Singapore, no need. It is caveat emptor..buy with your 2 eyes wide open.... disclosure based regime.. Therefore , we don't need advisers, RMs or insurance agents..Why should we need them? They make things worse. They don't help but interfere with decision making process. If we make decision ourselves, if it is caveat emptor, we take responsibility and not the advisers, we don't need to pay commission. Isn't this what MAS wants?
To avoid the debacles of the past MAS should consider disintermediation Disintermediation has few advantages. 1.no abuses by insurance agents or RMs (the main cause of abuses) 2. lower cost 3. simple products 4. no commission to be paid
Today there was news that a RM was jailed for faking (in black and white) guaranteed 10% dividend for 5 years for a unit trust to a client! This RM is stupid!
If she had just gave only verbal guarantee, will she be caught and charged? Maybe that's what happen to many who got misled and cheated but the RMs are scot free!
The RM is one that never got away. What about many that got away? The many who got billions of dollars burned. What about insurance agents who cheated their clients making them believe that the insurance products guarantee the return? What about those single premium endowments that are misrepresented with guaranteed return? What about CPF members' special account(SA) being invested in single premium endowment which carries so much risk and yet projected return is no higher than CPF? Are not these products sold by insurance agents cheating the clients like the ex-UOB RM did? These are some of the misrepresentations by insurance agents and who got away because customers are too ignorant or idiotic to know. Therefore MR. Tan's FISCA is useful to help the consumers to understand and to know what their so called trusted insurance agents actually did to them. FISCA must expose the agents and bring them to justice. Make sure none gets away.
Insurance agents and RMs are in the business to get rich quick and high commission is what they are after and NOT the interest of the clients. Not 10% of them are really qualified financially, so planning in the interest of the clients is never the reason but the commission. Commission has been the cause of malpractice and the RMs and the insurance agents would do anything to get the commission. Like the ex-UOB RM , she did the silly and daring thing to get the commission. She would not have stooped to forgery and lies because of the cleint's interest. She is not alone. There are many insurance agents who did but not detected because the law isn't strict and no audits are conducted on them. It is the easy to earn and huge commission that draws many into the industry as insurance agents or RMs or is it the financial interest of man in the street? MAS, where are you? Still mulling over section 27 whether to enforce or let it become a dead letter?
MAS must take the initiative to audit the these salespeople for mis-selling. Wondering how many consumers kena and suffer in silence or don't even know especially insurance policyholders. Life insurance is for long term and the mis-selling and misrepresentation will be not found only after sometime or unless reviewed by a third party. Mr.Tan's FISCA can provide this service to check the mis-selling of insurance agents and RMs and and to haul them up as early as possible before big damage is done.
This RM happens to be the unlucky person, indeed very, very unlucky. There are so many out there, misleading and cheating customers to buy structured deposits resulting in many customers losing very much more both in terms of absolute amount and the percentage losses. And yet, they got away scot free.
Singapore, no need. It is caveat emptor..buy with your 2 eyes wide open.... disclosure based regime..
ReplyDeleteTherefore , we don't need advisers, RMs or insurance agents..Why should we need them? They make things worse. They don't help but interfere with decision making process.
If we make decision ourselves, if it is caveat emptor, we take responsibility and not the advisers, we don't need to pay commission. Isn't this what MAS wants?
Protect consumers and investors from financial abuse by FIs, insurance companies, the RMs and insurance agents.
ReplyDeleteDISINTERMEDIATION.
ReplyDeleteTo avoid the debacles of the past MAS should consider disintermediation
Disintermediation has few advantages.
1.no abuses by insurance agents or RMs (the main cause of abuses)
2. lower cost
3. simple products
4. no commission to be paid
Today there was news that a RM was jailed for faking (in black and white) guaranteed 10% dividend for 5 years for a unit trust to a client! This RM is stupid!
ReplyDeleteIf she had just gave only verbal guarantee, will she be caught and charged? Maybe that's what happen to many who got misled and cheated but the RMs are scot free!
The RM is one that never got away. What about many that got away? The many who got billions of dollars burned.
ReplyDeleteWhat about insurance agents who cheated their clients making them believe that the insurance products guarantee the return? What about those single premium endowments that are misrepresented with guaranteed return? What about CPF members' special account(SA) being invested in single premium endowment which carries so much risk and yet projected return is no higher than CPF? Are not these products sold by insurance agents cheating the clients like the ex-UOB RM did?
These are some of the misrepresentations by insurance agents and who got away because customers are too ignorant or idiotic to know.
Therefore MR. Tan's FISCA is useful to help the consumers to understand and to know what their so called trusted insurance agents actually did to them. FISCA must expose the agents and bring them to justice. Make sure none gets away.
Insurance agents and RMs are in the business to get rich quick and high commission is what they are after and NOT the interest of the clients.
ReplyDeleteNot 10% of them are really qualified financially, so planning in the interest of the clients is never the reason but the commission.
Commission has been the cause of malpractice and the RMs and the insurance agents would do anything to get the commission. Like the ex-UOB RM , she did the silly and daring thing to get the commission.
She would not have stooped to forgery and lies because of the cleint's interest.
She is not alone. There are many insurance agents who did but not detected because the law isn't strict and no audits are conducted on them.
It is the easy to earn and huge commission that draws many into the industry as insurance agents or RMs or is it the financial interest of man in the street?
MAS, where are you? Still mulling over section 27 whether to enforce
or let it become a dead letter?
MAS must take the initiative to audit the these salespeople for mis-selling. Wondering how many consumers kena and suffer in silence or don't even know especially insurance policyholders. Life insurance is for long term and the mis-selling and misrepresentation will be not found only after sometime
ReplyDeleteor unless reviewed by a third party.
Mr.Tan's FISCA can provide this service to check the mis-selling of insurance agents and RMs and and to haul them up as early as possible before big damage is done.
This RM happens to be the unlucky person, indeed very, very unlucky. There are so many out there, misleading and cheating customers to buy structured deposits resulting in many customers losing very much more both in terms of absolute amount and the percentage losses. And yet, they got away scot free.
ReplyDeleteThis case is unlucky. Too obvious to cover up. MAS and the FI concerned could not make it vanish into thin air.
ReplyDelete