Life insurance quotation gives misleading information

A policyholder bought a 21 year anticipated endowment policy with an annual payment of $14,500. The quotation clearly stated that a sumof $20,000 is paid every 3 years and the payment on maturity is $80,000 plus RB/SB of $264,800 giving a total payout of $344,800.  There was no explanation about the RB/SB and that it is not guaranteed. The policyholder was misled by the agent into believing that the payment is guaranteed.

The policy is now approaching the maturity date. The policyholder is now told that the actual maturity payout is only $232,400, comprising of $80,000 plus RB/SB of 152,400 (i.e. decrease of $102,400) from the quotation. The policyholder was shocked to see this amount of reduction.

I advised the policyholder to file a complaint to FIDREC and, if not resolved, to take a legal case.

MY VIEW: 

Now I know why this insurance company was so successful in its sales over the past years. The agents were able to sell large policies by providing misleading quotations to the customers. Most of these customers are not well educated and trusted the verbal explanation of the agents. When they learned the truth years later, it was too late. 

The root cause of this problem is the excessive commission paid to the agent and the poor supervision of the insurance company on the conduct of their agents. I hope that this unhealthy practice is properly addressed.

Low cash value on termination

Dear Sir,
I have a PRUCASH policy that started in 2002. The annual premium is $3934. The coverage is very low at $50,000 because it is meant to be an endowment plan. The annual cashback is $2500.

I've only recently educated myself through your website and other sources on how insurance and savings should really work and realised how big a mistake I made when I bought that policy.
The cash value now is about $16000, whereas my premiums paid to date is about $27000.
If I surrender my policy now, I'll "lose" around $9000.

What is my best course of action?Should I continue with the policy and take out the cashback yearly to invest in a low-cost ETF? Or should I terminate the policy and invest in an ETF with the entire sum? The difference in yields required for me to make up that $9000 loss seems to be quite huge.

REPLY
You should ask the insurance company to explain why you had to lose so much money, if you terminate it now. They owe an explanation to you.

To make a decision on whether to continue or terminate the policy, you should ask for additional information. Please read the relevant document in my website, www.tankinlian.com/faq

Interested in Part Time Work

Dear Sir/Madam:
I’m X, a permanent resident, looking for any part time job (clinic asst, office attendant, call center, packer). A copy of my resume is enclosed for your references. My email address is Y or mobile number Z.

REPLY
Please register in the portal, www.easyapps.sg/ptw

A prospective employer will contact you. As this is just set up, it may take some time before you get a response. Wish you all the best.

To register
Click on Worker Tab, select the postal sector and type of work, click on View (to see other candidates) and then Register.

Flaw in MAS Fast Track Process

Dear Mr. Tan,

I came across this paragraph in the Q&A issued by MAS regarding the Fast-Track process:

"Under the fast tract process, the FI is required to help me prepare a written statement, taking guidance from a checklist of questions (which incorporates inputs from FIDReC. Similarly, the representative/RM who sold me the product is also required to give a written statement, again taking guidance from a checklist (incorporating inputs provided to FIDReC).

To me, this fast tract process seems rather odd and does not make much sense. Here is a situation where I am complaining against the FI, and under this fast tract process, the FI is required to help me prepare a written statement .........

Why should the FI in this instance help me. I would have thought that the FI would try make my statement as weak as possible and at the same time make use of my statement to defend their position against my complaint.

JL

REPLY
I agree with your view. I suggest that you bring this point up with MAS.

Financial Times: Singapore acts on bank secrecy laws

Singapore promised on Friday to relax its strict bank secrecy laws in a sign of the escalating international pressure on tax evasion.

Hong Kong decided to bring its tax transparency up to international standards, and both moves advance the campaign against tax havens.

John Withers, deputy chairman of Step Worldwide, a professional body for wealth advisers, said: “If Singapore is moving in that direction it narrows down the places to which undisclosed money can easily be banked and it puts pressure on Switzerland to follow suit. It is the beginning of the end of bank secrecy.”

The moves came as the US administration endorsed a bill targeting tax havens. Tim Geithner, US Treasury secretary, promised a “much more ambitious effort to deal with offshore tax havens”.

Singapore’s concession is a big shift for a city-state accused of marketing itself as the “ultimate secrecy jurisdiction” by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development at a US Senate hearing in 2007.

Singapore’s finance ministry said it would amend its bank secrecy laws in mid-2009 to take account of the OECD’s standards on exchange of information. “Once the legislative amendments are passed in parliament, Singapore is prepared to negotiate and conclude double taxation agreements that will enable us to provide further assistance for exchange of information.”

It said: “The decision . . . is in keeping with Singapore’s role as a trusted centre for finance and a responsible jurisdiction, with strong and consistent regulatory policies and a firm commitment to the rule of law.”

The promised changes will allow foreign tax authorities to request information about suspected tax evaders, although Singapore said “information fishing” would not be allowed and there would be confidentiality and privacy safeguards, as allowed under OECD rules.

Even so, its announcement will be applauded by other offshore centres that have lost business to Singapore.

Lee Kuan Yew, modern Singapore’s founding father, told bankers the city-state could not escape the pressure being applied to Switzerland. “We must move with the flow,” he said.

Last week, John Tsang, Hong Kong’s financial secretary, announced plans to legislate by mid-year to bring its tax information exchange provisions to international standards. “I believe that the business and professional community generally agrees that Hong Kong should align its arrangements for the exchange of tax information with international standards so that we can enter into such agreements with more economies.”

Singapore and Hong Kong are among 34 secrecy jurisdictions listed in the anti-tax haven bills introduced in the US Congress this week.

Management fee for REIT

Dear Mr. Tan,
I am a unit holder of Frasers Commercial Trust. Currently the pricing of the unit to pay for the management fee is based on average daily market price.The daily market price could be 15% of the net asset value of the unit when market for REIT is very low, and the number of units issued to pay for the management fee per year could be more than 6% of total number of unit, this will cause the dilution of the unit.

I suggest that the trust deed be amended. The pricing could be based on the net asset value of the unit instead of average market price when computing the number of units to be issued for Management Fee.

Mr Tan, I hope you can help us to bring this issue to the relevant authority.

HG

More time needed to respond to MAS consultation paper

Hi Mr Tan
It is encouraging that MAS has submitted a consultation paper on investment in structured products. The review should be studied very carefully and the comments collated and set to MAS.

However, I feel that the April deadline is too short. MAS should give at least 3 months for comments.

I wish to carry out a survey and collate the feedback of the participants. I also feel it would be worthwhile to run a seminar for the public to voice their views.

J