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

国大95亿元! 三大学拥数十亿储备金惹议

新加坡3所大学在去年捐款排行榜上因为拥有数十亿的储备金,虽不是新鲜事,却也引起民众争议。 昨日(7月28日)《海峡时报星期刊》报导,指新加坡国立大学坐拥95亿储备金,在去年3月底结束的财政年度中,收到2亿2700万元捐款,并赚取6亿200元的投资收入,成为我国最成功的筹款机构。 最成功10大募款机构,榜上有名的还有另外两间大学,分别是位居第四,拥有37亿储备金的南洋理工大学(NTU)和第九,拥有12亿元的新加坡科技设计大学(SUTD)。 捐款和投资方面,南大所获得的捐款为5000万元以及1亿4900元,而科技设计大学则拥有2700万元和6600万元。 其它上榜单位还包括了新造教会、国家福利理事会慈善基金、城市丰收教会和观音堂佛祖庙等。 大学算慈善机构? 此报道引起民众关注,一名45岁的社工读者(魏辰德)致函该报,对大学性质表示质疑,不解为何该机构能被归纳为慈善机构,并且与了解相关大学任何管理显著的储备金。 他质疑既然拥有大量储备金,不明白大学还需要捐款者捐献的原因。“慈善捐款的饼就这么大,如果拿下一大块,就意味着留给其他慈善机构的就不多了。到底捐款和储备金,要多少才算足够?” 针对质疑,国大发言人指出,该大学利用储备金赚取投资收入,用于资助不同的运作费,如奖学金、支持研究和推广企业化。 她指出,大学需要继续筹款让储备金处于健康水平,才能加强长期的财务可持续性。 国大募款事宜职员50人 而根据《海时》报导,仅仅国大发展办公处负责募款事宜的职员就有50人,而国大未透露有多少募款志工。…

【选举】“无法带动国家向前迈进” 徐顺全直指行动党已技穷

新加坡民主党秘书长徐顺全在脸书上进行竞选演讲,以英语和华语穿插福建语,和国人分享他的政见,更力证人民行动党在带领国家迈向进步的路上,已经无计可施了。 徐顺全在6月30日,在脸书上直播演说,希望透过更多的演讲和短片,能够和人们谈谈国家的重要事项。 他指出,即将来临的大选是非常特别的一次,因为各政党没有举行集会,改用线上演讲,让人们可以透过手机、电脑来聆听 他促请民众要慎重考虑未来即将代表大家步入国会中,为大家发言的代表。他也呼吁民众能够进行明智的举止,在竞选期期间,让各党候选分享他们的政见,并拒绝“你骂我、我骂你”的不明智选举方式。 生产力=经济成长=就业机会 在演说中,徐顺全指行动党在带领国家继续发展上,已黔驴技穷,并列出数项证明。 他引述穆迪投资者服务公司(Moody’s Investors Service)调查报告、雅虎经济和我国前人力部长林瑞生的话,力证只有提高国家的生产力,才能让国家持续发展。“意思就是说,生产力提高 = 经济成长 =…

阻断措施正式结束,当局吁民众出门仍需戴口罩

我国将在今日(6月2日)起,进入解封第一阶段,尽管如此,民众出门仍需戴口罩,防护面罩并不能取代口罩。 抗疫跨部门工作小组昨日(1日)在视讯记者会上表示,我国今日开始将会开始恢复各项活动和服务,然而民众在出门之际仍需戴上口罩,不能以防护面罩取而代之。 对此,卫生部医药服务总监麦锡威副教授解释,冠状病毒是通过飞沫传播,口罩的设计能够完美覆盖面部,而防护面罩的设计与面部仍留有缝隙。 在阻断措施期间,当局会允许民众以防护面罩替代口罩是因为人流较少,然而随着阻断措施的结束,人们也开始恢复活动,接触更多的人,因此防疫措施必须更严谨。 目前除非是不适合戴口罩的特定群体如12岁以下的孩童、有健康状况、不适合长时间戴口罩的人、需要讲课的教师,以及电视主播等可以不戴口罩。 麦锡威指出,那些不适合戴口罩的民众,在穿戴防护面罩时,必须确保面罩完全覆盖面部,可以遮住额头到下巴。