This paper gives an interesting explanation of the approach adopted in Canada, UK and Australia:
http://www.isis.org.my/files/pubs/papers/AreConsumerProtection.pdf
It explains the approach taken in Singapore as follows:
In the case of Singapore, financial services (excluding money lending and pawn broking) have now been brought within the ambit of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trade) Act of 2004. Consumers now have the option to pursue remedies under the Act for unfair practices and unconscionable conduct (such as high-pressure selling) by financial institutions. Dispute resolution is delegated to the Financial Industries Disputes Resolution Centre Ltd although only cases of up to S$50,000 will be heard. Interestingly, in 2004 the President of the Consumer Association of Singapore, who is also a Member of Parliament, raised the issues of high pressure sales tactics, the high rates of interest charged on credit card balances and the ‘cartel-like manner’ in which banks maintained interest rates of 24 per cent when other financial borrowings incurred interest of less than 5 per cent.
The Second Minister of Finance responded by saying that the Monetary Authority of Singapore does not consider its role to include directly settling commercial disputes between financial institutions and their customers. The Authority also does not interfere in the setting of interest rates and prices or what terms and conditions should govern commercial transactions. Rather, he Authority provides the regulatory framework for the necessary disclosure and the proper business conduct standards to be undertaken so as to ensure that the consumer is fairly treated.
In the light of the above, how might one evaluate Bill Knight’s conclusion that “the importance of
the consumer to a vibrant and healthy economy has moved non-prudential/market conduct regulation to a place at the table beside prudential regulators in the financial services regulatory structures around the world”? This might be true of OECD countries generally but significant developments in other parts of the world seem less apparent. Could one possibly envisage conditions where governments “move forward to adjust regulatory structures (and) pay close attention to the consumer and their needs”? Consumers are unable to generate any degree of countervailing weight while governments still seem be too protective of, and too hesitant to ‘fetter’ their financial institutions, to do anything dramatic in this direction. One may not be far wrong to say that most countries are, to some degree or other, behind the best-practice curve and perhaps Asian countries are further behind than where they ought to be.
The key message from this paper is quoted in the last line, "most countries are, to some degree or other, behind the best-practice curve and perhaps Asian countries are further behind than where they ought to be."
It is Caveat Emptor in essence. Caveat Emptor approach is akin to throwing the consumers into the lions' den and leave them to defend themselves.You die your business.
ReplyDeleteIn consumer products, the damage and mauling may be not extensive as consumers have a chance to examine and test the products and to come to a decision on their own. Even if it is a bad decision it is a one off and yet protection is still needed in the form of compensation or warranty.
In financial products it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to apply Caveat Emptor.
Is the industry willing to provide trial testing, warranty, money back guarantee for 'defects due to inappropriate advice'? The 14 day free look is too short. It should be at least 6 months to a year.
CE is unfair and it is like leaving the consumers to die in the den with hungry and greedy lions(the insurance agents or consultants)
The consumers are hopeless and helpless and have zero knowledge and they need to rely on the sellers or advisers to hand hold to make that decision. It also means the sellers or insurance agents must provide the protection and guidance to help the consumers in making that decision. The decision MUST NOT be left to the consumers. They cannot make independent decision. No way at all.
Therefore , MAS must provide some protection for consumers against rogue and unscrupulous insurance agents who push and peddle products, especailly wholelife and endowment which carry high commission.Conflict of interest is highly likely and it inevitably and invariably happens.
MAS must enforce a framework where the insurers and their agents are fully responsible to deliver a fair dealing outcome to the consumers.MAS must insist that advisers follow an algorithms of steps in their approach to advising the consumers and failing which both the CEOs and their salesmen must bear the consequences.There must be frequent checks and audits to help to establish a culture of responsibility and fair dealing top down.
Leaving it as it is, the industry will go to the dogs, fat dogs and bitches whose ONLY aim is to qualify for MDRT, COT and TOT at the expense of the consumers.