Thursday, October 28, 2010

Consumer needs advisers

MR TAN Kin Lian ('Why insurers, agents may turn a deaf ear to SM Goh's appeal'; yesterday)
is jumping to the conclusion...
His letter would carry more weight if...
He should also not make the generalisation that...
Pearlyn Koh (Ms)

My view
I hope that one of my readers will write a rebuttal to this letter. There are countless cases where the adviser can take advantage of the ignorance of the consumer to sell the the wrong product that takes away a large part of their savings - so that the adviser can earn a large commission.

Further note
I have written a reply to Ms Pearly Koh's letter. Watch out for it in the ST Online. I will publish my reply in my blog in 3 days time. Still, I hope that other readers, especially those that have been misled by insurance advisers, will write in to reply to Ms Pearlyn Koh.

Posted by at

1 comment:

zhummmeng said...

Mr. Tan, the usual line used by insurance agents when they dump wholelife on customers is "every client has different need'..It is true that every consumer has unigue needs but the issue is , are the agents uncovering the real needs of the consumers and address the needs fully and correctly? Unfortunately the 'need' is the agents' need, ie a high commission product and using stale excuse to justify the sale.
This Pearly Koh can site fancifool life stage needs to justify the use of regular ILPs but these regular ILPs(RILPs) take donkey years to overcome the high costs and when they break even the clients will be dying of money no enough. These RILPs are craps. LIke their deformed cousin, Vivolink from NTUC the products disguise themselves and misrepresent as saving plan.. Be careful....no saving plan can justify itself when it is taking away a big chunk of the customers' premium.
She is an agent , a salesman trying to justify her ruse.

October 28, 2010 9:34 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Blog Archive