Before you commit a lifetime of saving in a life insurance policy, you must know what is a good policy and what is a bad policy. You can get some tips here. Link.
Insurance is for PROTECTION against life's risks and NOT saving or investing. Please avoid buying whole life or endowment products. They are rotten products that only benefit the insurance agents and the company and NEVER YOU the consumers.
Lately the company you used to helm has gone from bad to worse resorting to what other companies use 'to mislead the public' sales tactics. The company you headed call their insurance salesmen and women Financial Consultants but in their website the company calls them Financial Planners....I wonder does the company know what these titles mean. Is the company CONfused or it is trying to mislead the public? In Australia if the advisers /salesmen have no 'consultant' or planner' qualification it is illegal to use these titles. However, this company is calling their salesmen both. Truth is their salesmen and women are no Consultants nor they are Planners, they are just salesmen pushing products. Another misleading info is their ad in the Sunday Times which showed a table of returns over 25 years for their par products. We all know that for the 25 years a large part of the returns were achieved during your term as CEO when the annual bonus/returns were high but after 2008 the annual bonus was cut by 50% and the ad dares to imply or mislead the public that in the next 25 years these product returns are still achievable. Does the public know that after 2008 till 2014 this company's life fund returns averagely only about 5% compared to the other insurers whose life funds return above 7%.My point is , if you project into the next 25 years the returns of this social enterprise company's products will average about 3% at best and NOT the above 5% as it is shown in the ad in Sunday Times. Moreover, the current products' BI projection averages only 3% if held for 40 years. Isn't it misleading and decieving to advertise that the products can give 5%+ and can still be achieved in the future 25 years with the low annual bonus and poor return of the life fund? MAS must investigate this. This is misleading the public and consumers. Wonder why this company is stooping so low now.
It seems this social enterprise is using Mr. Tan 's backside skin for its face.. It is okay if this company is shameless but more serious is how it is misleading the public by using past performance to mislead consumers into beleiving that their whole life and endowment products can still achieve this kind of returns in the future. The wordings and the context of the advertisement seem to suggest that the products will give these returns. This is unethical, right? I wonder what MAS would say? If it is FCA of UK it won't be let off.
Something is amiss about this social enterprise insurer. Why is it that its returns for thier products are not better than other insurers? Since the new management the cost is going up and up and the returns going down and down? I think it should revert to cooperatives principles and cut high paying staffs and reduce the top heavy cost.
Insurance is for PROTECTION against life's risks and NOT saving or investing. Please avoid buying whole life or endowment products. They are rotten products that only benefit the insurance agents and the company and NEVER YOU the consumers.
ReplyDeleteLately the company you used to helm has gone from bad to worse resorting to what other companies use 'to mislead the public' sales tactics.
ReplyDeleteThe company you headed call their insurance salesmen and women Financial Consultants but in their website the company calls them Financial Planners....I wonder does the company know what these titles mean. Is the company CONfused or it is trying to mislead the public? In Australia if the advisers /salesmen have no 'consultant' or planner' qualification it is illegal to use these titles. However, this company is calling their salesmen both.
Truth is their salesmen and women are no Consultants nor they are Planners, they are just salesmen pushing products.
Another misleading info is their ad in the Sunday Times which showed a table of returns over 25 years for their par products. We all know that for the 25 years a large part of the returns were achieved during your term as CEO when the annual bonus/returns were high but after 2008 the annual bonus was cut by 50% and the ad dares to imply or mislead the public that in the next 25 years these product returns are still achievable. Does the public know that after 2008 till 2014 this company's life fund returns averagely only about 5% compared to the other insurers whose life funds return above 7%.My point is , if you project into the next 25 years the returns of this social enterprise company's products will average about 3% at best and NOT the above 5% as it is shown in the ad in Sunday Times. Moreover, the current products' BI projection averages only 3% if held for 40 years. Isn't it misleading and decieving to advertise that the products can give 5%+ and can still be achieved in the future 25 years with the low annual bonus and poor return of the life fund?
MAS must investigate this. This is misleading the public and consumers. Wonder why this company is stooping so low now.
It seems this social enterprise is using Mr. Tan 's backside skin for its face.. It is okay if this company is shameless but more serious is how it is misleading the public by using past performance to mislead consumers into beleiving that their whole life and endowment products can still achieve this kind of returns in the future. The wordings and the context of the advertisement seem to suggest that the products will give these returns. This is unethical, right?
ReplyDeleteI wonder what MAS would say? If it is FCA of UK it won't be let off.
Something is amiss about this social enterprise insurer. Why is it that its returns for thier products are not better than other insurers? Since the new management the cost is going up and up and the returns going down and down? I think it should revert to cooperatives principles and cut high paying staffs and reduce the top heavy cost.
ReplyDelete