~ By Felix Ling ~

After reading the reported argument by Manulife CEO’s analogy “The Lesson about putting a car on the moon”, in relation to whether to import fee-based system for insurance sector here, I would like to share my experience and understanding about life insurance distribution channel; mainly on the commission-based tied agency system here.

In Singapore, large majority of life insurance and related product sales are contributed by the tied agency distribution system. Though there are other alternative distribution channels such as Bancassurance and Independent Financial advisors, brokerage etc, the volume of life insurance sales by tied agency force is beyond question.

The issue of adopting fee-based system for insurance sector is not new. In year 2000 I was a sub-committee member involved in the insurance distribution channel review initiated by MAS.  The outcome was to introduce Need-based Selling process for all the distribution channels including the main tied agency force. Of course the FAs (Independent Financial Advisors) are already practicing fee-based approach in which the Need-based process is their main tool. 

Recently both the regulator and insurance industry have raised the subject of whether fee-based system to be implemented across the board. This is definitely a sensitive issue not only for the insurance operators/manufacturers and product distribution agencies but it also has a cost impact on the customer.  Is it truly a case of “putting a car on the moon” as what Manulife Chief has said? Fee-based approach, as I would say that this is not such a ridiculous scenario of a car on the moon but rather, a case of putting customer first.

My viewpoint is based on the following key considerations:

a. Multi-tier commission system as in the case of life insurance products remains a major cost factor in the equation of product pricing as well as benefits (for the policyholders).  Such system has no direct linkage to better customer service in the process of insurance sales. This system aims to “hold on tied” to the agency force so that insurance operators could leverage on its powerful sales approach (sometimes it leads to churning). Therefore, if the insurance industry continues to hold on to the commission-based system, high cost of customer acquisition will continue to be born by customers.

b. Though in Singapore insurance market scenarios, it may not be viable to switch from commission-based to fee-based system overnight, but it is definitely a significant step and a right direction in which both the regulator and insurance industry should consider serious; albeit it must have a master blueprint and in stages for transition from commission-based to fee-based. The long-term perspective of Singapore insurance coverage will become more and more crucial for aging population in general masses, albeit that the middle-income group would continue to be served on investment needs (i.e. wealth creation). Therefore, going forward, it is highly important for traditional life insurance protection & saving products to be much more affordable to the masses. Multi-tier product commission-based system will not contribute to lower costs of customer acquisition. Fee-based coupled with the currently practiced Need-based Selling approach/process is a logical way to open up the “commission sacred cow”.  In the long-run, customer will benefit more from this approach, albeit that consumer education remains an integral part of the fee-based market approach. 

c. Fee-based approach is still a powerful eyeball to eyeball sales process.  What it requires is professional knowledge and & skills in much wider scope of financial planning, in order to be of value-added to customers. With the converting to fee-based across the board, it is expected that the insurance industry will “lose” up to 1/3 of its current strength of agents. On the brighter side, those who remain in the industry will surely have to be more capable and knowledgeable to serve the market. Productivity increase will continue to bring in stable income for them.

d. As for the key leadership of tied agency distribution that rely heavy on commission-based system, insurance operators should start to explore the future of “hybrid” tied agency system in which, agency leaders/managers can come under employment of insurance company with much more stable and distinct career development and progression. In this scenario, agency management will be enhanced on quality in distribution channel supervision.  Training infrastructure will shift its focus accordingly. Performing agents are put on fee-based (not on the moon) with clear fee structure and levels of advisory scoping tasks, be it wide spread of insurance products or in most cases, bundled products with investment elements. Overall this approach further opens up the otherwise, “closed box” cost structure inherent with the commission structure/system.

I am fully aware that why industry operators are voicing their objection to fee-based approach.  It is the fear of losing hold onto the tied agency distribution force that current form the backbone of insurance life insurance premium income for the companies. The reasons quoted about social security system in UK and Australia, product bundling, etc. have little if not irrelevant to the review of implementing fee-based approach. Indeed very little was mentioned about customer benefits in this context. 

I experienced the core value of tied agency system when I was with the insurance industry. And I know that proficient tied agents have no problem taking the challenge going forward if they were to take customer needs in perspective. In fact, they will excel. What’s crucial for regulator and insurance industry is that, such fundamental change must not be done abruptly and without first of all, putting in place a practical framework that governs fee-based approach to insurance sales, as well as involves key organizations of insurance industry such as the IFPAS etc, to iron out foreseeable structural issues and market forces influence.

I am not an advocate of following this practice of “Letting the customer choose whether they want to pay commission or a fee” style of market conduct. Life insurance and bundled products are not that simple to understand in the commoner’s eye. So it is unfair to “push” such decision to the customer. Furthermore, allowing in the market place, some to pay fees and some to pay commission for similar products, it is a sure way to create confusion for the industry if such “let people chose” rule be implemented across the industry. It will also add to the problem of market conduct, to have double-standards of payment for product advice.


Felix Ling is a former senior management staff from the life insurance industry

__________________________

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

Mediacorp star’s husband removed as CEO of POKKA International

The Chinese news media broke the news on Wed (26 Sep) that…

“非丧失能力至无法工作” 心脏衰竭中年男申请提出公积金被拒

采访:许渊臣  报导整理:北雁 “我不是要跟政府讨福利金,只是想拿出我自己的钱自救都不行,我感到无助,新加坡政府怎么了?” 拿不起超过五公斤的物品,外出四小时就会感到身体疲累,站了15分钟就会开始头晕。患有心脏衰竭,左心室只剩下37巴仙功能的沈佳泉,想向中央公积金局申请领取公积金以支持日后的开销时,当局却以他不符合资格为由,拒绝其申请。 事件主人公,56岁的沈佳泉之前曾工作一段时间,也有3000新元收入,但是在2014年开始,他的身体健康状况出现了问题。 手术后无法长时间工作 那时起他开始翻覆发烧,有时体温甚至烧到摄氏40度;身体也容易感到疲惫,走路或久站都会气喘吁吁。 起初还不以为意,一直到一次在太太陪同下要过天桥去找中医检查时,差点因为喘不过气而昏厥,才惊觉身体状况已出问题;中医建议沈佳泉立即去于医院检查。医生指他的心脏出现衰竭现象,也建议他进行手术。 正常人的左心室射出率(LVEF)在55至70巴仙,但手术后就只剩37巴仙,且不能提重物,否则心脏会痛。“医生要我把一切都放慢下来,不能做太激烈的运动。” 他在手术的两年后,重新开始工作,也尝试了开私召车等兼职工作,但是因为心脏问题,也无法赚取过多收入。在2017年已停止工作。 仅靠妻子工作收入 经济拮据…

PAssion Silver concession card launched as initiative under Action Plan for Successful Ageing

Ministry of Health (MOH) announced the launching of a new PAssion Silver…

在空军基地附近使用无人机 男子被判罚款2000元

一名男子因在未经允许下,在空军基地附近使用无人机,而被罚款2000元。 37岁的被告陈俊延(译音,Ed Chen Junyuan)今日(4日)被控涉嫌在巴耶利峇的空军基地五公里范围内驾驶小型无人机。 据悉,陈俊延今年6月,在网上购买了一架0.36公斤的DBPower无人机。6月26日晚上,他与朋友戴秒生(译音)前往榜鹅附近地区,他家对面,一同驾驶无人机,其中一架无人机被巴耶利峇空军的航空Aeroscope 系统发现,一名休班的空军军官也随后接到警报,表示两人正在驾驶无人机,便开车前往该地,随后两人被捕。 检察官认为在该地驾驶无人机对航空安全有严重的后果,并描述陈俊延是如何操作无人机,强调新闻此前已不断提醒无人机操作者必须要在使用前进行检查,应罚款3000元以上。 但辩方则辩称,此事并未对任何人造成实际的伤害,而且该无人机仅飞行5至6分钟,并没有显示其速度,因此应减轻罚款500至1000元以内即可。 若在未经许可之下,进入空军基地5公里以内,一旦罪成,将可罚款至高两万元。再犯者将会被罚款两倍以上,即四万元,并可能被监禁15个月以上。 另名被告戴秒生,亦被指控数项罪行包括操作0.43公斤的无人机逾越64米高的限制高度,据悉,其驾驶高达431米左右。目前案件仍在处理中。