-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Financial Planners - An Oxymoron?
- Thread starter scroobal
- Start date
- Joined
- May 8, 2011
- Messages
- 641
- Points
- 0
Almost any prick can be a financial planner. All you need is to be at least 21 years old, have 4 'O' Level credits, and you can enter the industry. Barriers to entry are for the most part non-existent. You can sign up with any insurance company, pass your M5 and M9 tests, and you are then allowed to sell insurance. it is just that simple. There is no need to suffer three years in a polytechnic or university to earn your qualification.
.
Financial planners are generally liars. They always say the best part about doing insurance is helping people financially and how satisfying it is for them to do so but all these are just rubbish. They are only concerned with their commission and meeting targets Like any salesperson, if they can clinch a deal by misrepresentation and get away with it, they will go ahead.
Just look at their job advertisements. The financial planner position is likely to be called "business development executive', "sales and marketing executive', "marketing executive", "sales executive", "customer relations officer", and other misleading job titles. When you have to resort to prevarication in your recruitment, it says a lot about your ethics or lack thereof.
Most financial planners know fuck about the investment plans and financial plans they are peddling. They may look very professional with their spreadsheets and Excel programs which calculate your income and expenses and projected cash flows but any joker who has access to a computerized finance module can do it as well. Same goes for any university undergraduate who has gone through a financial planning module. It is no big deal. The idea that a financial planner who passed two computerized MCQ tests to get himself qualified is capable of advising people on mutual funds, derivatives and other forms of financial instruments and the advantages and disadvantages of the portfolios in investment policies is absolutely absurd. You can grill a Finance graduate from NUS or a real professional in banking and finance on the same thing and most likely he will struggle or at the very least has to use some brain juice or do some research. All financial planners can say is this: "Don't worry. The funds are in India and China, these economies are fast-growing; they are not Europe so it is very safe". My, my, how intelligent.
Some financial planners are actually degree or diploma holders who have difficulties finding jobs suitable to their qualifications and courses of study. (Well done to the scum in white and the idiotic 60.1% for this pathetic state of affairs) Some are ex-regulars who found that their experience in the military is worth shit in the civilian world. When you have desperate people who make it their livelihood to advise you on your financials and what it takes to achieve financial freedom, something is fucking wrong. Of course, there are also those who are purely in it for the high commission and they only serve to exacerbate the situation.
.
Financial planners are generally liars. They always say the best part about doing insurance is helping people financially and how satisfying it is for them to do so but all these are just rubbish. They are only concerned with their commission and meeting targets Like any salesperson, if they can clinch a deal by misrepresentation and get away with it, they will go ahead.
Just look at their job advertisements. The financial planner position is likely to be called "business development executive', "sales and marketing executive', "marketing executive", "sales executive", "customer relations officer", and other misleading job titles. When you have to resort to prevarication in your recruitment, it says a lot about your ethics or lack thereof.
Most financial planners know fuck about the investment plans and financial plans they are peddling. They may look very professional with their spreadsheets and Excel programs which calculate your income and expenses and projected cash flows but any joker who has access to a computerized finance module can do it as well. Same goes for any university undergraduate who has gone through a financial planning module. It is no big deal. The idea that a financial planner who passed two computerized MCQ tests to get himself qualified is capable of advising people on mutual funds, derivatives and other forms of financial instruments and the advantages and disadvantages of the portfolios in investment policies is absolutely absurd. You can grill a Finance graduate from NUS or a real professional in banking and finance on the same thing and most likely he will struggle or at the very least has to use some brain juice or do some research. All financial planners can say is this: "Don't worry. The funds are in India and China, these economies are fast-growing; they are not Europe so it is very safe". My, my, how intelligent.
Some financial planners are actually degree or diploma holders who have difficulties finding jobs suitable to their qualifications and courses of study. (Well done to the scum in white and the idiotic 60.1% for this pathetic state of affairs) Some are ex-regulars who found that their experience in the military is worth shit in the civilian world. When you have desperate people who make it their livelihood to advise you on your financials and what it takes to achieve financial freedom, something is fucking wrong. Of course, there are also those who are purely in it for the high commission and they only serve to exacerbate the situation.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 12,289
- Points
- 113
It is the MAS financial advises act as well as the accompanying subsidiary legislation that is to be blamed. Promised to bring greater regulation when the end result is poor adviCe passing off as good adviCe simply because rules were followed, paper work properly done, etc.
So-called independent FAs started to market themselves as being client oriented since they were not tied to a specific insurance company (product manufacturer). This turned out to be highly farcical, as these FAs simply sold the highest commission products to clients. A common tactic was to use benefit illustrations to portray how one company's whole life policy could generate higher returns compared to another company. Conveniently forgotten is that BI is but a figment of imagination of overpaid intellectually challenged math & finance graduates who have no idea what constitutes a realistic forecast based on the economic climate.
This farce has gone on for nine years. What the MAS FA act has done is to legitimize and glamorize the sale of inferior financial products to the public.
So-called independent FAs started to market themselves as being client oriented since they were not tied to a specific insurance company (product manufacturer). This turned out to be highly farcical, as these FAs simply sold the highest commission products to clients. A common tactic was to use benefit illustrations to portray how one company's whole life policy could generate higher returns compared to another company. Conveniently forgotten is that BI is but a figment of imagination of overpaid intellectually challenged math & finance graduates who have no idea what constitutes a realistic forecast based on the economic climate.
This farce has gone on for nine years. What the MAS FA act has done is to legitimize and glamorize the sale of inferior financial products to the public.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 12,289
- Points
- 113
Short term nominal interest rates in the developed world are near 0%, but BI of financial products are still allowed to project 3.75% and 5.25% returns to clients.
If this is not leegalized financial fraud, what is?
If this is not leegalized financial fraud, what is?
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 23,788
- Points
- 113
Wasn't there a ruckus about investment linked policies several years ago. Some claimed the policies were marketed as guaranteed investment returns, and indeed because of intermediation between product and salesperson this appeared to be the case. Then somehow Big Insurance in Singapore managed to weasel their way out by getting policy holders to accept a revised return target which corresponds to actual achieved equity returns of their feeder funds.
Heads they get to keep the excess over advertised rates, Tails the policy holders must accept lower actual returns from their managed funds.
That episode seemed to have died down afterwards. Not sure if this rings a bell to some of the folks here?
Heads they get to keep the excess over advertised rates, Tails the policy holders must accept lower actual returns from their managed funds.
That episode seemed to have died down afterwards. Not sure if this rings a bell to some of the folks here?
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 266
- Points
- 0
Don't buy insurance unless compulsory and don't buy investment unless you're foolish. I own some SIA and SingTel shares from old times that's all. Since got discount, just buy it. Never sell until now. Every year collect dividends. That's purpose of shares. Buy low and earn dividends. 
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 5,494
- Points
- 0
Friend of mine cashed in on his policy when he needed cash. In the end, he received a lower rate of return on investment than he expected. He wasn't aware of some warranty clause or something to that effect. Ceiling got cap, bottom no cap.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 5,494
- Points
- 0
Many people don't know how to evaluate the quality of personal financial advisors. But if know how to evaluate, then they also don't need financial advisors liao, because they will know how to do it themselves le.
By the way, what do financial planners do
By the way, what do financial planners do
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2008
- Messages
- 13,369
- Points
- 83
This is got to blame MAS really.
The should regulate the industry and only issue license to real Financial Planners, with a set of rule, fee striucture and of course FP qualification.
At this point in time, any fool including Tonychat can call himself/herself or itself, a Financial Planner. In actual fact, most are Product Pushers!
The should regulate the industry and only issue license to real Financial Planners, with a set of rule, fee striucture and of course FP qualification.
At this point in time, any fool including Tonychat can call himself/herself or itself, a Financial Planner. In actual fact, most are Product Pushers!
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 8,846
- Points
- 0
Many people don't know how to evaluate the quality of personal financial advisors. But if know how to evaluate, then they also don't need financial advisors liao, because they will know how to do it themselves le.
By the way, what do financial planners do
The paradox of efficiency, as I've argued ad nauseam. Outsource everything and you'll end up spreading yourself too thin. I personally prefer to DIY as much as possible.
Similar threads
