Good morning Tan Kin Lian
I read this morning's media report regarding your dissatisfaction with NTUC Income policy.
A few months prior to your retirement, I had the occasion to formally write to you as I wasn't satisfied with an NTUC policy which I had taken up. I did not receive even the courtesy of a response nor a simple acknowledgment of my correspondence.That to me was sheer rudeness let alone gross discourtesy to a customer.
Don't bite the hands that fed you. You know the system well . If dissatisfied, please go somewhere else, probably Russia, where, perhaps, you will find greater justice and fairplay
JL
REPLY
I normally reply to letters that are sent to me. It could have been misplaced. The other remarks in your letter are unnecessary.
Mr Tan,
ReplyDeleteGood reply. I can personally attest that you reply to emails sent to your gmail account all the time and very promptly, to boot.
Good Afternoon, Mr Tan.
ReplyDeleteI read with great interest the media reports in TODAY and in ST on your dissatisfaction with regards to the bonus cuts in your life insurance policies with NTUC.
Sir, while I respect you as a veteran in the insurance industry and applaud you for coming up with some innovative products while you were the Chief at NTUC Income, I am appalled at your display of emotions in this matter.
Perhaps, allow me to take you down memory lane. Times were bad in the early 2000s and life insurers (commercial and non-commercial) cut bonuses except for one commercial insurer. Commercial life insurers are governed by the Companies Act, Cap. 50 whereas NTUC Income, being a co-operative society incorporated under the Co-Operative Society Act, Cap. 62, have certain benefits as a co-operative which companies do not enjoy. But yet as a Chief then, you allowed bonus cuts to NTUC Income’s life insurance policies, which I believe include yours as well, and policyholders were given reasons for the cuts.
To put it simply, Sir, you can cut bonuses of life policies while holding the helm at NTUC Income with valid reasons (whether accepted and/.or understood by policyholders or not) and now as a policyholder, you cannot accept the bonus cuts by your insurer?
Sir, you do remember what is RBC framework and its implications for life insurers, don’t you? You also will remember what you had written, allow me to quote:
“In line with our latest bonus declaration and to better manage our policyholders expectations, we will project our future bonuses prudently using [x%] instead of [y%].”
“The new bonus rates must be used…… These rates are only for benefit illustrations and the actual bonus rates may differ from these rates depending on actual investment returns and surplus earned.”
Last but not least, it has NEVER been a contractual term that bonuses are guaranteed; if it has been, then why the “NON-GUARANTEED” heading in all benefit illustration that you and I sign as a policyholder?
Thank you, Sir, for your time, and here is one of my favourite phrases for you. Cheers :)
"擁有": 因為很多東西、人和事，我們看來是擁有著，把握在手，卻不儘如是。
生命無常，當您停止呼吸，你所"擁有"的也只是"曾經擁有過"的記憶而已。
Mr Tan
ReplyDeletelet you share this with you, which I did not have an opportunity to do so.
About 10 years ago, I bought 2 single premium endowment policies. One is a Growth policy offered by your company. One is offered by Great Eastern. The one by GE has high terminal bonus. Then you cut my annual bonus in 2000 or 2001 so severly. GE did not cut my annual bonus at all, although they declare lower terminal bonus.
Then subsequently, you increase back my annual bonus. When both my Growth policy and policy from GE mature in 2007, guess what? My GE policy actually give me higher returns! I went to ask both GE and NTUC Income. I realise it is because in 2007, GE increased my terminal bonus because markets was good. But you only increase a bit of my annual bonus because you cut it in the past.
So I think the new management is not necessarily doing a bad thing. I saw with my own eyes how the two policies differ in the returns. I was disappointed with my Growth policy. I vow never to buy something like that again. But maybe I will still buy from GE.
So I cannot understand why you keep saying the new bonus structure is no good. I'm confused. Maybe we should investigate further and ask those who buy policies from other companies. Maybe AIA cutting terminal bonus to zero is just a special case.
Underwaterclown:
ReplyDeleteCutting bonus during bad time is understandable. That time when Mr Tan cut the bonus was due to poor fund performance. When time are good, Mr Tan gave out generous bonus as well as the 5 yr anniversary bonus.
The current management cut bonus even during good time. And its a radical bonus structure change, which gives lots of upper hand to INCOME management and no visibility to policyholders.
I have written emails to Mr Tan when he was with Income and after he left Income. All my emails were promptly replied.
ReplyDeleteOne swallow does not make a summer; one unreplied letter does not mean Mr Tan does not reply to letters.
JL, you would do well to check around whether yours is a unique case before shooting off your mouth.
Underwaterclown, your thoughts really reflect your moniker.... a DROWNING CLOWN! What a sight!
ReplyDeleteAs you yourself remember clearly, the early 2000s were tough times. Even SIA, the world's most admired airline company & one of Singapore's icons, sunk into the red for the first time in its prestigious operating history. Does that mean that NTUC Income, because of its Co-operative status, is immune to the global financial downturn then?? Does NTUC Income, because of its Co-operative status, enjoy a monopoly in the industry?? What benefits did NTUC Income enjoy that other corporate insurers did not, such that NTUC is expected to maintain its declared bonus come hell or high water?
Times were tough & financial returns dismal. Everyone knew that and grudgingly had to accept reality. When better times ensued, was the bonus rate not adjusted upwards?? Isn't it TRANSPARENT that bonuses declared reflected the experiences/investment returns of the Life Fund for the prevailing period?? TRANSPARENCY does not equate STABILITY, in fact it is quite the contrary.
But when investment returns are good, as in >10% return for 2007 and yet bonuses cut, all because new management thinks it can make better returns (but no guarantees here!) and applies the reduction RETROACTIVELY, what do you expect existing policyholders to think? Furthermore, with extravagant townhall meetings at 5-star hotels and sales-incentive trips to exotic locales making news & reflecting the new management's thinking, what do you expect existing policyholders to think about where all the money to pay the lavish expenses comes from?
The issue of bonuses being guaranteed was never moot to begin with. In life, only one thing is ever guaranteed.... that is DEATH!
The crux of the matter is that new management high-handedly applied the bonus policy change in a RETROACTIVE manner. This was not expected and from the many opinions expressed in this forum, will not be tolerated. Even the management of a corporate insurer has the decent courtesy to inform their existing policyholders IN ADVANCE of any policy changes, highlighting the Pros & allowing the policyholders the discretion to opt-in if they so choose. In this regard, the new management has failed terribly!
234pm:
ReplyDeleteYou are lucky that you terminate it in 2007 which is a good year. What if it is a bad or neutral year?
My GE policy ends in a bad year and my money received was 20% lower than what was initially projected.
Over a period of 20 years, number of good years are much less than the neutral and bad years. So chances is that one will get a much lower terminal bonus.
2.34PM , so you were lucky that you received a higher terminal which was not guaranteed. It could be be anything, higher, right? You a were lucky the actuary was in in good mood. The contention here is the declaration of the terminal bonus is left to the whims and fancies of the company. Policyholders don't want uncertainties. You may or may not get.The bird in your hand is more valuable than the many that you don't know you get. Another point is we bought wholelife or endowment because we though they were LOW RISK. Increasing the risk without PROMISING us what we will get is frigthening. Anyway, we bought because of those features and deviation now is a breach of contact.Whether it makes more sense or prudent to have a higher special bonus or RBC is not the issue.Let us not digress.
ReplyDeleteI too have written to Mr Tan Kin Lian during his time and he personally replied very promptly. However, in April last year, I have reason to try to contact the new CEO of Income and I did not even get the courtesy of an acknowledgement in spite of three phone calls leaving my contact number as well as repeated emails, the last one asking for at least an acknowledgement. A year has passed without the courtesy of even an acknowledgement and I am leaving my name so hopefully if he reads this he can display the least bit of courtesy, but I doubt it.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you have mistaken the new Tan for Mr. Tan?
Roger
Underwaterclown: what was the return different between NTUC INCOME and GE ? It will be good if you could share.
ReplyDeleteTo Roger (8.24PM)
ReplyDeleteThat experience of yours with the new Tan is deja vu to me as well. Only that it happened recently. I was really fed up with his nil response even though I, too, have specifically asked him to. I instantly regretted putting my money with Income after that kind of treatment.