Tan Kin Lian / Columnist

QUOTE

Dear Mr. Tan,

May I ask if the non-guaranteed reversionary bonuses are determined by individual insurance company? Are these bonuses declarations subject to MAS regulatory control or are they depend on the mood of the insurance company?

My wife and I have similar situations with company Y. To our disappointment, the payouts of non guaranteed reversionary bonus for the matured policies are grossly reduced to a mere 0.12% of the sum assured, instead of the 0.45% as per point of sales illustration.

More unbelieving was the fact that the company declared their overall total assets investment return for 2007 was 5.7% p.a. with fixed income return of 4.9% p.a. and a strong equity portfolio investment return of 8.6%.

We feel that we are not given the fair share of the illustrated payouts of the reversionary bonus during last few years, with the strong performance of the economy and the insurance company in particular. Now, we learnt that the illustrated numbers at the point of sales are no more than a set of empty promise numbers.

I see no other alternatives, besides writing to the insurance company for clarification and going to FiDREC to seek redress. Do want to learn from you on how can the interest of the policyholders be protected from the giant insurance company from either misrepresenting or under-declaring their payouts to earn more from us, the commoners.

UNQUOTE

This policyholder is reflecting the views of hundred of thousands of policyholders who saved and waited for 10, 20 or 30 years for their policies to mature, only to see that they receive a low payout compared to what they were promised.

It is true that the investment climate has been volatile and that investment yield has been poor in some years. But they have been good in other years. These policyholders wonder if they have been given a fair deal by the insurance companies that they have trusted over the years.

My frank answer is this: the consumers have been given a poor deal.

The insurance companies are required to invest prudently to meet their long-term liabilities. By doing so, they probably earned a gross yield of 5% to 6% during the past years.

The problem is the high charges that are deducted from the life insurance policy to pay the marketing expenses, administration expenses, mortality charges and profit to shareholders.

These charges are likely to take away 2% to 4% from the yield. This leaves a net yield of 2% to 3%, which is not enough to cover the inflation rate over the years.

At the point of sale, the insurance company probably used a higher projected yield (which is probably justified at that time). Due to the lower yield actually earned, the return has been disappointing.

If the investment yield is reduced, the insurance company can act fairly to reduce its charges to its policyholders, so that the net yield remains at a decent level. This does not appear to be the case. The insurance company continues to operate at high expenses. The policyholders have no choice but to suffer in silence. If they terminate their policies, they will suffer a bigger immediate loss.

To make matters worse, the policyholder wonders if he or she has been given a fair deal, even allowing for the lower investment yield and high charges, and continuing the policy to the maturity date. The nagging question is this: “After paying all these charges, do the bonuses reflect what is fairly due to me?”

In actuarial circles, there is the concept of “asset share”. This is calculated based on the actual premiums paid and investment income earned, less the actual expenses and other charges. The principle of fairness requires that the policyholder should receive his or her “asset share” less a reasonable profit margin to the shareholders.

If the policyholder receives less than the asset share under a participating policy (i.e. a policy with reversionary bonus), it is clearly unfair.

How do the consumers know if they are getting a fair deal?

This is the responsibility of the regulator, which is the Monetary Authority of Singapore, or MAS. The regulator is required to ensure that the life insurance companies treat their policyholders fairly in respect of the bonuses distributed to them from the participating policies.

The regulator now requires the bonus distribution to be decided by the board of directors, on the recommendation of the appointed actuary, and that the process be governed by an internal governance policy, as set out in MAS notice 320.

In my view, this does not provide sufficient protection to consumers. There is a conflict of interest within the board, which represents the interest of the shareholders.

I hope that the regulator will change the approach. It is better to have an independent actuary appointed by the regulator to look at the bonus distribution and make sure that it has been declared fairly to the policyholders.

If you look at the annual report of your life insurance company, you will see the scales of bonuses declared on various series and types of policies. You will probably see many complicated scales of bonuses for different series and types of policies. You may wonder why there are so many scales and if different policies are being treated fairly in respect of the bonuses distributed to them.

Some companies may appear to be distributing more bonuses to their newer series of policies, as it helps in their volume of new sales. One wonders if this is being done at the expense of the older policies.

These thorny issues remain unresolved.

In the absence of adequate safeguards, it is better for consumers to avoid investing in life insurance policies, where the distribution of bonus is not transparent and may appear to them to be unfair. It is better for consumers to invest in a low-cost investment fund, which is more transparent. The consumer will be able to check yearly that he or she has received the actual investment gain, less the agreed charges.

———-

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

整体车资年底调涨7巴仙 惟新捷运2018财年净利增七成至8010万元

昨日(8日),公共交通理事会(PTC)宣布,地铁和公共巴士车资将在今年12月28日起,整体调涨7巴仙,这是自1998年来最高涨幅。 在文告中,公交理事会主席Richard Magnus称,当局有透明、客观的方程式来限制车资调涨幅度,确保在可负担性和运营可持续性之间取得平衡。 他认为政府需继续大力资助公共交通基础设施以及支持低收入家庭。文告中有提及政府仍会继续每年各补贴10亿元,予地铁服务更新资产和津贴巴士运营。 7巴仙调整也意味着增加约1亿3250万新元营收,新捷运年收入约可增1千880万元和SMRT约4千020万元。巴士营收料能增加7万350万元,以助弥补来自政府10亿元津贴的不足。 公共交通基金将拨出2250万元,为低收入家庭提供45万张,各值50元的交通补助券来应付交通费用的上涨。 新捷运称地铁服务仍亏损 根据今日媒体报导,新捷运企业联络高级副总裁陈爱玲受询时称,新捷运申请调高车资,是为了缓解地铁营运成本上涨的压力。 成本上涨主要来自更高的维修与保养费用。 在今年7月,交通部长许文远在国会上指出,政府目前补贴超过30巴仙的公共交通运营,并表示有需要在四年内提升票价来维持津贴。 “由于通勤者支付的票价包括在运营成本之内,铁路公司目前正亏本运营。在最近的一个财政年度,新加坡地铁公司(SMRT)亏损8600万元,新捷运(SBS Transit)的地铁服务也面对着数千万元的亏损。”…

MARUAH to Singapore Police Force: Explain SFD investigations

MEDIA ADVISORY For immediate release 29 January 2011 MARUAH’s View of the…

残奥游泳健将叶品秀伦敦世锦赛摘下金牌

我国体障者运动员叶品秀(27岁)在伦敦举行的世界残疾人游泳锦标赛-女子100米仰泳摘下金牌,成绩超越夺得银牌的加拿大选手艾莉20秒之多。 今早(新加坡时间)伦敦举行的世界残疾人游泳锦标赛传来捷报,她以女子100米仰泳S2级赛中以2分18秒61夺得冠军,而加拿大选手艾莉则以2分39秒27获得亚军,季军则归游出2分42秒71成绩的意大利选手安其拉(Angela)。 尽管叶品秀在赛事中获得冠军但仍比起自己所保持的世界记录满了2分07秒09。 “真的很开心能够当上世界冠军,真的很开心。我已经游泳了15年但这次的胜利对我来说算是我在训练过程中的一种认可,所以意义非凡。 新加坡残障运动理事会(Singapore Disability Sports Council)今日于脸书上证实叶品秀夺冠,并表示她下场赛事:下周女子50米仰泳。 叶品秀曾在2008夏季残奥会参加女子50米仰泳与50米自由式夺得一金一银;另外曾在2016年夏季残奥会上获得女子100米仰泳S2级赛的冠军。叶品秀亦在三次赛事中刷新三项世界纪录。 尽管这是叶品秀在世锦赛所获得的第二枚金牌,但却是他在世锦赛S2级比赛中首次夺金。她曾在2010年艾恩德霍芬残疾人游泳世锦赛中,以50米自由泳S3级比赛获得金牌,同时,在同年与2013年蒙特利尔世锦赛,皆获得银牌。 此外,叶品秀自2018年10月1日起,成为国会官委议员。

Fire breaks out in Ang Mo Kio flat; 130 residents evacuated, 7 sent to hospital

About 130 people were evacuated, and seven residents were conveyed to the…