of $13 million (calculated from the individual liabilities of all individual policies), leaving "orphaned money" of $2 billion.
The reply of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, Life Insurance Association and Singapore Actuarial Society, is that under the law, all money in the participating fund belongs to the participating policyholders, hence the question of "orphaned money" does not arise.
This is similar to the argument that as Singapore is a wealthy nation, and as all the wealth of the state belongs to the people, there are no poor people in Singapore. Tell that to the people who cannot pay their electricity bill or buy food.
Orphaned money in Life Insurance Fund
There is some debate in the Straits Times Forum about "orphaned money" in the participating fund of a life insurance company.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore has stated that the insurance companies are required to use the concept of asset shares in the distribution of bonuses on participating policies and to follow an approved "governance framework" involving the appointed actuary and the top management.
I hope that the MAS can clarify how this arrangement works, and how the interest of the policyholders are protected under this framework. If the life insurance companies pays less than the asset share on the termination of the policy, what recourse does the policyholder have? Does the policyholder even know about this fact, as the asset share is not disclosed to him (i.e. lack of transparency).
Some jurisdiction requires the asset share to be calculated for each policyholder and for the full asset share to be paid to the policyholder on termination of the policy after it has been in force for a certain number of years. I suggest that Singapore should adopt this approach.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore, Life Insurance Association and the Singapore Actuarial Society have stated that under the law, all money in the participating fund belongs to the participating policyholders and, therefore, the existence of orphaned money does not arise.
I am not able to follow this reasoning. We know that there are orphans in Singapore. These are children whose parents are no longer around. Can we say that as these orphans are being cared for by the state, they are no longer "orphans"?
I am inclined to follow Larry Haverkamp's reasoning that money in the participating fund that is taken from the asset share of terminated policies should be termed as "orphan money". In actuarial literature, the term used is the "estate".
However, I wish to raise the following fundamental issues:
a) Currently, there is no legal requirement that the asset share attributed to an individual policy should be paid to the policyholder on the termination of the policy, even on maturity. It is possible for a policyholder, on maturity, to receive less than the asset share, on the reasoning that the money is required to "smooth" the bonus for the remaining participating policyholders?
b) Why is there a need to penalise the policyholder of a surrendered policy by paying less than the asset share, when the high expenses and other charges have already been deducted from the asset share of the policy? Already, the asset share for a policy in the early years may be less than half of the total premiums paid.
I hope that the Monetary Authority of Singapore will address these fundamental issues that affects the long term savings of over one million policyholders and their families.
Tan Kin Lian
Watchdog thinks $20m is in bag for Lehman fund
Phila Siu
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
The Consumer Council is confident it will get HK$20 million from the government to beef up its litigation fund as it prepares to take its first Lehman Brothers minibond case to court. The extra cash will increase its litigation fund to HK$35 million.
Chief executive Connie Lau Yin- hing said the Consumer Legal Action Fund will also be used for other litigation.
The first minibond case seeks to recover HK$500,000, but the council declined to name the bank involved and would not provide any information about the investor.
The council has received 11,919 minibond complaints so far and resolved 1,169 cases.
Lau said 20 cases were originally ready to proceed to litigation, but were settled out of court. She said the extra HK$20 million is needed because more cases will emerge if the test case is satisfactory. "Feedback from the government about the application is very positive. We are waiting for the approval," Lau said.
She said looking for a suitable lawyer took some time because many have connections with the big banks, and were not willing to represent the minibond investors.
The first case to go to court had to be carefully chosen because it has to be representative of most cases.
She also said staff have been working around the clock because getting the required documents from banks took a long time. "There are constraints, we cannot force the banks to give us the documents and information we need," she said.
But legislator Kam Nai-wai did not accept Lau's reason for the delay. He said the council's slow reaction has given the public the impression that the council is a toothless tiger.
"The council should have applied for funds long ago. It should have known Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam- kuen has promised the government will do everything it can to help the minibond investors," Kam said. But he said he knew getting the documents from banks can be a headache as he had dealt with many angry investors.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
The Consumer Council is confident it will get HK$20 million from the government to beef up its litigation fund as it prepares to take its first Lehman Brothers minibond case to court. The extra cash will increase its litigation fund to HK$35 million.
Chief executive Connie Lau Yin- hing said the Consumer Legal Action Fund will also be used for other litigation.
The first minibond case seeks to recover HK$500,000, but the council declined to name the bank involved and would not provide any information about the investor.
The council has received 11,919 minibond complaints so far and resolved 1,169 cases.
Lau said 20 cases were originally ready to proceed to litigation, but were settled out of court. She said the extra HK$20 million is needed because more cases will emerge if the test case is satisfactory. "Feedback from the government about the application is very positive. We are waiting for the approval," Lau said.
She said looking for a suitable lawyer took some time because many have connections with the big banks, and were not willing to represent the minibond investors.
The first case to go to court had to be carefully chosen because it has to be representative of most cases.
She also said staff have been working around the clock because getting the required documents from banks took a long time. "There are constraints, we cannot force the banks to give us the documents and information we need," she said.
But legislator Kam Nai-wai did not accept Lau's reason for the delay. He said the council's slow reaction has given the public the impression that the council is a toothless tiger.
"The council should have applied for funds long ago. It should have known Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam- kuen has promised the government will do everything it can to help the minibond investors," Kam said. But he said he knew getting the documents from banks can be a headache as he had dealt with many angry investors.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Letter to MAS - Asset Share
Ms. Angelina Fernandez
Monetary Authority of Singapore
I refer to your reply that is published in the Straits Times today (24 August). I need to follow up with a few clarifications:
1. Can you confirm that the insurance company has specified an asset share for each individual participating policy
2. That the total of these individual liabilities equal to the total assets of the participating fund?
3. Is the insurance company required to pay out the full individual liability on the termination of a policy?
4. If the insurance company is allowed to pay less than the asset share, how is the money allocated to the remaining policyholders?
In my earlier letter, I stated that if the total of the individual liability is $13 billion and the total assets is $15 billion, the difference of $2 billion is "orphaned money". I do not get a clear explanation from your latest reply to this point.
Please call me at 81685485 if you wish to seek clarification to my question.
Tan Kin Lian
Monetary Authority of Singapore
I refer to your reply that is published in the Straits Times today (24 August). I need to follow up with a few clarifications:
1. Can you confirm that the insurance company has specified an asset share for each individual participating policy
2. That the total of these individual liabilities equal to the total assets of the participating fund?
3. Is the insurance company required to pay out the full individual liability on the termination of a policy?
4. If the insurance company is allowed to pay less than the asset share, how is the money allocated to the remaining policyholders?
In my earlier letter, I stated that if the total of the individual liability is $13 billion and the total assets is $15 billion, the difference of $2 billion is "orphaned money". I do not get a clear explanation from your latest reply to this point.
Please call me at 81685485 if you wish to seek clarification to my question.
Tan Kin Lian
A Sense of Duty
We need to re-install in each person a sense of duty.
If you are a doctor, it is your duty to treat and cure the patient. If you are a teacher, it is your duty to teach the students well. You receive a salary or fee for your service. When you accept the job, you accept the terms of your engagement and undertake to carry out your duty to the best of your ability.
In a corrupt society, government officials need to be bribed to do their duty. They may be bribed to break the rules in favour of the briber or just to carry out their duty according to the rules or what is expected of them.
Singapore is fortunate to have stayed clear of corruption and to have a public administration that is largely free of bribery. The few cases of bribery are prosecuted.
However, in recent years, there is a worrying trend. The sense of duty seems to have been eroded. Many people now expect to be incentivised to do a job well.
Corporate executives, who already earn a high remuneration, are now given incentives (through profit sharing or stock options) to increase their company’s profits. If they want to, they can increase the profits in unethical ways, such as over-charging or cheating the customers, delivering a lower quality of product or exploiting the workers.
Financial advisers rush to sell financial products to earn an attractive commission. Many forget that it is their duty to understand the product and ensure its suitability for customers. The lure of earning the attractive commission overcomes the sense of duty. Many neglected their duty and unknowingly mis-represented the product. Some knew but joined the bandwagon anyway. A similar situation applies to the property market.
There has been a serious decline in the standard of protection for consumers and workers. The government authorities are now less active in prosecuting cases of public interest and prefer to leave these matters to be sorted out by free market.
Consumers are asked to take legal action to seek redress. But consumers do not have the financial means to take legal action against large businesses who have access to the best lawyers anyway.
Local workers are also affected by depressed wages due to the influx of foreign workers and are not protected by a minimum wage policy. Many have to accept wage rates that are inadequate to provide a decent standard of living and have to work long hours to make up.
In this pro-business environment, where consumers and workers are not adequately protected, it is not surprising that businesses can rake up high profits, giving million dollar income to their top executives. Successful professionals, such as lawyers and doctors, can also earn million dollar incomes.
It is rather sad that the remunerations of our government leaders are now benchmark against the earnings of these top business executives and professionals. If the leaders are chasing the top dollars, who will look after the interest of the ordinary workers, the consumers and the other weak people in our society?
Tan Kin Lian
If you are a doctor, it is your duty to treat and cure the patient. If you are a teacher, it is your duty to teach the students well. You receive a salary or fee for your service. When you accept the job, you accept the terms of your engagement and undertake to carry out your duty to the best of your ability.
In a corrupt society, government officials need to be bribed to do their duty. They may be bribed to break the rules in favour of the briber or just to carry out their duty according to the rules or what is expected of them.
Singapore is fortunate to have stayed clear of corruption and to have a public administration that is largely free of bribery. The few cases of bribery are prosecuted.
However, in recent years, there is a worrying trend. The sense of duty seems to have been eroded. Many people now expect to be incentivised to do a job well.
Corporate executives, who already earn a high remuneration, are now given incentives (through profit sharing or stock options) to increase their company’s profits. If they want to, they can increase the profits in unethical ways, such as over-charging or cheating the customers, delivering a lower quality of product or exploiting the workers.
Financial advisers rush to sell financial products to earn an attractive commission. Many forget that it is their duty to understand the product and ensure its suitability for customers. The lure of earning the attractive commission overcomes the sense of duty. Many neglected their duty and unknowingly mis-represented the product. Some knew but joined the bandwagon anyway. A similar situation applies to the property market.
There has been a serious decline in the standard of protection for consumers and workers. The government authorities are now less active in prosecuting cases of public interest and prefer to leave these matters to be sorted out by free market.
Consumers are asked to take legal action to seek redress. But consumers do not have the financial means to take legal action against large businesses who have access to the best lawyers anyway.
Local workers are also affected by depressed wages due to the influx of foreign workers and are not protected by a minimum wage policy. Many have to accept wage rates that are inadequate to provide a decent standard of living and have to work long hours to make up.
In this pro-business environment, where consumers and workers are not adequately protected, it is not surprising that businesses can rake up high profits, giving million dollar income to their top executives. Successful professionals, such as lawyers and doctors, can also earn million dollar incomes.
It is rather sad that the remunerations of our government leaders are now benchmark against the earnings of these top business executives and professionals. If the leaders are chasing the top dollars, who will look after the interest of the ordinary workers, the consumers and the other weak people in our society?
Tan Kin Lian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)