CASE will be organising a public forum to gather feedback in response to the latest guidelines put up by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).
The proposals were formulated based on MAS' review of the sale and marketing of unlisted investment products after the current global financial crisis led to the failure of several structured notes in Singapore. The public is invited to comment on the proposals to strengthen the regulation of the sale and marketing of unlisted financial investment products. CASE will then channel the responses to MAS.
Details for the forum are as follows:
Date: Saturday, 28 March 2009
Time: 10am - 12pm
Venue: NTUC Business Centre, Level 8, Theatre Room 801
1 Marina Boulevard, Singapore 018989
The forum will include a presentation on the paper and a Q & A discussion with a panel. Refreshments will also be provided.
For more information, please refer to the MAS website here and the consultation paper released here.
Interested parties are requested to RSVP to rsvp@case.org.sg or fax to 6467 9055 by 27 March 2009.
Lim Si Hui Jean (Ms.)
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
A better way to regulate housing agent
26 March 2009
Editor
Forum Page
Straits Times
A better way to regulate housing agent
Senior Minister of State Lim Hwee Hua reported in Parliament that the Government is reviewing ways to strengthen the regulatory framework for housing agents. This is in response to complaints about malpractices by housing agents.
The measures being considered are:
1. raise professional standard of agents
2. quality and training requirements
3. dispute resolution framework
4. enforcement framework
This is similar to the regulatory framework used for the sale of life insurance and investment products. It has failed to deal with the problem of the mis-selling of credit linked notes and other financial products that are bad for consumers.
This approach relies on the principle of the free market - provide information for consumers to make their decision. The crux of the problem - the information is provided by the seller, who makes a bigger profit or commission by mis-informing the consumer. There is a serious conflict of interest.
If this approach is adopted, the regulator has to look after the interest of the consumers, and to take appropriate action against "cheating". Cheating is a crime - and include making an unfair profit by misleading the other party.
In my view, a better alternative is to have a strong regulator to set the rules for the market. An example is the regulation on the sale of medicine and food products. These products are tested to be safe and suitable for consumption. The regulator can carry out the test or engage independent experts to do the work. But the regulator take the responsibility to put the stamp on the product.
I prefer a system where the regulator licenses the agents and sets the professional standards of ethics and conduct. If the agents fail to meet the standard, they should be removed. This is similar to the licensing of doctors, lawyers and other professionals.
The regulator has the option to outsource the actual assessment to a professional or self-regulatory body, but this body should have the "teeth" and backing of the regulator. I wish to say that stronger regulation actually benefits the majority of ethical agents and create a better market for all parties.
I hope that the Government will consider the above suggestions.
Tan Kin Lian
Editor
Forum Page
Straits Times
A better way to regulate housing agent
Senior Minister of State Lim Hwee Hua reported in Parliament that the Government is reviewing ways to strengthen the regulatory framework for housing agents. This is in response to complaints about malpractices by housing agents.
The measures being considered are:
1. raise professional standard of agents
2. quality and training requirements
3. dispute resolution framework
4. enforcement framework
This is similar to the regulatory framework used for the sale of life insurance and investment products. It has failed to deal with the problem of the mis-selling of credit linked notes and other financial products that are bad for consumers.
This approach relies on the principle of the free market - provide information for consumers to make their decision. The crux of the problem - the information is provided by the seller, who makes a bigger profit or commission by mis-informing the consumer. There is a serious conflict of interest.
If this approach is adopted, the regulator has to look after the interest of the consumers, and to take appropriate action against "cheating". Cheating is a crime - and include making an unfair profit by misleading the other party.
In my view, a better alternative is to have a strong regulator to set the rules for the market. An example is the regulation on the sale of medicine and food products. These products are tested to be safe and suitable for consumption. The regulator can carry out the test or engage independent experts to do the work. But the regulator take the responsibility to put the stamp on the product.
I prefer a system where the regulator licenses the agents and sets the professional standards of ethics and conduct. If the agents fail to meet the standard, they should be removed. This is similar to the licensing of doctors, lawyers and other professionals.
The regulator has the option to outsource the actual assessment to a professional or self-regulatory body, but this body should have the "teeth" and backing of the regulator. I wish to say that stronger regulation actually benefits the majority of ethical agents and create a better market for all parties.
I hope that the Government will consider the above suggestions.
Tan Kin Lian
TKL Intelligence Quiz
Try the intelligence quiz at this website. It is based on the famous quiz purportedly created by Albert Einstein. It is free for the initial period. Contests will be organised later, when sponsors are found.
The book is now available at all the airport outlets and major bookstores islandwide, including: Borders, Kino, Harris, Times News Link, MPH, Times, The Commercial Press & selected Popular outlets.
Price: $7.90
The book is now available at all the airport outlets and major bookstores islandwide, including: Borders, Kino, Harris, Times News Link, MPH, Times, The Commercial Press & selected Popular outlets.
Price: $7.90
Earth Hour on Sat 28 March 8.30 pm
Support this call. Pass the word around.
EARTH HOUR: 28th March, 8.30pm - Sign Up. Switch Off. Make A Difference.
EARTH HOUR: 28th March, 8.30pm - Sign Up. Switch Off. Make A Difference.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Big increase for motor insurance claims - the reasons
The General Insurance Association, representing the insurance companies, have introduced a Motor Claim Framework in May 2008, with the aim of controlling the inflated claims. It did not work and has, in fact, resulted in more claims being submitted to the insurance companies. Here are the reasons.
1. In the past, insurers encourage private settlements if the damage was small, i.e estimated repair cost less than $1,000. This was so that motorist can continue to enjoy their NCD. Under MCF, all accidents have to be reported to the insurers and claims will as a matter of course, be made. We all know that when insurers are involved, the workshops jack up the repair cost. From a repair of a few hundred dollars, the price is now a few thousand dollars.
2. The assumption is that the appointed workshops help the insurers to control the repair cost. This is not true because they in fact are out to make a good profit from the insurers. They put up high estimates. And some of them bribe motor surveyors to overlook many items which may be overpriced or which repairs/replacements may not be necessary. The trick is to overblow their repair estimates for the appointed surveyor to go through the motion of cutting a few items. This give the appearance that the surveyor has done his job. The going rate, I understand is for workshops to pay $100 per case to surveyors to gloss through the repair estimates. That is why the tender system is still the best to get around this.
3. Workshop owners work with lawyers and educate motorists on their legal rights with respect to personal injury claims. In the past, small injuries or soft tissue injuries may be overlooked. Now workshops refer them to lawyers to claim. I know of a person who was involved in an accident two years ago when a taxi collided into the rear of his car. He and his wife suffered slight pain in the neck. The workshop owner told them to claim for the injury and referred them to a lawyer to assist. That is why personal injury claims (especially for soft tissue injuries) have increased in recent years. I think most of these claims are genuine. In the past, they did not surface because people did not think of seeing a doctor and claiming if the injury was not serious.
Freddy Neo
(Mr. Freddy Neo was previously the general manager for general insurance in NTUC Income. )
1. In the past, insurers encourage private settlements if the damage was small, i.e estimated repair cost less than $1,000. This was so that motorist can continue to enjoy their NCD. Under MCF, all accidents have to be reported to the insurers and claims will as a matter of course, be made. We all know that when insurers are involved, the workshops jack up the repair cost. From a repair of a few hundred dollars, the price is now a few thousand dollars.
2. The assumption is that the appointed workshops help the insurers to control the repair cost. This is not true because they in fact are out to make a good profit from the insurers. They put up high estimates. And some of them bribe motor surveyors to overlook many items which may be overpriced or which repairs/replacements may not be necessary. The trick is to overblow their repair estimates for the appointed surveyor to go through the motion of cutting a few items. This give the appearance that the surveyor has done his job. The going rate, I understand is for workshops to pay $100 per case to surveyors to gloss through the repair estimates. That is why the tender system is still the best to get around this.
3. Workshop owners work with lawyers and educate motorists on their legal rights with respect to personal injury claims. In the past, small injuries or soft tissue injuries may be overlooked. Now workshops refer them to lawyers to claim. I know of a person who was involved in an accident two years ago when a taxi collided into the rear of his car. He and his wife suffered slight pain in the neck. The workshop owner told them to claim for the injury and referred them to a lawyer to assist. That is why personal injury claims (especially for soft tissue injuries) have increased in recent years. I think most of these claims are genuine. In the past, they did not surface because people did not think of seeing a doctor and claiming if the injury was not serious.
Freddy Neo
(Mr. Freddy Neo was previously the general manager for general insurance in NTUC Income. )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)