Friday, August 20, 2010

Need for stronger regulation for insurance

In many countries, the regulator is active in protecting the interest of consumers of insurance services. Read this document. There is a need for insurance in Singapore to be more actively regulated, instead of leaving to "a light touch".
Posted by at

2 comments:

zhummmeng said...

Insurance companies are left to self regulate. As a result they any how 'do' despite many guidelines by MAS and many failed to follow and implement.The recent LIA report was full of discrepancies . Example; LIA enthusiastically reported the sale for 1st half of 2010 increased by 28% and yet the sum assured sold never increased. The sum assured has been like this for many years.Why? If the fair dealing outcome guidelines were followed and enforced by insurance companies
the sum assured would have gone by many folds, at least proportionately by 28% too, right?
What is wrong then? Product pushing pushed up the sales. Product pushing is well known for its inability to add value to consumers because product pushing doesn't consider the needs of the clients and therefore clients' interest has not be put first.The insurance salesmen pushed what benefited them with high commission.The guidelines were breached. The companies avoided the guidelines.The CEOs are supposed to be responsible for establishing a culture of fair dealing top down right to the salesmen. Yes, the insurance agents are still salesmen .Where is the 'financial doctor' MAS has been talking about? Let's face it. Product pushing is fast and lucrative for the salesmen and the companies.The companies want only sales champions and not financial consultants. Their agents' title may be financial consultant but they are actually salesmen and even conmen in disguise. The whole idea of giving them fancifool title is to fool the consumers. MAS must stop this
misrepresentation.
To add insult to injury, LIA claimed that the cases with full and partial KYCs went up to 72%..This is really insult and is intended to fool MAS. 72% and yet the sum assured is only miserable $54K. Trying to con who? With 72% of cases with full/partial KYCs the sum assured should be $500k to $700K and not $54K.
From this you can see what the companies have been doing and they were doing what they liked. This is self regulating, guidelines or no guidelines, no difference. The consumers are suckers.

August 20, 2010 11:25 PM
zhummmeng said...

The insurance companies are interested in sales which can be accounted for market share, eg APIs.Which products can give high API? Of course the wholelife, limited premium especailly, endwoment and the dubious anticipated endowment disguised as cash backs. These products give high APIs to the company and high commission to the agents but low protection and low return to the consumers.You can see the conflicting interest between the consumers and the sellers. So, is it a wonder why the insurance companies bochap MAS' guidelines and do what is in their interest at the expense of the consumers?
The 72% is a very glaring discrepancy which MAS must address.
It shows there was cheating, fabrication, faking, dressing up by the compliance department otherwise why the sum assured sold was so low, only $54K? I think MAS is being taken for a ride by the insurance companies. 72%, if it is true and proper suitable recommendation based on them was done it is fantastic. BUt alas and unfortunately the companies didn't cover up their internal conspiracy and condoning and collusion , their foot prints well and the trail of evidences are found in the figures like $54K summ assured, $47K death claim and and evidence of product pushing is on the rise.
If MAS doesn't come down hard on them a bomb worse than the Lehman Bros is awaiting to explode.

August 21, 2010 11:15 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Blog Archive