Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Loss of goodwill

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Loss of goodwill

A met an Income policyholder at a cocktail party. He told me that in the past, he did not have to think twice about buying insurance from Income, as he was sure that being a cooperative, he would get a lower price and better return.

With the recent change, he is not not sure whether Income will continue to give the same good value. He is worried about the higher expenses and the recent change in bonus to make Income follow the practice of other insurance companies. He would check carefully before he buy a policy from Income.

He said that a lot of goodwill is being lost through the recent changes.

10 comments:

David said...: I think the current INCOME management, although new but being intelligent and experienced people in this field, must have thought of this "loss" and factor it in their decisions and consider the "gain" outweigh the "loss". Only time will tell. Just like investment decisions. Of course in all things, people can have other opinions.; June 18, 2008 10:15 PM
kenneth said...: I fully agree as I am buying policy from TM Asia life/Great Eastern or Manulife for my retirement.
Now most of the NTUC agents think and walk like money machine-only interested to make their $.; June 18, 2008 11:38 PM
siewkhim said...: This is my personal point of view and please don't sue me.

Invest in stocks: Immediate fraud
Invest in FD: Short Term fraud
Invest in paticipating policies:Long term fraud.

Take your pick. We are the real suckers.; June 19, 2008 1:39 PM
Khiat Han Hwee Adrian said...: The negative publicity is one of the reason that people started to dislike NTUC Income, esp when Mr Tan is involved in issue. The impact is truly felt when I was in NTUC Income, I received calls from policyholders requesting to terminate their policies and want to buy from other insurance companies.

I hope NTUC Income can start to regain the trust of the people again. NTUC Income is still giving good value to the people and we should give them chance to prove themselves.; June 21, 2008 1:55 AM
siewkhim said...: Dear All,

Once bitten twice shy. Twice bitten never try. I have totally lost my respect and trust in insurance companies selling participating policies.

One insurer's participating fund average yield last 10 years is about 8% pa. They are paying me less then 1% yield on one of my policies. What good value are we talking?

Do we have enough? We have been taken for a ride for the past 20 years from insurers selling participating policies. Why should we give them a chance? Did they give us a chance to pay our terminated participating policies based on the experience of the fund? No!

A leopard cannot change its spots. They will never change and their big powerful boys can promise all kind of things. You want to believe that? Even prophets of God also made promises but never deliver.

A promise is meant to be broken!!!!; June 21, 2008 4:05 PM
zhummmeng said...: Thrice beaten better jump and die...
but people don't..People are still victims and victims of insurers and agents...so true that someone says that if you don't study history you are doomed to repeat them.This is what we want to stop; to stop and expose insurance agents from robbing the customers with rip off products; to educate the customers what they should expect from their financial advisers.
I hope that we can achieve this in Mr. Tan 's blog, of course not to put him in difficulty.; June 22, 2008 12:03 AM
siewkhim said...: Dear Zhu,

Why you said "thrice beaten better jump and die"? Not very nice lah brother. We are under the same roof - victims or potential victims of insurers selling participating policies.

We cannot just blame the agents. These people have been trained how to hard sell their products. They don't sell they cannot earn a living. The blame is should also be shared by the management of the insurer particularly the Appointed Actuary. His main task is to protect the interest of the policyholders acting on behalf of the MAS. But as Yew Meng has said, "He who pays the piper called the tune"

I suggest that we educate the potential insuring public not to touch participating policies of any insurers. Buy pure term assurance and invest the difference. And I believe Kin Lian has been advocating this several times in his blog. So I am not making his task difficult but supporting him on this approach all the way.

Lastly to further help him we like minded sensible people should refrain from attacking one another. Those insurers who are against our ideas will be happy to see us fight for nothing. Don't give them that opportunity. Let put a common front against this kind of insurance fraud.; June 22, 2008 5:47 PM
Falcon said...: Adrian,
It is not the policyholders who did not give a chance to Income but the management of Income that did not give a chance to the policyholders. They thought we exist for their benefits. They thought we do not know anything about insurance and no need to consult us. They thought we are just digits to be exploited for their own enjoyment. They disrespected policyholders by not listening to us. They think that once they have us onboard they can forget about us. They think that we owe them money every month and it is their right to milk us every month and ignore our calls, emails and cries for peace of mind. They deserve the negative publicity which they created in the first place and continue to ignore us and treat us unfairly. The present CEO has stepped into too big shoes to fulfill. His arrogant style is the exact opposite of Tan KL. Tan KL replies to policyholders because he respects them. The present CEO does not. Tan KL is frugal because he cares about the money of his policyholders and values their patronage. The present CEO does not. Tan KL constantly thinks how he can maximise policyholders value and helps them in time of crisis. The present CEO thinks of his butt first, literally, remember the 2K$ chair?
So I say, it is not that policyholders did not give NTUC Income a chance but NTUC Income did not give policyholders a chance the moment they make the mistake of hiring a CEO that did not put its policyholders first and treat them with the respect that policyholders deserve.; June 23, 2008 2:03 AM
siewkhim said...: What is CEO?

It is Chief Exploitation Officer?; June 23, 2008 11:12 AM
Falcon said...: During Tan KL's time it CEO was Chief Engagement Officer. Now your definition is certainly more apt for the new cEO.; June 23, 2008 4:11 PM